By Ken Bredemeier

U.S. President Donald Trump says the world needs to stop being “politically correct” in fighting terrorism and used the deadly London attack to renew his call for courts to authorize his ban on travel to the U.S. from six majority-Muslim countries.

In a string of Twitter comments, the U.S. leader vowed support for Britain, criticized London’s mayor and took a tough stance on fighting terrorism.

“We must stop being politically correct and get down to the business of security for our people,” Trump said Sunday. “If we don’t get smart it will only get worse.”

He also mocked London Mayor Sadiq Khan, who was elected last year and is the first Muslim to lead a major Western capital.

Trump tweeted, “At least 7 dead and 48 wounded in terror attack and Mayor of London says there is ‘no reason to be alarmed!'”

As news of the Saturday night carnage spread throughout his city and the world, Khan condemned the attack, describing it as “a deliberate and cowardly attack on innocent Londoners,” later saying that Britons should not be alarmed to see a greater police presence on the streets of London.

Khan’s spokesman said the London mayor was too busy to respond to Trump.

“He has more important things to do than respond to Donald Trump’s ill-informed tweet that deliberately takes out of context his remarks urging Londoners not to be alarmed when they saw more police — including armed officers — on the streets.”

Trump: Attack shows travel ban needed

Within an hour after three attackers drove a van into a crowd of people on London Bridge and then stabbed people in a nearby commercial area, Trump said, “We need to be smart, vigilant and tough. We need the courts to give us back our rights. We need the Travel Ban as an extra level of safety!”

Several U.S. courts have blocked Trump’s ban aimed at travel from Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Yemen and Somalia. In part, the courts have ruled that his repeated attacks on Islamic terrorism and one-time call for a total ban on Muslims entering the country showed that his more limited block on travel to the U.S. amounts to religious discrimination. He has appealed the lower court rulings to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Trump said the U.S. will do whatever it can to help London and Britain combat terrorism. “WE ARE WITH YOU. GOD BLESS!” he said.

In the United States, most mass attacks involve gun violence, which typically then starts a new debate on gun ownership rights that are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

After the London attack, Trump noted, “Do you notice we are not having a gun debate right now? That’s because they used knives and a truck!”

A group of hackers stole e-mails from the UAE’s Ambassador to the United States account and threatened to release them in full on Saturday, exposing the UAE’s ties to Israel and its incitement of anti-democratic movements within the Middle East.

The group, which calls itself “GlobalLeaks” and uses a Russian email account address, told reporters it will release every email in Yousef Al-Otaiba’s account.

The hackers claim the full database shows a clear picture of the UAE’s lobbying arm and detrimental effects on US interests abroad.

The group said the leaks “reveal how millions of dollars were used to hurt [the] reputation of American allies and cause policy changes,” especially in regards to Qatar, Turkey, Israel, Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood group as a whole.

The e-mails also show a clear picture of the back-channels the UAE ambassador has taken to ensure the UAE’s views on the Arab Spring and change in the region are promoted abroad.

The emails show a “growing link” between the UAE and pro-Israel think-tank, Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD). One of FDD’s senior councillors John Hannah “continued to exchange” a series of e-mails with Otaiba in which the two emphasise the positive relations between UAE officials and FDD.

Ironically, the FDD has on many occasions accused Saudi Arabia of promoting extremism within the region.

Just last month, on May 8, Hannah invited Otaiba to an event, intended to smear Qatar for its alleged support for the Muslim Brotherhood. Hannah asked Otaiba to spread the word, voicing “deep concern” of Qatar’s support for democratically elected governments.

Anti-democratic sentiments were also displayed when the two “gloated” about their alleged role in catalysing the attempted coup of 2016 in Turkey.

A month after the Turkish coup attempt, Hannah sent Otaiba an article claiming that the UAE and FDD were both responsible in conspiring to orchestrate it. Hannah allegedly wrote to Otaiba saying that FDD is “honoured that we’re in your company”.
In 2013, Otaiba sent regular emails to contacts throughout Washington, praising the overthrow of deposed Egyptian president, Mohammed Morsi.

Following the Egypt coup, Otaiba sent an e-mail to former White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten on his views on the coup. He had reportedly told Bolten that by not siding with Sisi, the US would “be abandoning the moderates”.

The emails were reportedly provided by a paid whistle-blower from a think-tank based in Washington DC and a selected batch were released to various media outlets as proof.
It has not been confirmed or verified whether GlobalLeaks is connected to DC Leaks or the Kremlin.

Otaiba is well-known figure in US national security circles and has been named “the most charming man in Washington.” He reportedly gave out iPads to journalists and other political types as Christmas presents. He has also participated in Pentagon strategy meetings at the invitation of the defence officials.

Original source

Seemingly out of nowhere, Bangladeshi nationals have become the second-largest group arriving in Italy behind Nigerians, on a route more commonly used by migrants from sub-Saharan Africa. This IRIN investigation from Bangladesh and Italy gets behind the rising numbers and looks at the motivations and pressures underlying this unexpected new trend.

By Diego Cupolo*

Several abandoned lots west of the Catania bus station in Sicily, Naheen stands on a street corner selling packets of tissues while his brother cleans car windscreens for spare change.

Taking a break, Naheen holds out his palm. It bears a long scar, a reminder of being robbed at knifepoint as he was leaving Libya just over a week ago.

The 24-year-old Bangladeshi paid 1,000 euros for a spot on a wooden boat, but there were other costs too. Before departing, his smugglers stripped him and his 300 fellow passengers of all their remaining valuables.

“There were many Somalis and people from other African countries,” he recalled. “It was so dangerous. I can’t swim, but I did it because I couldn’t stay in Libya.”

Naheen had worked as a medical assistant in a Tripoli hospital for three years. Like most of the 20,000 Bangladeshi workers still in Libya, he got the job through a recruitment agency back home. The agency arranged his visa and travel for a fee of 3,000 euros. The overseas employment of Bangladeshi contract labourers has become synonymous with exploitation and low wages, but the poor working conditions and deteriorating security situation in Libya proved more difficult than Naheen was willing to bear.

Now in Catania, Naheen works the streets to earn money with his brother, who arrived seven months earlier. The two represent the latest shift in Europe-bound migration: a steep increase in the number of Bangladeshis arriving by boat from Libya.

Fleeing Libya or dreaming of Europe?

From the beginning of the year until 22 May, 5,650 Bangladeshis arrived in Italy, accounting for 11 percent of all arrivals of undocumented migrants to the country, according to the Italian Ministry of the Interior. During roughly the same period last year, just 10 Bangladeshi nationals had arrived by boat, although by the end of 2016, 7,578 had disembarked in Italy, according to Ahmad Al Rousan, who tracks migration numbers for Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) Italy.

According to Al Rousan and other experts IRIN interviewed, the new arrivals from Bangladesh can be divided into two main groups.

The first are those, like Naheen, who after working in Libya for several years, have begun to flee the country as security conditions have worsened in the past year.

Experts estimate that between 50,000 and 80,000 Bangladeshis were working in Libya at the beginning of the civil war that ousted former dictator Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, and that only a fraction were able to flee the country in the immediate aftermath, as they struggled to secure resources or state assistance for transportation.

The second and faster-growing group of new arrivals are Bangladeshis who travel to Tripoli via Istanbul or Dubai with the explicit goal of reaching Europe.

Al Rousan said agencies in Bangladesh are charging migrants between $7,000 and $10,000 to facilitate the journey to Europe, the majority of which they keep for themselves. While there are no direct commercial flights from Bangladesh to Libya, non-stop flights from Istanbul to Tripoli start at about 200 euros. From Dubai, the price is roughly 500 euros.

Once in Libya, migrants must still pay smugglers for the perilous journey across the Mediterranean, where 1,569 people have lost their lives so far this year.

Detained en route

Mehedi, a teenager who arrived in Sicily a few months ago, flew from Dhaka to Tripoli via Istanbul on a fake work visa issued by a Bangladeshi agency.

When he arrived in Libya, he was met at the airport by an intermediary and taken to a safe house. From there he called his parents who, having confirmed his arrival, paid the agency 6,000 euros. But shortly afterwards, he was picked up by police in Tripoli and jailed for six months. Asked about conditions in detention, Mehedi only frowned.

Numerous organisations, including MSF, have highlighted the appalling conditions and levels of abuse inside Libya’s migrant detention centres.

Eventually, Mehedi was released and his family wired him over 800 euros to pay a smuggler for an Italy-bound boat. After being rescued at sea and brought to Sicily, he was sent to a state-run reception centre where he applied for asylum.

Applications are decided on a case-by-case basis that could take years, given the volume of claims Italy is dealing with. In the meantime, those migrants who make efforts to learn Italian and integrate themselves into the local economy, are more likely to be allowed to stay.

For now, Mehedi is staying at a privately-run shelter for young, unaccompanied migrants near Catania’s bus station. He shares his dorm room with five other Bangladeshis. Like most of his peers in Catania, he spends his days looking for work or cleaning car windscreens for an income of between five and 15 euros per day.

“This is the only work we can find. It’s better than nothing,” said 19-year-old Jahid, squeegee in hand. Jahid also flew to Tripoli from Bangladesh via Istanbul for 7,000 euros, arriving in Sicily four months ago.

False promises in Dhaka

A low-income nation with high levels of unemployment, Bangladesh has a long history of labour migration to the Gulf states, Malaysia, and Singapore.  In 2015, 7.2 million of Bangladesh’s 165 million citizens were living abroad, according to the UN. Migrant workers play an important role in the Bangladesh economy, sending home more than $15 billion in remittances last year alone.

“Bangladeshis have been working abroad since the 1970s,” explained Benjamin Etzold, a senior researcher at the Bonn International Centre for Conversion and an expert on Bangladeshi migration.

“It’s a normal part of life, and families in Bangladesh depend on [remittances]…. If you are young man who wants a wife and wants to raise a family… it’s almost expected that you, at some point in your career, go to another country to earn the money to do that.”

Bangladesh’s state-run Bureau of Manpower, Employment and Training (BMET) licenses and regulates recruitment agencies that link prospective employees with overseas employers. In the past, such agencies have been accused of charging exorbitant fees and using tactics that often trap workers in exploitative situations.

Mohammad Azharul Huq, additional secretary at the Ministry of Expatriates’ Welfare and Overseas Employment in which BMET is located, told IRIN the government has taken numerous steps to prevent illegal migration to Libya.

“The government is not sending people to Libya at the moment. People who are going, are going illegally,” he said. “Law enforcement agencies are working to stop human trafficking. Our ministry is also conducting some awareness programmes to make people aware about the danger of going to Libya illegally.”

But several migrants recently returned to Dhaka told IRIN that agencies were misinforming prospective clients about conditions in Libya and the ease of reaching Italy from there.

“Many of them do not know the condition of Libya and trust the false promises of the agency,” said Arpon Mahmud, who returned home earlier this year after nine years working in Libya. He added that the agencies avoid sending people via large airports with tight security. “Sometimes the route is Bangladesh’s Chittagong airport to India to Dubai, Turkey, and then Libya,” he said.

Legal routes closed off

Another trigger for the relatively sudden appearance of Bangladeshis on boats to Italy may be the end of an important legal route. In 2007, 11,000 Bangladeshi contract workers came to Italy through legal avenues, and similar numbers arrived each year until 2013, according to BMET data on overseas employment. But following a change in Italian policy, a sharp drop occurred in 2014, bringing legal arrivals down to just three by 2016.

In recent years, Italy has attempted to limit migration flows by reducing the number of visas it issues to citizens of many countries, said Federico Fossi, a spokesman for UNHCR, which is advising the National Commission for Asylum Rights.

“Bangladesh is no longer included among the countries for which there is a specific reservation of [visas],” Fossi wrote in an email to IRIN.

Etzold suggested another possible pull factor: the established and growing Bangladeshi community in Italy.

“Migration usually takes place because of networks,” he told IRIN. “[There are] probably Italians of Bangladeshi origin who help facilitate these journeys.”

The Bangladeshi community in Italy has grown since the 1990 passage of the Martelli Law, which offered a path to citizenship for irregular migrants in the country. An estimated 100,000 Bangladeshi nationals now live in Italy and a multitude of Bangladeshi-run grocery stores and businesses can be found in Catania as well as in the capital, Rome. Between 2000 and 2010, Bangladeshis in Italy remitted nearly $1 billion, according to Bangladesh’s central bank.

Although Britain still hosts a larger Bangladeshi community, Etzold said more migrants might now be arriving in Italy because the country still offers them “a chance to make it”.

“It’s getting more and more difficult to get asylum in Germany,” he said. “It’s almost impossible to enter Britain… so where else to go?”

“Another place to work”

Standing among a crowd of tourists in front of the Colosseum in Rome, Khan, a 44-year-old from Bangladesh, watched as police on motor scooters chased Bangladeshi vendors out of the plaza. Khan himself worked as a street hawker when he came to Italy 18 years ago, but after working more jobs than he can count, he now owns a grocery store.

He said vendors selling iced water bottles and selfie sticks at the city’s many landmarks make between 20 and 40 euros a day. It may not seem like much, but he said many of the migrants share apartments with up to 10 roommates so they can still afford to send money back home to their families.

While IRIN was speaking to him, an officer approached Khan and asked him what he was doing.

“Nothing, just standing here,” Khan replied, before being asked for his residence documents, which he provided.

The officer told him to leave the area. Walking away, Khan explained that he has been a foreign labourer his entire adult life, having worked in Dubai, Qatar, and Russia, before arriving in Italy.

On the outer edge of the Colosseum plaza, Khan passed a pair of officers who had stopped a young Bangladeshi with a plastic bag full of water bottles. The teenager claimed the bottles were all his, so the officers told him to drink them on the spot. He opened a bottle and began to chug it down until one of the officers knocked it into his face, causing him to choke and spit.

Khan looked away from the scene without saying a word. Asked what he thought of life in Italy, he responded: “It’s another place to work.”

*Names of migrants have been changed to protect their identities

This article was published by IRIN. Additional reporting by Mushfique Wadud in Dhaka

It has been almost two years since India’s former Defence Minister, Manohar Parrikar, unveiled the new version of India’s Maritime Military Strategy. The document reflects the changes in New Delhi’s international agenda and its so-called ‘Blue economy’. Regarding its highly sea-dependent economy, shaping a favorable maritime environment has been a priority for the current administration of Narendra Modi.

First of all, it is important to conceptualize what does ‘Blue Economy’ mean. As the name suggests, it is directly linked to maritime commercial activities, which is not a recent phenomenon in human history. However, this expression gained a new momentum in the last few years with its usage in the Rio+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, in 2012. The ‘Blue Economy’ concept stands for the prudent exploration of sea resources in a sustainable manner, supporting the “Green economy” notion which supports a similar idea applied for in-land environment.

As for India, the “Blue Economy” has been reshaped to something more than just the ecological aspect of it to be a geopolitical imperative. Roughly 90% of its overall trade is made by the sea. The country imports around 80% of its oil through sea lines of communication. By 2020, it is estimated to reach up to 90%. Lastly, the Indian Ocean Region (IOR) has seen an increase of extrar-regional countries’ presence, which accounts as a possible threat to India’s national interests and the control of sea it seeks for, according to the Maritime Doctrine.

For instance, through its China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), as part of its String of Pearls strategy, China started building a steady footprint in New Delhi’s most important area of interest. Piracy off the Somali coast was in decrease, but seems to be gaining strength once again, as shown by new reports by the U.S Navy. All of this is relevant to understand what is the stage of the current Maritime Strategy of India.

Maintaining the geopolitical scope of the text, what are the main features of India’s 2015 Maritime Strategy? What has India gained for its national interests, two years from its publication?

In the recent years, economic diplomacy has received a lot of attention from New Delhi. It can be seen by the frequent visits made by India’s Prime Minister to other countries and by the Make in India initiative. The new commitments of foreign policy led to a greater dimension of the Indian Ocean as a highly important region for India’s development and the need for securing the critic sea lines of communication.

Regarding this context, one can point out three main features of the 2015 Maritime Strategy of India: the quest for port-building in foreign friendly countries to enhance its presence in strategically important regions, the new contours of areas of interest and the outreach of the Act East and Link West policies. A first move was made towards Iran, India’s third main oil supplier, with the Chabahar Port project and the signing of a Memorandum between India, Iran and Afghanistan (2016) which gives New Delhi a strategic access to the Gulf and Central Asia. The project is still in progress and can be interpreted as an experiment of huge infrastructure building of India in a foreign country. Building and operations ports outside India can help enhancing its presence throughout the world. The Indian Navy states that it means being able to operate further away from the coast and give the country a forward presence, therefore stimulating capacity building and a stronger Navy.

Second, the new areas of primary and secondary interest were enlarged, and now India’s interest area reaches South Atlantic, as a reflection of the stronger ties built with African countries in the Western coast. Nigeria is now the main oil supplier of India in Africa and fifth in the overall rank released this year. It is no coincidence that at every visit made by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, his speech carries out something about maritime cooperation and information sharing between Africa and India.

As for the Navy, the 2015 Maritime Strategy points out ventures like the Indian Ocean Naval Symposium (IONS), among other meetings as a focus of India’s current interests. The same can be said about Southeast Asia and the growing convergence between India and Japan, which are incressingly keen on cooperating on maritime issues in the IOR and the Pacific.

Third, the new Maritime Strategy has expanded the reach for its Act East and Link West policies as a consequence of the expansion of India’s Foreign Policy reach, as aforementioned.

Two years might be a short timeframe to evaluate what has been gained from a strategy, but we can notice a few shifts of India’s footprint in the world since 2015, keeping in mind that Navies are, by definition, an extent of a state’s foreign policy.

Concerning India’s aspiration to play an increasingly global role and become a great Power, and its dependency on maritime trade, the ‘Blue Economy’ imperative has evolved to be one of the main focuses of its Foreign Policy. The geopolitical dimension of the term meant strengthening ties with Africa, Southeast Asian countries and Europe in a bolder way than what was seen in the previous Maritime Strategy of 2007.

Last but not least, India’s 2015 Maritime Strategy paints a clearer picture of New Delhi’s global aspirations and national interests than the previous version of 2007. The most recent example of these shifts is the Asia-Africa Growth Corridor (AAGC), a partnership between India and Japan. Pushing the Chinese factor to the side and the interpretations that focus on the balancing of the Belt and Road initiative, this is a clear example of what New Delhi’s new strategy comprises: a global outreach alongside strategic partners, shaping a more favorable environment for its Blue Economy interests.

*Luciane Noronha M. de Oliveira, Master of Arts in Maritime Studies and Fellow of South Asian Affairs of the Brazilian Naval War College.

Many analysts have argued that Trump’s promises to bring back US manufacturing paved the way for his election victory. This column compares electoral data from 2016 with previous elections and argues that education and race were far bigger factors than a county’s share of manufacturing jobs in determining the change in its voting from the 2012 election. In addition, relatively low voting rates among Democratic voters were a bigger contributor to the results than high voting rates among Republicans. Trump did not win the white working class, Clinton lost it.

By Caroline Freund*

President Donald Trump’s election victory last year was driven in part by support he got in the traditionally Democratic parts of the industrial Northeast and Midwest of the US. Many analysts have argued that Trump’s promises to bring back US manufacturing hollowed out by trade and technology changes paved the way for his achievement.

Recent empirical evidence shows that trade shocks can influence voting patterns. Autor et al. (2016) find that import competition from China is associated with increased political polarisation in US congressional elections, as measured by the number of moderate incumbents who lost their seats. Using data on voting patterns in six presidential elections, Jensen et al. (2016) extend this analysis to include trade in services and exports, and find that while rising imports are associated with more polarisation, rising exports are associated with more support for the incumbent. Che et al. (2016) find that greater import competition from China is correlated with increases in election turnout and the share of votes for a Democrat in congressional elections.

Evidence that the decline in manufacturing was not the real reason for Trump’s success

The data show that this bit of conventional wisdom might be misplaced. Education and race were far bigger factors in determining the change in voting results from the 2012 election.  These two factors alone explain more than 70% of the variation in the Republican vote share across counties, as compared with the last election, and more than 80% in the swing states.

And within manufacturing, race mattered greatly: only the predominantly white manufacturing counties were drawn to Trump’s message.  Racially diverse manufacturing counties rejected it.  These twin factors roughly cancelled each other out. In the end, whether or not manufacturing was part of a county’s economic base did not have much of an effect on its change in voting behaviour.

In a new paper, Dario Sidhu and I examine electoral data from the 2016 compared with previous presidential elections (Freund and Sidhu 2017). The county-by-county breakdown in the data shows that on aggregate, manufacturing jobs did not play a significant role in the election results.

When economics, identity, and demographic variables were considered together, the share of employees in manufacturing was not significantly associated with increased support for Donald Trump, versus Mitt Romney in 2012. Even more striking, counties where manufacturing declined since 2000 – many of which received special attention during the campaign – also did not have an increase in their vote share for Trump from four years before.

None of this is to say manufacturing as an economic foundation for a county did not matter at all in the election. But it boosted Trump only in counties that were predominately white.

In mostly white manufacturing counties, there was a significant increase in the Republican vote share since 2012. In more racially and ethnically diverse manufacturing counties (above average share of black and Hispanic residents), there was a significant decline in the share of votes going to the Republican candidate. On aggregate, these effects roughly offset each other, with the net result that the presence of manufacturing in a county (or the extent of job loss) was not associated with the result. To the extent manufacturing played a role, it was through the ethnic makeup of counties. The impact of this effect was magnified in crucial swing states, where counties are on average less diverse than the nation as a whole.

Figure 1 Republican vote share change from 2012 to 2016 and manufacturing employment

Why are counties polarised within manufacturing by race?

There are two potential explanations for why predominantly white manufacturing counties became more Republican and diverse manufacturing counties voted more Democratic in this election.

The first is that economic shocks were different across white and diverse counties.  Perhaps white manufacturing towns specialise in products more prone to technological change or facing pronounced import competition; alternatively, white manufacturing towns may have been largely one company towns with few alternative employment opportunities.

The second is that the two groups reacted differently to economic changes that have occurred over time.  It is possible that white manufacturing towns rejected existing policies, such as openness to trade and increased income redistribution (for example, through the Affordable Care Act); while diverse manufacturing towns rejected the message that economic conditions in the US were deteriorating.

The analysis shows that the second explanation – different reactions to economic change – is more consistent with the data. Perhaps most telling, comparing the 2016 election results with the county’s share of employment in manufacturing from 1986 – when manufacturing employment was near its peak and one in four manufacturing workers was in a union – the same polarisation is evident.  Historical manufacturing counties that are mostly white voted more Republican, but historical manufacturing towns that are relatively diverse voted more Democratic, as compared with 2012.

Does this mean the population is becoming more polarised?

Morris Fiorina, a political scientist at Stanford University, has shown that polarisation can be driven by the electorate or the candidates (Fiorina 2004). While a polarised population – with a large group on the right and a large group on the left – produces a split electorate, polarising candidates can yield a similar outcome, even if most of the population has centrist political views. The difference is that with an increasingly polarised electorate, voter participation should logically increase, as each group is tied to its candidate and opposed to the alternate. In contrast, with polarising candidates, the middle of the distribution is unsatisfied, so voter participation should in theory decrease.

When other factors are eliminated, the data show that the rise in the Republican share of votes in white manufacturing counties was largely due to a drop in Democratic votes; while the rise in the Democratic share in non-white manufacturing counties was driven by a relatively higher drop in Republican votes.  In addition, on average across counties, as compared with 2012, relatively low voting rates among Democratic voters was a bigger contributor to the results than high voting rates among Republicans. Put differently, Trump did not win the white working class, Clinton lost it.

The 2016 election outcome is thus more consistent with Fiorina’s example of polarising candidates than a polarised electorate.  The good news is that Americans are probably far less divided then they appear. The bad news is that the US desperately needs a more centrist and less partisan government to unify and lead, but that seems unlikely anytime soon.

About the author:
* Caroline Freund, Senior Fellow, Peterson Institute for International Economics

References:
Autor, D, D Dorn, G Hanson, and K Majlesi (2016), “Importing Political Polarization? The Electoral Consequences of Rising Trade Exposure”, NBER Working Paper No. 22637.

Che, Y, Y Lu, J R Pierce, P K Schott and Z Tao (2016), “Does Trade Liberalization with China Influence US Elections?”, NBER Working Paper No. 22178.

Fiorina, M (2004), Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America, Stanford University Press.

Freund, C and D Sidhu (2017), “Manufacturing and the 2016 Election: An Analysis of US Presidential Election Data”, PIIE Working Paper No. 17-7.

Jensen, J B, D P Quinn and Ss Weymouth (2016): “Winners and Losers in International Trade: The Effects on US Presidential Voting,” NBER Working Paper No. 21899.

By Matt Hadro

After the Islamic State ravaged large parts of Iraq and Syria in 2014, religious minorities targeted for genocide fled into Kurdistan – but a new report alleges continued discrimination against them.

“We praise the Kurdistan Regional Government for sheltering and protecting these oppressed groups and urge it to continue to take steps to ensure that these communities realize their rights and fully participate in society,” said Fr. Thomas Reese, chair of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.

He made his remarks in the wake of the release of the commission’s report on the situation for persecuted religious minorities in Kurdistan.

The report, “Wilting in the Kurdish Sun,” was prepared for the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) between May and August of 2016 and released on June 1.

USCIRF is a bipartisan federal commission charged with monitoring abuses of freedom of religion around the world and making policy recommendations to the State Department on international religious freedom.

In their new report, USCIRF explains how religious minorities in Northern Iraq – Yazidis, Christians, Shabak, and Turkmen – fled the ISIS onslaught in 2014 into Kurdistan. Christians, Yazidis, and Shi’a Muslims were labeled by the U.S. as genocide victims of ISIS, while other minorities were said to be victims of “crimes against humanity.” They took shelter in Kurdistan, including around 70,000 Christians in Erbil.

This has added to the ethnic and religious diversity of the region, which had already become more diverse since the U.S. invasion in 2003 resulted in minorities moving to Kurdistan, the report explained.

However, despite the freedom of religion of these minorities being “comparatively robust” in Kurdistan to other areas in the region, they still face discrimination, violence, and restrictions upon their movement there, the report alleged.

Furthermore, the region’s “strained resources and security situation” threaten to contribute to future unrest and ethnic and religious conflict, the report warned.

Laws in Kurdistan are on the surface “favorable to religious freedom,” USCIRF said, and “senior religious leaders are frequently consulted by ministers and government officials.” Minorities are represented in the regional parliament as mandated by law.

However, “many religious groups complained to researchers that they remain second-class citizens compared with Sunni Kurds,” the report said. And while laws may be friendly to religious minorities, they may not experience such support from their neighbors in their communities.

Some Assyrian Christian lands have been seized or built upon by Kurds in the northern part of the region. In one case “involving Erbil International Airport,” Christian leaders claimed that “land owned by the Chaldean Catholic Church (and others) was built on by developers without permission.”

Although authorities have spoken out against the land appropriations, “Christians, however, are frustrated by a perceived lack of action by the authorities and a lack of recourse in the courts,” the report said. “They believe that encroachments are increasing.”

Christians who tried to demonstrate against the appropriations were prevented from doing so by Kurdish security forces in one instance in 2016.

Additionally, Yazidis have reported pressure that they be identified as ethnic Kurds, contrary to the opinions of some Yazidis that they are separate ethnically.

NGOs have also reported that, in the Sinjar region, there are “economic blockades” and “restrictions on freedom of movement and return, and the prevention of goods and supplies being distributed.”

Other countries surrounding Kurdistan feature abuses of freedom of religion, USCIRF reports.

USCIRF rates countries on how much they respect religious freedom in a tier system. Tier 1 Countries of Particular Concern (CPC) are those with the worst situations for religious freedom, with “severe” abuses of freedom of religion that are “systematic, ongoing, and egregious.”

The State Department has followed USCIRF’s recommendations and has listed Iran as a CPC. USCIRF has also recommended that Syria be designated as a CPC.

Tier 2 countries represent the next level where the religious freedom situations are not as serious, but are still concerning. Iraq is a Tier 2 level country, according to USCIRF’s latest recommendation.

“Until 2017, it was also recommended that Iraq be included in the list of CPCs, but improvements in the country have led to USCIRF revising its assessment,” the commission explained. USCIRF has also listed Turkey as a Tier 2 country.

Yet despite its security for religious minorities that is comparatively better than surrounding areas, Kurdistan on its own “might well be considered a so-called ‘tier 2’ country, requiring close monitoring due to the nature and extent of violations of religious freedom engaged in or tolerated by its authorities,” USCIRF stated.

This is concerning, the report said, because there is already a push for Kurdistan to be an independent country, and the pressure for such a state of affairs may only increase in the future.

“By strengthening institutions and encouraging reforms to promote and protect religious freedoms and minority rights now, (Kurdistan) and its population will ensure that these rights and freedoms are deeply ingrained in the makeup of any new nation and its social contract,” USCIRF said.

“On the other hand, allowing rights and freedoms to be eroded now risks setting a trend that will likely continue after independence.”

By Oubai Shahbandar*

The U.S.-Saudi strategic partnership reset comes at a time when the Saudi led coalition war in Yemen against Iranian backed militants enters its second year and as Iran grows bolder in expanding its presence throughout the region.

The U.S. has to date nearly $100 billion in active foreign military sales cases with Saudi Arabia, making it the largest international customer for U.S. military hardware.

President Trump’s recent deal with the Kingdom solidifies a decades-long alliance with the world’s largest oil exporter and will be worth $350 billion over 10 years. American defense manufacturers are estimated to add upwards of 1000-2000 new jobs throughout the U.S. labor market as a result.

Concurrently, the deal will also directly advance the Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 plan to diversify its economy and offer new opportunities for thousands of highly skilled jobs in non-energy sectors.

The weapon sales will advance Saudi Arabia and the Arab Coalition defense needs in the following areas:

• anti ballistic missile defense
• long range munition supply for stabilization operations in Yemen
• advancing Saudi Arabia’s localized defense ecosystem
• Countering malign Iranian influence & terror groups in the MENA region

THAAD

The Terminal High Altitude Area Defense missile batteries and accompanying X-band AN/TPY-2 radar will provide the Kingdom and the Arab Coalition with a strategic advantage in detecting and neutralizing Houthi militia medium range ballistic missile launches.

The THAAD radar operates with a range above 1,500 km.Iranian backed militias in Yemen are proliferating short to long range ballistic missile technology, aided by recent shipments provided by Iran. This presents a direct threat not only to the interests of the Arab Coalition, but to Western allies as well.

Joint Standoff long-range air to ground missiles are increasingly needed by the Arab Coalition to continue the campaign against Iranian backed militia forces in Yemen.

Why increasing defense cooperation with Saudi Arabia is a net benefit for US interests?

It is not always so easy to put a price and quantify the value of a partnership between two countries.But with upwards of $300 billion in foreign military sales slated for approval to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, it is not difficult to see how the Trump administration is seeking a major re-set in bilateral relations with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

The U.S.-Saudi reset comes at a time when the Saudi led coalition war in Yemen against Iranian backed militants enters its second year and as Iran grows bolder in expanding its presence throughout the region. The U.S. has to date nearly $100 billion in active foreign military sales cases with Saudi Arabia, making it the largest international customer for U.S. military hardware.

The economic benefits of enhancing joint security cooperation and defense sales have also been highlighted by the U.S. defense industry. Approximately 800,000 jobs associated with the industry are heavily dependent on foreign military sales such as the package for Saudi Arabia to stay in business. By some estimates, approximately ten percent of US manufacturing demand is linked to major domestic defense manufacturers.

Security Dimension

The convergence of national security interests between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia were spelled out by the National Security Advisor Lt.Gen McMaster over the weekend. He said that a main thrust for President Trump’s visit would be to “encourage our Arab and Muslim partners to take bold, new steps to promote peace and to confront those, from ISIS to al Qaeda to Iran to the Assad regime, who perpetuate chaos and violence that has inflicted so much suffering throughout the Muslim world and beyond.” The message being delivered here is that the U.S. and the Muslim world share common adversaries and threats to their security. Even more interesting is the declaration of Iran and the Assad regime as being destabilizing dangers on par with al Qaeda and the Islamic State.

Statements by Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis during his recent visit to Riyadh also highlighted the policy linkage between the fight against the brand of extremism fostered by the Islamic State and Al Qaeda with the brand being proliferated by Iran’s external operations arm– the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). “Everywhere you look if there’s trouble in the region, you find Iran” Mattis told reporters last month. In other words, the Iranian backed militants who are being armed, funded, and trained by the IRGC’s seasoned experts in guerilla warfare and subversion pose a direct threat to American national interests and its allies.

To put things in perspective, Iran’s main militant commander in Iraq Qays Khazali gave a speech last week where he discussed active efforts to expand Iran’s “Shia Crescent” into a “full moon” throughout the region. Khazali remains ardently pro-Iranian and anti-American and anti-Saudi and has openly declared his readiness to launch attacks against U.S. forces in either Iraq or Syria if given the order by the IRGC’s commander Qasem Soleimani.

Much of the munitions that the U.S. is selling Saudi will be used in the field of battle in Yemen, a country of considerable geopolitical importance. The country, with its 1,184-mile coastline, is strategically located next to the Bab al Mandab strait, through which commercial oil tankers carry an estimated 3.4 million barrels per day (3.5% to 4% of the global oil supply).

The Arab Coalition fight in Yemen is also integral to the defeat of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.. AQAP is considered by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to be the Al Qaeda affiliate “most likely to attempt transnational attacks against the United States.” The intelligence services of Saudi Arabia helped disrupt two AQAP plots against the American homeland.The recent laptop ban on some international airlines was linked by Western intelligence agencies to an AQAP terrorist plot.

But the recent increase of IRGC activity in Yemen offers a new policy dimension that requires closer U.S. coordination with Saudi Arabia. According to reports, Major General Qassem Soleimani commander of the Qods Force—the external arm of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—met top IRGC officials in Tehran in February 2017 to evaluate plans that would further advantage the Houthi militias in Yemen. Just this March, a senior Iranian official told Reuters, “Yemen is where the real proxy war is going on, and winning the battle in Yemen will help define the balance of power in the Middle East.”

The convergence of American and Saudi national security interests in countering malign Iranian influence and interference in regional affairs has found broad support amongst the American public. U.S. public opinion towards Saudi Arabia, particularly amongst registered voters, has surged significantly following President Trump’s visit to the Kingdom. Almost half of Americans view the Kingdom as an ally or friendly, per recent YouGov polling data. In contrast, 70% of Americans view Iran as being an enemy or unfriendly towards the U.S.

The U.S.-Saudi defense cooperation will bring about major changes to the geo-political map in the Middle East region if implemented properly because it will considerably enhance America’s defense relations with almost all of the Muslim world, especially Arab countries. This will achieve strong results in the global war on terrorism and Islamic Extremism regardless of whether it is affiliated with ISIS, Al Qaeda or Iran. The U.S.-led International Alliance will have a more clearly defined mission in Iraq and Syria, which will be to combat Islamic State terrorists and prevent Iranian-backed militias from capturing and holding liberated ISIS territories, and subsequently halt Tehran’s quest to control the region. Washington will also secure a wide-ranging Muslim support to its objective of checking Iran’s nuclear ambitions and neutralizing its ballistic missile program. The Saudi-led Arab Coalition has made a serious commitment in taking the lead to invest the necessary military resources to counter multifaceted extremist threats. This will ease the burden on U.S. military force deployment and offer legitimate local solutions to the proliferating threat of global extremism. Therefore, the benefits of the Riyadh-Washington defense cooperation are wide-reaching with short as well as long term gains for both sides.

*Oubai Shahbandar
Director for Research & Consultancy

Is Russiagate an investigation of foreign meddling into US elections or retaliation for Washington’s stunning defeat in Syria?

The opening of the Russiagate investigation closely coincides with the Battle of Aleppo, which was the turning point in the 6 year-long Syrian War. In July 2016 –the same month the FBI reportedly began its Russia hacking investigation — Russian-led forces launched their long-awaited Aleppo military offensive. Syrian, Iranian and Hezbollah fighters surrounded the city cutting off critical supplylines to the Sunni militants who remained inside a rapidly shrinking cauldron. In a bitterly-contested, winner-take-all slugfest, loyalist troops flushed the terrorists out of their hideouts and spiderholes, corralled them into smaller, isolated pockets,  and forced them to either surrender or retreat. After months of aerial bombardment and door-to-door urban warfare, the opposition collapsed,  the Syrian Army regained control of the city, and the broken jihadist militias fled eastward towards Raqqa, Deir Ezzor and beyond.

The CIA’s defeat was a humiliating blow to Director John Brennan whose support for mostly foreign-born extremists was supposed to achieve Washington’s regime change aspirations with less fallout than a full-blown ground war like Iraq.  But the plan failed miserably casting serious doubt on Washington’s ability to maintain its regional hegemony or global domination. Russiagate, which is less of an ‘investigation’ than it is a public relations ‘smear campaign’,  is the predictable reaction to Washington’s colossal defeat in Aleppo. It is an attempt to expand on the economic sanctions-meme, that is, to use all the tools at one’s disposal to wage war on the enemy. Russia has become the single greatest obstacle to Uncle Sam’s imperial ambitions; it is the emergent threat of which Paul Wolfowitz warned during the Bush years.  This is why Russia is relentlessly demonized by the media, penalized with harsh economic sanctions, and disparaged among the allies.  And this is why Brennan launched Russiagate. It’s a form of asymmetrical retaliation, 4th Generation “hybrid” warfare, all of which falls under the heading of  “Full Spectrum Dominance”, the cornerstone of the Pentagon’s war doctrine.

According to Mother Jones, it was not the FBI that initiated the “Trump-Russia connection”.. but ..”Former CIA Director John Brennan says he was the one who got the ball rolling.”

Indeed. Brennan appears to be the central figure in this political fiasco, the font from which many of the spurious accusations, the bogus claims and the ominous pronouncements seem to emerge. Why is that?

It’s because Brennan’s army of Salafist misfits were clobbered in Aleppo leaving the Director with egg on his face.   That’s why Brennan wants payback, he wants to hurt the people who hurt him, namely, Putin.  That’s what Russiangate is all about: Revenge.

But how does Trump fit in with all this, after all, Trump had no part in Syria, and he certainly had nothing to do with Brennan’s defeat in Aleppo.

Trump was merely added to the mix after the smear campaign had already begun and the demonization process was in full-swing.   It’s almost like Trump was an after-thought on the part of the perpetrators who must have figured they could kill two birds with one stone. The only problem is that they forgot that attacking a sitting president can be a lot thornier than slandering a foreign adversary. For one thing, it requires proof of wrongdoing which has been the glitch from the get-go. The media and the political class have mastered the accusations and fearmongering-part, they’re a just bit short on the proof-part which is what they really need to work on. Regrettably for them, they have yet to produce any hard evidence of foreign meddling or collusion in the 10 month-long probe. (Ex-DNI Director James Clapper has said repeatedly that there is no “smoking gun” proof of collusion.) On top of that, we now know that the foundation upon which they have built their pyramid of lies, the so called Intelligence Community Assessment, was written by hand-picked analysts whose conclusions were arguably twisted to fit the policy. In other words, the ICA is a thoroughly-unreliable document that represents the political objectives of its authors. In layman’s terms, it’s worthless.

In last week’s testimony before the House Intelligence Committee,  Brennan demonstrated once again his uncanny ability to control the narrative. In tightly scripted comments, the former Spook Chief attempted to frame members of the Trump campaign by suggesting their relations with Russian officials were either improper or illegal, a dubious charge that he has yet to prove.  Here’s part of what he said:

“I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals. It raised questions in my mind about whether Russia was able to gain the cooperation of those individuals.”

That was all the Washington Post needed to demand  “a full investigation of Russia’s election-year hacking, (and) any sort of Trump campaign collusion.”

The Post doesn’t quibble about trivial matters like probable cause, reasonable doubt or the presumption of innocence. Heck, no.  Let’s impanel a Grand Jury and let the impeachment proceedings begin! It’s a wonder that the W.P’s coverage is taken seriously by its readers. The bias is so glaring, you could cut it with a knife.  And Politico is even worse. Here’s a blurb from Politico’s Austin Wright on the same Brennan quote from above:

“(Brennan’s) remarks, before the House Intelligence Committee, are the most direct acknowledgment yet by a current or former U.S. official that Russia sought to recruit Americans to help in its effort to affect the 2016 contest. The remarks also further complicate matters for President Donald Trump, who has dismissed the investigations into Russia’s election meddling as a “witch hunt.” (Politico)

This is delusional.  There’s no evidence “that Russia sought to recruit Americans”. None. This is pure speculation based on the fearmongering blabber of a former CIA Director whose credibility is on a par with Bernie Madoff. We’re not talking about ‘honest’ Abe Lincoln here. We’re talking about the former head of the most diabolical organization in history, an organization that, since its inception in 1949,  has engaged in all manner of demonic behavior including torture, death squads, rendition, black sites, kidnapping, extortion, drug trafficking, regime change and, of course, the arming, training and funding of Islamic extremists which is the source of the current terrorist plague that has engulfed the planet. It all started with the CIA. The idea that people take the specious palavering of this man at face value, is beyond belief.  The truth is, Brennan’s appearance on the Hill was a thoroughly-rehearsed performance that was concocted to advance the geopolitical agenda of his paymasters, an agenda that, in all probability, involves a war with Russia. Isn’t that the real objective?

It is.

In the last week the media has been stumbling over themselves to report on the “new developments” in the investigation. As it happens,  those new developments involve Trump’s son in law and chief advisor,  Jared Kushner, who has been identified as a “person of interest”.

Think about that for a minute. After a ten month-long investigation involving all 14 US Intelligence agencies, the best they can come up with is a person of interest?  It’s an admission that they have nothing.  Here’s a clip from the New York Times that helps to put the Kushner matter into perspective:

“…responding to questions from The Times about the meetings with Mr. Kislyak and Mr. Gorkov, Ms. Hicks said the meetings were part of an effort by Mr. Kushner to improve relations between the United States and Russia, and to identify areas of possible cooperation.

But the Trump transition was unique in its unwillingness to use the government’s communications lines and briefing material for its dealings with many foreign governments, partly because of concern that Obama administration officials might be monitoring the calls….” (“Investigation Turns to Kushner’s Motives in Meeting With a Putin Ally”, New York Times)

Horrors! So the Trump team actually wanted to improve relations with Russia. How could they dream of such a thing? (sarcasm) And, at the same time, they wanted to keep their contacts under wraps because they knew the Obama’s Stasi had them under surveillance. Is that a crime or is the real crime the fact that Susan Rice had been unmasking the names of people in the new administration and delivering them to the intelligence agencies so they dig up dirt on them and leak it to the media? Who’s the real criminal here? Take a look at this revealing clip from CNN:

“Russian government officials discussed having potentially “derogatory” information about then-presidential candidate Donald Trump and some of his top aides in conversations intercepted by US intelligence during the 2016 election, according to two former intelligence officials and a congressional source.

One source described the information as financial in nature and said the discussion centered on whether the Russians had leverage over Trump’s inner circle. The source said the intercepted communications suggested to US intelligence that Russians believed “they had the ability to influence the administration through the derogatory information.””  (CNN)

If Trump or his people are in cahoots with Moscow, then they should be charged with a crime. No one objects to that. But the American people also deserve to know whether the Intelligence agencies were bugging the Trump campaign and what justification they had for conducting that investigation.  After all,  what is the greater danger to democracy: The prospect that some foreign country might have extracted a few emails from unprotected servers at the DNC or that rogue spymasters operating in the interests of god-knows-who are scooping up everything they can on the opposition party so they can drag them through the mud, undermine their campaign, and sabotage their political agenda?

That’s a no brainer, isn’t it?

Have you read about the recent ruling by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) that proves that the NSA has been illegally surveilling innocent American citizens for years? Here’s an excerpt from an article at Motherboard:

“Thursday, the Department of Justice released the 99-page court opinion from last month that ordered the National Security Agency to delete much of its surveillance on American people, which was collected improperly and in potential violation of the Fourth Amendment. The DOJ released the opinion as part of a 2015 plan to be more transparent…..The court order triggered the surprise announcement two weeks ago that the agency would be severely scaling back its domestic surveillance and destroying previously collected data on Americans….

According to the opinion—parts of which are redacted—the NSA improperly collected untold numbers of “multi-communications transactions” (MCTs) as they were in transit around the internet. The NSA is intentionally vague about what MCTs are, but they are believed to be groups of emails, metadata, screenshots of your inbox, and still-classified types of digital information (here’s the best primer explaining MCTs). (“This Is the Secret Court Order That Forced the NSA to Delete the Data It Collected About You”, Motherboard)

Can you appreciate the danger that these massive information dragnets pose to democracy? It has nothing to do with whether “I have nothing to hide” or not. That’s completely irrelevant.  The Forth amendment doesn’t merely protect one’s own personal privacy, it prevents the state from acquiring coercive surveillance powers that pave the way for police state tyranny. Can’t you see that?

We may not know all the details yet, but it seems fairly obvious from the amount of leaks from the Trump White House that classified information is being routinely gathered by operatives within the government itself and deliberately leaked to the media in order to inflict maximum damage on the administration. In other words, there are elements operating within the intelligence community that are using their power to incriminate a sitting president and remove him from office. Simply put, the intel agencies have ‘gone rogue’ and now pose a real and present danger to the republic itself.  And while no one really knows how much Obama knew about this massive domestic spying operation that was going on right beneath his nose, we DO know that the collection of information on private citizens greatly accelerated on his watch.  (“Circa has reported that there was a three-fold increase in NSA data searches about Americans and a rise in the unmasking of U.S. person’s identities in intelligence reports after Obama loosened the privacy rules in 2011.”) It’s worth noting, that the ultimate goal of these massive domestic-surveillance programs is to create a lock-down society where the behavior of every citizen can be completely monitored and controlled.

Trump may be a rotten president but, in the big scheme of things, he’s just small potatoes. What we need to know is whether a shadow government –staffed by the intel agents and political meatpuppets– now controls the levers of state power, a hidden government that might be planning to oust the president or –god help us–launch a war on Russia.

The only way to get to the bottom of this is by investigating the man who appears to be at the very center of the action, John Brennan. If anyone knows how the system really works, it’s Brennan.

A FEW days ago, a not so well-known Palestinian woman received an unusual honor. An article of hers was published on top of the first page of the most respected newspaper on earth: New York Times.

The editors defined the writer, Diana Buttu, as: “a lawyer and a former adviser to the negotiating team of the Palestine Liberation Organization”.

I knew Diana Buttu when she first appeared on the Palestinian scene, in 2000, at the beginning of the second intifada. She was born in Canada, the daughter of Palestinian immigrants who tried hard to assimilate in their new homeland, and received a good Canadian education.

When the struggle in the occupied territories intensified, she returned to her parents’ homeland. The Palestinian participants of the negotiations with Israel, which started after the Oslo agreement, were impressed by the young lawyer who spoke excellent English – something rare – and asked her to join the national endeavor.

When the negotiations died clinically, Diana Buttu disappeared from my eyes. Until her dramatic reappearance last week.

THE LOCATION and the headline of the article demonstrate the importance which the American editors saw in her argument. The headline was “Do we need a Palestinian Authority?” and further on, in another headline, “Shutter the Palestinian Authority”.

The argument of Diana Buttu seduces by its simplicity: the usefulness of the Palestinian Authority has passed. It should be liquidated. Now.

The Palestinian Authority, she says, was set up for a specific purpose: to negotiate with Israel for the end of the occupation and the creation of the hoped-for Palestinian state. By its very nature, that was a task limited in time.

According to the Oslo agreement, the negotiations for ending the occupation should have reached their goal in 1999. Since then, 18 years have passed without any movement towards a solution. The only thing that has moved was the settlement movement, which has reached by now monstrous dimensions.

In these circumstances, says Buttu, the Palestinian Authority has become a “subcontractor” of the occupation. The Authority helps Israel to oppress the Palestinians. True, it employs a large number of educational and medical personnel, but more than a third of its budget – some 4 billion dollars – go the “security”. The Palestinian security forces maintain a close cooperation with their Israeli colleagues. Meaning, they cooperate in upholding the occupation.

Also, Buttu complains about the lack of democracy. For 12 years now, no elections have taken place. Mahmoud Abbas (Abu-Mazen) rules in contravention of the Palestinian Basic Law.

Her solution is simple: “it’s time for the authority to go.” To abolish the authority, to return the responsibility for the occupied Palestinian population to the Israeli occupier and adopt a “new Palestinian strategy”.

What strategy, exactly?

Up to this point, Buttu’s arguments were lucid an logical. But from here on they become unclear and nebulous.

BEFORE GOING on, I have to make some personal remarks.

I am an Israeli. I define myself as an Israeli patriot. As a son of the occupying nation I don’t think that I have the right to give advice to the occupied nation.

True, I have devoted the last 79 years of my life to the achievement of peace between the two nations – a peace that, I believe, is an existential necessity for both. Since the end of the 1948 war I preach the establishment of an independent State of Palestinian side by side with the State of Israel. Some of my enemies in the extreme Israeli Right even accuse me of having invented the “Two-State Solution” (thus deserving the title of “traitor”.)

In spite of all this, I have always abstained from giving the Palestinians advice. Even when Yasser Arafat declared several times publicly that I am his “friend”, I did not see myself as an adviser. I have expressed my views and voiced them many times in the presence of Palestinians, but from that point to giving advice, the distance is great.

Now, too, I am not ready to give advice to the Palestinians in general, and to Diana Buttu in particular. But I take the liberty to to make some remarks about her revolutionary proposal.

Reading her article for the second and third time, I gain the impression that it contains a disproportion between the diagnosis and the medicine.

WHAT DOES she propose that the Palestinians do?

The first step is clear: break up the Palestinian Authority and return all the organs of Palestinian self-government to the Israeli military governor.

That is simple. But what next?

Diana Buttu voices several general proposals. “Non-violent mass protests”, “boycott, divestment and sanctions”, “addressing the rights of Palestinian refugees” (from the 1948 war) and the “Palestinian citizens of Israel”. She mentions approvingly that already more than a third of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories support a single-state solution – meaning a bi-national state.

With due respect, will these remedies – all together and each one separately – liberate the Palestinian people?

There is no proof that it will.

Experience shows the it is easy for the occupation authorities to turn a “non-violent mass protest” into a very violent one. That happened in both intifadas, and especially in the second. It started with non-violent actions, and then the occupation authorities called in snipers. Within a few days the intifada became violent.

The use of boycotts? There is now in the world a large movement of BDS against Israel. The Israeli government is afraid of it and fights against it with all means, including ridiculous ones. But this fear does not spring from the economic damages this movement can cause, but from the damage it may cause to Israel’s image. Such image may hurt, but it does not kill.

Like many others, Buttu uses here the example of South Africa. This is an imagined example. The world-wide boycott was indeed impressive, but it did not kill the apartheid regime. This is a western illusion, which reflects contempt for the “natives”.

The racist regime in South Africa was not brought down by foreigner, nice as they were, but by those despised “natives”. The blacks started campaigns of armed struggle (yes, the great Nelson Mandela was a “terrorist”) and mass strikes, which brought down the economy. The international boycott played a welcome supporting role.

Buttu has high hopes for “Palestinian boycotts”. Can they really hurt the Israeli economy? One can always bring in a million Chinese workers.

Buttu also mentions the international court in the Hague. The trouble is that Jewish psychology is hardened against “goyish justice”. Aren’t they all anti-Semites? Israel spits on them, as it spit on the UNO resolution at its time.

WHAT IS left? There is only one alternative, the one Buttu wisely refrains from mentioning: terrorism.

Many peoples throughout history started wars of liberation, violent struggles against their oppressors. In Israeli jargon that is called “terror’.

Let’s ignore for a moment the ideological aspect and concentrate on the practical aspect only: does one believe that a “terrorist” campaign by the occupied people against the occupying people can, under existing circumstances, succeed?

I doubt it. I doubt it very much. The Israeli security services have shown, until now, considerable ability in fighting against armed resistance.

If so, what remains for the Palestinians to do? In two words: Hold on.

And here there lies the special talent of Mahmous Abbas. He is a great one for holding on. For leading a people that is passing a terrible ordeal, an ordeal of suffering and humiliation, without giving in. Abbas does not give in. If someone will take his place, somewhere in the future, he will not give in either. Not Marwan Barghouti, for example.

As a young man I was a member of the Irgun, the underground military organization. During Workd War II, my company organized a “trial” for Marshal Phillip Petain, who became head the French government after the French collapse. This “government” was located in Vichy and took orders from the German occupation.

Much against my will, I was appointed counsel for the defense. I took the job seriously, and, to my surprise, discovered that Petain had logic on his side. He saved Paris from destruction and made it possible for most of the French people to survive the occupation. When the Nazi empire broke down, France, under Charles de Gaulle, joined the victors.

Of course, Diana Buttu does not refer to this emotion-laden historic example. But one should remember.

A FEW days before the publication of Buttu’s article, a leader of the Israeli fascist right, Betsalel Smotrich, a deputy chairman of the Knesset, published an ultimatum to the Palestinians.

Smotrich proposed to put the Palestinian before a choice between three possibilities: to leave the country, to live in the country without citizenship rights or to rise up in arms – and then the Israeli army “would know how to deal with them”.

In simple words: the choice is between (a) the mass expulsion of seven million Palestinians from the West Bank (including East Jerusalem), Israel proper and the Gaza Strip, which would amount to Genocide, (b) life as a people of slaves under an Apartheid regime and (c) simple genocide.

The unclear proposal of Buttu constitutes, in practice, the second choice. She mentions that many Palestinians approve of the “one-state solution”. She shies away from a clear-cut statement and hides behind a formula that is becoming fashionable these days: “two-states or one state”. Rather like: “swimming or drowning”.

This is suicide. Dramatic suicide. Glorious suicide. Suicide none the less.

Both Buttu and Smotrich lead to disaster.

After all these years, the only practical solution remains as it was at the beginning: two states for two peoples. Two states that will live side by side in peace, perhaps even in friendship.

There is no other solution.

Reducing emissions and cutting operating costs – just two of the benefits waiting for the first long-range, 100% electrically powered passenger and vehicle ferries. An announcement in May brings the reality closer as the partner of an EU-funded project announces the market launch of a modular, lithium-ion battery system for ferries.

Leclanché, one of the E-FERRY project’s partners has created the first marine battery system of its type approved by international certification. It has recently announced the market launch of its Marine Rack System (MRS) which E-FERRY, supported by the EU, will harness on the voyage between island Aeroe (Ærø) and the mainland. E-FERRY’s design is not the first electric ferry to be put into operation, the Norwegian Ampere currently sails under electrical power, but it is limited to a distance of three nautical miles. Another purely electric ferry is the Ar Vag Tredan that was built in France and is operated by Lorient Agglomération. It uses 128 super capacitors provided by Batscap and is also made of aluminium. It is quite a bit smaller than the Ampere and doesn’t have the ability to transport vehicles.

Fully electric, the E-FERRY project’s boat will able to cover distances of over 20 nautical miles between charges and will carry both passengers and vehicles. To gain this 20 nautical mile range it needs a large capacity battery. The battery capacity provided by Leclanche’s marine optimised NMC battery modules is 4.3 MWh – making it the biggest capacity battery seen to date.

E-FERRY has now formulated the overall design of the 100% electric ferry that is based on an innovative concept: an optimised hull and propulsion system, a high-energy battery pack and the use of materials and modules that reduce overall weight – the capstan and wheel house will be made from aluminium, for example. The project has also identified the composite materials to be used, and is working on the necessary adaptations at the on-shore facilities in the Søby, Fynshav and Fåborg harbours. The announcement that the project partners have now launched their MRS comes at the perfect time for E-FERRY to turn their designs into an operational ferry. Construction work on the hull began in June 2016 and is now nearing completion.

The electric ferry, a single-ended, roll-on-roll-off, will be charged by an automated shore connection system to be placed on the onshore ramp in Søby harbor. The charging system will connect automatically, via plugs, when the ferry arrives and charge each side of the vessel separately, up to 2 x 2MW DC at a time. The charger is the first high power DC charger on the market and will allow the ferry relatively short port-side stays of 15-20 minutes.

The benefits will be great: the electric ferry will reduce the island of Aeroe’s annual emissions with approximately 2 000 tonnes CO2, 41 500 kg NOx, 1 350 kg SO2 and 2 500 kg particulates. The groundbreaking design will also reduce operating costs as it will bring down travel times in comparison with existing diesel ferries. Despite the importance of the EU ferry market, the majority of European ferries are more than 20-years-old. The fleet is in need of newer, more energy efficient and less CO2 emitting vessels. Europe has around 900 ferries for both cargo/cars and passengers, which account for 35% of the world fleet.

The project brings partners from Germany, Switzerland, Finland, Denmark and Greece together to create the most efficient small- to medium-sized ferry hull that has been built for decades. As E-FERRY explains, their design meets the latest and highest damage stability criterion for ferries, being a two-compartment ship going well beyond the safety requirement for operation in coastal areas.

Cordis Source: Based on project information and media reports

Hiroshima University and Mie Fujitsu Semiconductor Limited (MIFS) announced the development of a low-power millimeter-wave amplifier that feeds on 0.5 V power supply and covers the frequency range from 80 GHz to 106 GHz. It was fabricated using MIFS’s Deeply Depleted Channel (DDC) technology. This is the first W-band (75−110 GHz) amplifier that can operate even with such a low power-supply voltage.

Details of the technology will be presented at the IEEE Radio Frequency Integrated Circuits Symposium (RFIC) 2017, running from June 4-6 in Honolulu, Hawaii.

The W-band covers the frequencies used by automotive radars. Sophisticated driver-assistance and selfdriving will require radars with millimeter-wave beam scanning capability that can “see” day and night and even in adverse weather conditions. Such a “phased array” will consist of up to hundreds of transmitters and receivers. Given the fact that even cars are becoming battery-operated, it is imperative that these circuits be low-power. Lowering the power-supply voltage is the most effective means of accomplishing that. However, transistor performance drops with voltage and no W-band amplifier has so far operated at as low as 0.5 V . The team of researchers successfully demonstrated a W-band amplifier at 0.5 V by bringing together MIFS’s DDC technology and design techniques developed by Hiroshima University. The DDC technology offers high-performance silicon MOS transistors even at low voltages and is currently available from MIFS as a 55-nm CMOS process. The design techniques further improve transistor and circuit performance at millimeter-wave frequencies.

“Now that seriously low-power W-band circuits seem really possible, we should think about what we can do with them. Applications aren’t limited to automotive radars and high-speed communications between base stations. What if you have a radar on your smartphone? Today’s smartphones can already sense things like acceleration, audible sound, visible light, and Earth’s magnetic field. But the only active probing device is that tiny LED (light-emitting diode) that can illuminate at most a few meters. Add a millimeter-wave radar on a smartphone, and it doesn’t have to be a so-called primary radar, which only detects waves reflected back. Your smartphone could respond to waves from your friend’s radar and send some signal back. A whole lot of new applications could be created including games,” said Prof. Minoru Fujishima, Graduate School of Advanced Sciences of Matter, Hiroshima University.

“Another significance of our 0.5-V W-band amplifier is reliability. We researchers know that some millimeter-wave circuits presented at major conferences, biased at 1 V or higher, won’t last long. They degrade as you measure them, within days or even hours, not years, because of the so-called hot-carrier effects. You wouldn’t want to get on a car that loses its sight so quickly. The 0.5-V supply voltage will significantly reduce hot-carrier generation,” Prof. Fujishima added.

“Compared to conventional CMOS, our DDC transistors offer excellent performance in low-power operations. We have proven that we can extend those outstanding qualities to the millimeter band. I am delighted that our collaboration with Hiroshima University has produced a millimeter-band amplifier. We plan to move forward by building a design environment for maximizing the capabilities of DDC technology,” said Mutsuaki Kai, Vice President of Technology Development, Mie Fujitsu Semiconductor.

The research group plans to continue exploring the possibility of low-voltage millimeter-wave CMOS circuits.

President Donald Trump’s proposed budget has generated hysteria among the American left. Prominent progressives have accused the president and his allies of wanting to kill children, senior citizens, and other vulnerable Americans. The reaction of the president’s allies — including some conservatives who should know better — is equally detached from reality as they hail Trump for launching a major assault on the welfare state and making the hard choices necessary to balance the budget.

President Trump’s budget does eliminate some unnecessary and unconstitutional programs such as the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and the National Endowment for the Arts. However, it largely leaves the welfare-warfare state intact. In fact, this so-called “radical” budget does not even cut domestic spending! Instead, it plays the old DC game of reducing “the projected rate of growth.” For example, under Trump’s budget, Medicaid spending increases from $378 billion this year to $525 billion in 2027. Only in the bizzaro world of Washington, DC can a 38 percent increase be considered a cut.

President Trump’s budget combines phony cuts in domestic spending with real increases in military spending. Specifically, the budget increases the military budget by $23 billion over the next ten years. Trump claims that the increase is necessary to reverse the damage done to our military by sequestration. But, despite the claims of the military-industrial complex and its defenders in Congress, on K Street, and in the media, military spending has increased over the past several years, especially when the “off-budget” Overseas Contingency Operations funding is added to the “official” budget.

The restrained American Frist policy promoted by candidate Trump does not require a large and expansive military that literally spans the globe. This budget is the latest indication that President Trump is embracing the neocon foreign policy that candidate Trump correctly denounced.

The budget also relies on rosy scenario economic projections of three percent growth without even a mild economic recession to justify the claim that the federal budget will achieve balance in a decade. This claim bears little or no resemblance to reality.

It certainly is true that some of Trump’s proposed tax and regulatory reforms can increase economic growth. However, the benefits of these pro-liberty policies will not offset the continued drag on the economy caused by the continued growth of federal spending, and the resulting monetization of debt by the Federal Reserve. Far from bringing about endless prosperity, Trump’s big-spending budget increases the odds that Americans will face a Greece-style crisis in the next few years, while the Federal Reserve’s inflation tax evaporates the benefits of any tax reductions passed as part of tax reform.

Some of President Trump’s apologists claim his proposed $1 trillion infrastructure spending plan will help create jobs and grow the economy. But government spending programs do not create real wealth; they only redistribute resources from the private sector to the (much more inefficient) government sector. Therefore, any short-term gains from these programs are illusionary and outweighed by the long-term damage the expansion of government inflicts on the economy. Trump’s proposed new parental leave mandate will also hurt the economy, as well as the job prospects of the new entitlement’s supposed beneficiaries.

Far from presenting a radial challenge to the status quo, President Trump’s budget grows the welfare-warfare state, albeit with more emphasis on the warfare. This budget is thus more evidence that, for a pro-liberty political revolution to succeed, it must be preceded by an intellectual revolution that reignites the people’s desire and demand for liberty.

This article was published by RonPaul Institute.

Several Arab and Islamic countries have cut diplomatic ties with Qatar Monday over Doha’s alleged support for extremist groups.

Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates were the first to announce they would withdraw their diplomatic staff from Qatar and announced plans to cut air and sea traffic to the peninsular country.

In a statement carried by the Saudi Press Agency (SPA), Saudi Arabia said Qatari troops would be pulled from the ongoing war in Yemen. Qatar is part of the Arab Coalition backing the UN-recognized government of President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi in its war with Iran-backed Houthis and their allies.

SPA said Saudi Arabia has taken this “crucial action as a result of serious violations by the authorities in Doha, privately and publicly, over the past years to encourage dissent and sectarianism in the Kingdom.”

Riyadh accused Qatar of “backing terrorist groups in the province of Qatif, Saudi Arabia, and in the Kingdom of Bahrain and the financing and the adoption of harboring extremists who seek to strike the stability and unity of the nation at home and abroad.”

It specifically mentioned Qatar’s alleged support of the Muslim Brotherhood and Daesh extremists.
Riyadh also accused Qatari media of trying to undermine the Saudi-led coalition in its fight against Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen.

Bahrain blamed Qatar’s “media incitement, support for armed terrorist activities and funding linked to Iranian groups to carry out sabotage and spreading chaos in Bahrain” for its decision.

Egypt announced the closure of its airspace and seaports to all Qatari transportation to protect its national security, the foreign ministry said in a statement on Monday.

Egypt accused Qatar of supporting “terrorist” organizations, including the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt’s state news agency reported.

The United Arab Emirates accused its Gulf Arab neighbor of supporting extremism and undermining regional stability, state news agency WAM reported.

The Emirates cut ties and gave diplomats 48 hours to leave the country, citing their “support, funding and embrace of terrorist, extremist and sectarian organizations,” WAM said.

Qatari officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Yemen’s internationally recognised government, which also severed ties with Qatar, accused it of working with its enemies in the Iran-aligned Houthi movement, state news agency Saba reported.

“Qatar’s practices of dealing with the (Houthi) coup militas and supporting extremist groups became clear,” the government said in a statement.

Libya’s eastern-based government has followed regional allies in cutting diplomatic ties with Qatar, its foreign minister, Mohamed Dayri, said on Monday.

The Maldives also followed suit in severing diplomatic ties with Qatar. “The Maldives took the decision because of its firm opposition to activities that encourage terrorism and extremism,” the government of the tiny Indian Ocean archipelago nation said in a statement.

Qatar denounces ‘unjustified’ move

Qatar on Monday slammed the decisions of three Gulf states to sever ties with it, saying they were “unjustified” and aimed to put Doha under political “guardianship.”

“The measures are unjustified and are based on false and baseless claims,” the Qatari foreign ministry said in a statement, referring to the unprecedented steps taken by Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt.

Speaking in Sydney, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said he did not expect the announcement to have “any significant impact, if any impact at all, on the unified fight against terrorism.”

He encouraged Qatar and its neighbours to “sit down together”, adding that Washington was ready for “any role that we can play” in helping to overcome divisions.

Amid the rift, Iran blamed the regional crisis on the US President’s recent visit to Saudi Arabia.

Turkey calls for dialogue

Turkey called for dialogue and said it was ready to help defuse the row between Qatar and Arab nations that accuse Doha of supporting extremism.

“It’s a development that really saddened all of us,” Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu told reporters. “There could be problems between the countries but dialogue must prevail in all circumstances,” he said.

Iran blames US

The head of Iran’s parliamentary committee on national security and foreign policy Alaeddin Boroujerdi says Washington has always made it a policy to establish a rift among Muslim countries. He says: “Intervention of foreign countries, especially the United States, cannot be the solution to regional problems.”

Commenting on the decision by a number of Arab and Islamic nations, the Kremlin said on Monday that it is in Russia’s interest to have a “stable and peaceful” situation in the Gulf.

India’s Foreign Affairs Minister said that India will not be impacted by some Gulf countries cutting off diplomatic ties with Qatar.

“There is no challenge arising out of this for us. This is an internal matter of GCC (Gulf Coordination Council). Our only concern is about Indians there. We are trying to find out if any Indians are stuck there,” Sushma Swarai told reporters.

Qatar-bound flights halted

Meanwhile, several airlines have declared suspension of all Qatar-bound flights starting from Tuesday morning until further notice.

Saudi Arabian Airlines, locally known as Saudia, UAE carriers Emirates, Etihad, flydubai and Air Arabia all announced they would suspend flights to Doha amid the diplomatic rift.

Qatar Airways, too, said on its official website that it had suspended all flights to Saudi Arabia.

The decision comes after Qatar alleged in late May that hackers took over the site of its state-run news agency and published what it called fake comments made by the ruling emir about Iran and Israel. Its Gulf Arab neighbors responded by blocking Qatari-based media, including the Doha-based satellite news network Al-Jazeera.

On Sunday, June 4, the same day that Our Revolution, a Democratic Party group that arose from the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, organized rallies and die-ins to highlight the number of people dying in the United States due to lack of access to health care, the New York Times published an article, “The Single Payer Party? Democrats Shift Left on Health Care“, prominently on the front page and above the fold.

The article quotes RoseAnn DeMoro, head of National Nurses United, saying, “There is a cultural shift. Health care is now seen as something everyone deserves. It’s like a national light went off.” Minnesota Congressman Rick Nolan was also quoted, saying that rank and file Democrats “are energized in a way I have not witnessed in a long, long time.” Nolan is correct in stating that following the Democrat’s large loss in 2016, the party needs “a more boldly ‘aspirational’ health care platform.”

Democratic Party voters have been strong supporters of single payer health care for a long time. Polls have consistently shown that super-majorities of Democratic Party voters want single payer, but Democratic Party candidates keep telling them that they can’t have it. The Democratic Party has refused to add Medicare for All to its healthcare platform despite resolutions introduced by single payer advocates. Even the Congressional Progressive Caucus refuses to include single payer health care in their “People’s Budget.”

In 2009, with a Democratic President and majorities in the House and Senate, single payer health care was off the table. Instead, the “public option” was used to divide the Democratic Party voters and convince them that they were asking for too much. Democrats were told that the public option would be more politically feasible and would create a “back door” to single payer. Many were fooled. And the joke was on them because even the public option, which I call the “Profiteer’s Option,” was never meant to be in the final legislation.

While the New York Times wrongly blames the liberal and centrist Democrats for not supporting a public option, it was actually the White House and Democratic Party leadership that  kept it out of the final bill. In December of 2009, public pressure was working to convince the Senate to include a public option in its healthcare bill. That’s when leadership stepped in to stop them. Glenn Greenwald writes:

“I’ve argued since August that the evidence was clear that the White House had privately negotiated away the public option and didn’t want it, even as the President claimed publicly (and repeatedly) that he did.  … it is the excuse Democrats fraudulently invoke, using what I called the Rotating Villain tactic (it’s now Durbin’s turn), to refuse to pass what they claim they support but are politically afraid to pass, or which they actually oppose (sorry, we’d so love to do this, but gosh darn it, we just can’t get 60 votes).  If only 50 votes were required, they’d just find ways to ensure they lacked 50.  Both of those are merely theories insusceptible to conclusive proof, but if I had the power to create the most compelling evidence for those theories that I could dream up, it would be hard to surpass what Democrats are doing now with regard to the public option.  They’re actually whipping against the public option.  Could this sham be any more transparent?”

I was present at the Center for American Progress in March of 2009 when Senator Max Baucus stated that the public option was a bargaining chip being used to convince private health insurers to accept more regulations. It was Baucus’ staffer, Liz Fowler, a former senior vice president for one of the largest private insurance corporations, WellPoint, who wrote the framework for the Affordable Care Act and shepherded it through Congress. The scam was revealed early and though progressive groups knew it, they were complicit in the scam because they accepted being controlled and silenced by the White House.

Jim Messina, a former Baucus chief of staff, was hired by the White House to be “the enforcer” for President Obama’s agenda. Ari Berman described the situation in this enlightening article:

The administration deputized Messina as the top liaison to the Common Purpose Project. The coveted invite-only, off-the-record Tuesday meetings at the Capitol Hilton became the premier forum where the administration briefed leading progressive groups, including organizations like the AFL-CIO, MoveOn, Planned Parenthood and the Center for American Progress, on its legislative and political strategy. Theoretically, the meetings were supposed to provide a candid back-and-forth between outside groups and administration officials, but Messina tightly controlled the discussions and dictated the terms of debate (Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake memorably dubbed this the “veal pen”). “Common Purpose didn’t make a move without talking to Jim,” says one progressive strategist. During the healthcare fight, Messina used his influence to try to stifle any criticism of Baucus or lobbying by progressive groups that was out of sync with the administration’s agenda, according to Common Purpose participants. “Messina wouldn’t tolerate us trying to lobby to improve the bill,” says Richard Kirsch, former national campaign manager for Health Care for America Now (HCAN), the major coalition of progressive groups backing reform. Kirsch recalled being told by a White House insider that when asked what the administration’s “inside/outside strategy” was for passing healthcare reform, Messina replied, “There is no outside strategy.”

The inside strategy pursued by Messina, relying on industry lobbyists and senior legislators to advance the bill, was directly counter to the promise of the 2008 Obama campaign, which talked endlessly about mobilizing grassroots support to bring fundamental change to Washington. But that wasn’t Messina’s style—instead, he spearheaded the administration’s deals with doctors, hospitals and drug companies, particularly the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), one of the most egregious aspects of the bill. “They cared more about their relationship with the healthcare industry than anyone else,” says one former HCAN staffer. “It was shocking to see. To me, that was the scariest part of it, because this White House had ridden in on a white horse and said, ‘We’re not going to do this anymore.’” When they were negotiating special deals with industry, Messina and Baucus chief of staff Jon Selib were also pushing major healthcare companies and trade associations to pour millions of dollars into TV ads defending the bill.

This was the Democratic Party’s deal with the devil. They rejected their voter base and went with the donor class to create and market a health law, the so-called Affordable Care Act, that protected the profits of the medical-industrial complex, and it backfired. In the 2010 election, 63 Democratic incumbents lost their seats in Congress and the party has been in decline ever since with a record low number of elected officials nationally. On issue after issue, the Democratic Party betrayed its base and voters finally gave up, choosing either to vote for other parties or not vote at all.

The question now is whether the Democrats will change.

So far, despite the title of the New York Times article, the answer is no. Although there is widespread voter support for single payer, Nancy Pelosi says the party is not going there and is funneling advocates’ energy to the state level, even though state single payer systems are not possible without federal legislation. At the national level, Democrats are paying lip service to Medicare for All: “We need to get there eventually but right now our task is to fix the ACA” is the current talking point.

The reality is that the political currents have shifted. The public is not going along with the con. People want solutions to the healthcare crisis, not more tinkering with the current failed healthcare system. Across the country, the message is clear that the public supports National Improved Medicare for All. And whichever political party in power embraces this will see a surge in popularity.

Our task as advocates for National Improved Medicare for All is to stay fired up – continue to speak out about Medicare for All, write about it in local papers, meet with members of Congress, organize in our communities and run for office. We must be clear and uncompromising in our demand for National Improved Medicare for All to create a visible tsunami of support that will wake our legislators up.

When the people lead, the legislators will follow.

This article was published at Health Over Profit.

(EurActiv) — Facebook said it wanted to make its social media platform a “hostile environment” for terrorists in a statement issued after attackers killed seven people in London and prompted Prime Minister Theresa May to demand action from internet firms.

Three attackers rammed a hired van into pedestrians on London Bridge and stabbed others nearby on Saturday night in Britain’s third major militant attack in recent months.

May responded to the attack by calling for an overhaul of the strategy used to combat extremism, including a demand for greater international regulation of the internet, saying big internet companies were partly responsible for providing extreme ideology the space to develop.

Facebook on Sunday said it condemned the London attacks.

“We want Facebook to be a hostile environment for terrorists,” said Simon Milner, Director of Policy at Facebook in an emailed statement.

“Using a combination of technology and human review, we work aggressively to remove terrorist content from our platform as soon as we become aware of it — and if we become aware of an emergency involving imminent harm to someone’s safety, we notify law enforcement.”

May has previously put pressure on internet firms to take more responsibility for content posted on their services. Last month she pledged, if she wins an upcoming election, to create the power to make firms pay towards the cost of policing the internet with an industry-wide levy.

Twitter also said it was working to tackle the spread of militant propaganda on its website.

“Terrorist content has no place on Twitter,” Nick Pickles, UK head of public policy at Twitter, said in a statement, adding that in the second half of 2016 it had suspended nearly 400,000 accounts.

“We continue to expand the use of technology as part of a systematic approach to removing this type of content.”

By Frank Kane

Regional financial and economic markets — with the exception of the Doha exchange — on Monday largely shrugged off the fallout of the diplomatic rift between Qatar and several other Arab countries.
Most bourses in the region saw limited drops of less than 1 percent, with the oil price down 1 percent at the end of a volatile day.

The Qatar Stock Exchange index closed down 7.5 percent, however, as some of the country’s blue chip stocks felt the impact of the trading and commercial sanctions against the country.

Some experts warned that the economic impact of the actions taken against Qatar by Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain and Egypt — if they prove long-term measures — could put at risk some of Doha’s megaprojects like the 2022 FIFA World Cup.

Analysts at Citibank, the American financial giant, said the closing of Qatar’s land border with Saudi Arabia and ending of air and maritime commerce could hit economic growth. “The construction sector is a key driver of the Qatari economy and is partially dependent on overland routes for supplies,” it said.

“If sanctions are not resolved in short order, World Cup construction could be impacted, and plans for fans to base themselves in neighboring countries might also be affected,” the bank said.

Other potential risks Citi sees are a rise in food prices, an erosion of fiscal balances, and a rise in borrowing costs. “We believe that prolonged sanctions would exacerbate this and potentially make financing of external liabilities more costly and difficult,” it added.

Other experts said that the economic fallout from the confrontation between Qatar and some of its Arabian Gulf neighbors was likely to be limited.

Jason Tuvey, Middle East analyst at London consultancy Capital Economics, said there were three reasons why the impact would be temporary.

“First, the impact on energy markets is likely to be short lived… Gas supplies from Qatar could potentially be disrupted if the other Gulf countries blocked Qatari tankers traversing the… Arabian Gulf. But, given that a maritime dispute could block their own oil shipments, this seems highly unlikely. Meanwhile, reports (on Monday) morning suggest that the Dolphin pipeline, through which Qatar sends gas to the UAE, is operating as normal,” he said.

Tuvey said the regional economies are likely to shrug off the dispute. “Trade ties between Qatar and the rest of the region are relatively small. Qatar’s exports to the region are limited, with most of the country’s oil and gas exports going to Asia. Qatar’s imports from the rest of the region are also trivial,” he said.

“In any case, most are goods that are transited through the other countries, so could be diverted if necessary. One potential concern is that Qatari banks may now find it more difficult to secure wholesale financing, which could precipitate a more abrupt cooling of the country’s credit boom,” he added.

Tuvey also sees signs that the row could de-escalate quickly. “There are signs that Qatar is bowing to pressure from Saudi Arabia and its allies,” he said.

The United States is expected to signal on Tuesday, June 6 that it might withdraw from the United Nations Human Rights Council unless reforms are ushered in including the removal of what it sees as an “anti-Israel bias”, diplomats and activists said, according to Reuters.

U.S. Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley, who holds cabinet rank in President Donald Trump’s administration, said last week Washington would decide on whether to withdraw from the Council after its three-week session in Geneva ends this month.

Under Trump, Washington has broken with decades of U.S. foreign policy by turning away from multilateralism. His decision to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement last week drew criticism from governments around the world.

The Council’s critical stance of Israel has been a major sticking point for its ally the United States. Washington boycotted the body for three years under President George W. Bush before rejoining under Barack Obama in 2009.

Haley, writing in the Washington Post at the weekend, called for the Council to “end its practice of wrongly singling out Israel for criticism.”

The possibility of a U.S. withdrawal has raised alarm bells among Western allies and activists.

Eight groups, including Freedom House and the Jacob Blaustein Institute, wrote to Haley in May saying a withdrawal would be counterproductive since it could lead to the Council “unfairly targeting Israel to an even greater degree.”

In the letter, seen by Reuters, the groups also said that during the period of the U.S. boycott, the Council’s performance suffered “both with respect to addressing the world’s worst violators and with respect to its anti-Israel bias.”

By meeting the UN’s Sustainable Development Goal 14 on Life Below Water, parties in the South China Sea can enhance transboundary partnerships for a more sustainable approach to marine environmental governance.

By Rini Astuti*

As the United Nations Ocean Conference meets in New York this week from 5–9 June 2017, it is imperative to restate the issue of environmental protection in the South China Sea. The Ocean Conference will discuss the strategies, challenges, and issues in achieving Goal 14 of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Life Below Water. Goal 14 of the SDGs is to conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources. The goal provides a path for nations to collaborate to achieve the target of sustainably managing and protecting marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant adverse impacts.

The SDG 14 also aims to reduce the rate of Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported (IUU) fishing to replenish fish stocks, especially in the contested waters where actors are competing to extract resources due to the absence of management bodies and monitoring apparatuses. Goal 14 urges governments to enhance collaboration in scientific studies to strengthen conservation of marine species and evidence-based policy making. Most importantly, Goal 14 encourages nations to implement and respect the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) as basic guidance on the sustainable use of oceans and their resources.

Tragedy of the Commons in the South China Sea

The South China Sea provides enormous economic resources for its ten surrounding countries. It is predicted that more than four million fishers depend on this region. Contributing 12% of the total global fishing catch in 2012, the disputed water is worth US$21.8 billion per annum from its fishery sector alone. However, a study by scientists from the University of Wollongong and the University of British Columbia found that under a ‘business as usual’ scenario, the ocean species in the South China Sea will deteriorate up to 59% by 2045. The scientists further agree that over the last three decades the fish stock has decreased by a third, while coral reefs declined at a staggering rate of 16 % in the past 10 years.

Environmental degradation in the South China Sea has reached an alarming point, with reported 162 square kilometres of coral reef destruction and wildlife poaching, including the capture and sales of endangered sea turtles, giant clams and sharks. Studies have found that the reclamation of islands and military infrastructure development are the culprits behind the destruction of the coral ecosystem. Meanwhile, the food industry and the market for exotic medicine boost the IUU fishing in the South China Sea.

The disputed region has always been in the limelight with various actors trying to pursue their interests both in their geopolitical and economic agendas. Despite the global outcry for parties to heed environmental protection commitments, such commitments have always been peripheral; cast aside by issues of geopolitical concerns. Centering the agenda on marine environmental protection becomes imperative to avoid a “tragedy of the commons”, where despite knowing the detrimental effects of overexploitation of a shared resource, parties still act in their own immediate and selfish interests.

Enhancing Transboundary Partnership

The latest climate change governance commitment, the Paris Agreement, provides an example for effective transboundary marine governance. The Agreement has been widely acknowledged as successful in driving political action and creating a tipping point for global collaboration. It stresses the collective responsibilities of all countries in addressing climate change while respecting nations’ differentiated capacities.

By learning from the climate change accord, countries in the South China Sea need to gather leaders of the 10 neighbouring countries and have them accept that urgent action is required to mitigate ecological degradation in the region. The question that arises is where do they start? Firstly, the governments need to engage with scientists and non-governmental organisations to set up the common objective of protecting marine environmental ecosystem. The objective has to take into consideration the goals of SDG 14 and rely on scientific evidence for a rigorous regional policy. Various regional mechanisms have been established to address marine ecological degradation in East Asia and other regions.

These mechanisms are, for example, ASEAN Working Group on Coastal and Marine Environment, the ASEAN Maritime Forum, the Coral Triangle Initiative, Partnerships in Environmental Management of Seas in East Asia, and the UN-led Coordinating Body on the Seas of East Asia.

Need for New and Bolder Commitments

The most pressing issue is, therefore, to strengthen the existing mechanisms with new and bolder commitments. Following the example of the Paris Agreement, each state can be encouraged to come forward with a pledge to achieve the common objective of sustaining the South China Sea marine ecosystem. A joint periodic monitoring and reporting system can ensure the effective implementation of marine conservation.

Scientists suggest the policymakers to harness technological innovation and big data to create an effective monitoring system. An initiative such as Global Fishing Watch aims for ocean transparency where citizens with Internet access, journalists, environmental activists, and other concerned parties, can monitor commercial fishing around the world. The availability of advanced technology coupled with democratisation of data can help in creating smarter decisions for marine protection and reducing unsustainable fishing practices.

Secondly, the call for action has to be broadened to also involve the private sector, especially the fisheries and food industries. The private sector is one of the significant drivers of sustainable economic growth and will play an important role in achieving the SDG 14 Goal. Improving fisheries’ traceability in the region, in which the companies provide information on the sources of their fish products can combat IUU fishing, and reduce pressure on the marine resources in the South China Sea.

Another effort to bring governments and industries together is through the notion of the Blue Economy – a set of sustainability principles in managing economic development in the oceans. Inclusivity, biodiversity protection and environmental justice are among the many principles that signify the economic concept coined by Professor Gunter Pauli.

Lastly, the marine governance architecture that takes into account notions of both procedural and substantive justice is what is needed to sustain the South China Sea. A multitude of aspects needs to be taken into consideration to create an ecologically sound conservation strategy without sacrificing millions of small-scale fishers whose livelihoods depend on the contested region.

*Rini Astuti is a Research Fellow with the Centre for Non-traditional Security (NTS) Studies, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

I’ve spent a large part of my career working in Nigeria, with both Northerners and Southerners, and have watched the country careen from one crisis to the next. It is now deeply saddening to have one of the first honest presidents come at a time of a global glut in oil prices, and then be hit with unknown illness.

Despite these difficult conditions, I think many outsiders would be very surprised by the country’s resilience, as well as the quality of the culture there for tolerance and national unity despite the overtones of hostility so often drummed up by the local and foreign media. So it is with an inevitable sense of déjà vu to see yet another Nigerian president indisposed by illness while his party fractures under tribal pressure.

I don’t agree with all the characterizations in Max Siollun’s story in Foreign Policy, but I do think it is worth a read for those seeking to understand how the informal power swapping pact is coming under pressure. Just an excerpt below:

If Buhari dies, resigns, or is declared medically incapacitated by the cabinet, it would likely ignite a similar struggle within the APC over whether Vice President Osinbajo should permanently succeed him as president. A group of prominent northerners has already stated that Osinbajo should serve merely as an interim president and that he cannot replace Buhari on the ticket in the 2019 presidential election. Should Osinbajo succeed Buhari, win the 2019 election, and serve a full term, a Christian southerner will have been president for 18 of the 24 years since Nigeria transitioned to democracy in 1999.

There is a chance that APC leaders will convince — or force — Osinbajo to stand down in favor of another Muslim candidate from the north. But sidelining Osinbajo would pose other sectarian risks. He was chosen as Buhari’s running mate in part to counter southern accusations that the APC is a Muslim party. And although he is seen as a technocrat, Osinbajo is a powerful political force in his own right — too powerful, perhaps, to be sidelined in 2019 without alienating millions of voters. He is a pastor in the country’s largest evangelical church, which has some 6 million members, and his wife is the granddaughter of Obafemi Awolowo, one of Nigeria’s early independence politicians who is beloved in southwest Nigeria.

To Donald Trump, the world is made up of only two sorts of people, or nations: strong winners whom others respect and fear, and weak losers whom others exploit and laugh at. There is no other alternative.

“At what point does America get demeaned? At what point do they start laughing at us, as a country?” Trump asked Thursday during his major announcement from the White House Rose Garden that the US would be withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement. “We don’t want other leaders and other countries laughing at us anymore. And they won’t be. They won’t be.“

For Trump, there is no such thing as collaboration for mutual gain. Cooperation is a sham.

Similarly, social insurance is a con. Billionaires can be trusted because they’ve already made their money – presumably by out-exploiting others.

Dictators are admirable because they’re respected and feared. But democratically-elected prime ministers and presidents need to be shown who’s boss – their hands grabbed in white-knuckled contests of dominance, their bodies shoved aside if they get out in front. And treaties and compacts need to be renegotiated so America wins.

It’s the same at home: Political opponents must be humiliated, White House staffers demeaned (even the Vice President shown his place), the press degraded, recalcitrant judges debased, others intimidated.

Everything is a giant zero-sum game in which either you win and they lose, or they win and you lose. And if they dare put up a fight, you get even.

This is the personality of a sociopath.

Trump is now the single most powerful person on the planet, with the ability to order the destruction of the world in just over four minutes. It is necessary to get him out of the White House, peacefully and legally, as quickly as possible.