Prime Minister Theresa May faces humiliation as exit polls in the UK general election predict the Conservative Party will lose 16 seats, leaving the country with a hung parliament.

The PM is already facing calls for her resignation following the publication of the poll, which predicts Labour will gain an additional 34 seats in the House of Commons, bringing it to a total of 266.

Former Tory Chancellor George Osborne, who was sacked by Theresa May when she took office last year, has said if the poll is correct, it would be “completely catastrophic” for the party and the PM.

If the poll is correct and the Tory majority drops from 330 MPs to 314, pundits predict May could be forced to resign, making her one of the shortest serving prime ministers in history.

When May took the extraordinary step of calling a snap election in April, the Conservatives enjoyed a 24 point lead over Labour in the opinion polls.

At the time, the PM denied she was taking advantage of Labour’s weak standing in the polls and instead claimed she was seeking a larger mandate from the country in order enter Brexit negotiations with a strong hand.

Reaction to the polls has come in fast, with a Labour spokesperson telling the Independent the result would be “extraordinary” if it played out and would punish the Tories for “taking the British people for granted.”

“If this poll turns out to be anywhere near accurate, it would be an extraordinary result.

“There’s never been such a turnaround in a course of a campaign … Labour has run a positive and honest campaign – we haven’t engaged in smears or personal attacks.”

Labour’s Shadow Defense Secretary Emily Thornberry called on May to resign if she loses her overall majority, as is currently predicted.

Thornberry told Sky News: “I think she should go, because I think she has manifestly failed.”

Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell told the BBC he thinks May’s position is becoming “increasingly untenable.”

Former shadow cabinet minister Clive Lewis was less diplomatic in his language, simply tweeting: “Whatever happens May is TOAST!”

Leave campaigners are concerned that a hung parliament could put the brakes on Brexit.

UKIP leader Paul Nuttall tweeted: “If the exit poll is true then Theresa May has put Brexit in jeopardy. I said at the start this election was wrong. Hubris.”

Conservative heavyweights have been quick to dismiss the exit poll, citing previous elections where the predictions were not correct.

Tory Defense Secretary Michael Fallon told the BBC: “Let’s see some actual results to see if this is borne out – this is a projection, I think you made that clear, it is not a result.

“These exit polls have been wrong in the past. In 2015 they underestimated our vote. I think in a couple of elections before that they overestimated our vote.

“So we do need to see some actual results before we interpret this one way or the other.”

If the Conservatives are unable or unwilling to form a minority government, they may look to form a coalition with another party.

However the Liberal Democrats, which formed a coalition with the Tories following the 2010 general election, have ruled this out.

Former Lib Dem leader Menzies Campbell told the BBC: “Tim Farron made it very clear. He said no pact, no deal, no coalition. We’ve had our fingers burnt by coalition, I don’t need to tell you that. I find it very, very difficult to see how Tim Farron would be able to go back on what he previously said.”

It is particularly bloody to use an official statement of sympathy over a terrorist attack as a vehicle to promote war against the victim country, but that is exactly what the Trump White House did today after dual attacks in Iran left at least a dozen civilians dead.

In a breathtaking display of cruel indecency, Trump’s team used the attack as an occasion to stick the boot in and blame the victims.

Wrote the White House:

We grieve and pray for the innocent victims of the terrorist attacks in Iran, and for the Iranian people, who are going through such challenging times. We underscore that states that sponsor terrorism risk falling victim to the evil they promote.

In other words, too bad you got killed but because we determine your government to be “state sponsors of terrorism” you got what you deserved.

When was the last time Iran or Iranian allies attacked the US or US interests? If we count Beirut, it’s been over three decades. Why exactly is Iran a “state sponsor of terrorism”? Because they haven’t buckled under aggression from Saudi Arabia and threats from Israel?

Blaming the victims in Tehran for an attack undertaken by ISIS — which ironically has ties to the biggest state sponsor of terrorism, US ally Saudi Arabia — shows the rest of the world just what kind of monsters control our foreign policy in Washington. The rest of America should be ashamed and disgusted by those who claim to rule over us, “promoting freedom” in our name.

(H/T Dan Larison)

This article was published by RonPaul Institute.

There has been worldwide condemnation of Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the 2015 Paris climate agreement. The anger is warranted but it must also be said that the accord was more deal making and public relations than an attack on carbon production and global warming. Climate change is definitely not a hoax or a “con job” as Trump has said in the past. There is so much consensus from scientists on the issue that there is little to debate. Arguments about economic harm are the real con job. American industries can survive quite well and even find new profit centers as they move toward green energy solutions. But the substance of the climate accord is far less significant than we are led to believe.

The United States is the world’s biggest carbon producing culprit and its assault on the environment escalated during the Obama administration. Fracking and natural gas production soared despite all of the lip service he paid to environmental protection during his term in office. He cancelled the Keystone XL pipeline in 2015 to look good on the eve of the international meeting and because it’s construction was no longer needed.

Domestic fossil fuel production increased so much that transportation of tar sands oil from Canada was no longer necessary. In addition the United States approved other pipelines that were less visible and train transportation handled the rest. Production increased so much that oil prices plummeted and have still not recovered.

In any case, the agreement still has not taken effect, as it gives signatories five years to continue their carbon addiction. Industrial nations gave themselves a get out of jail free card by postponing the day of reckoning and by choosing opportune benchmark dates from which they said they would reduce carbon output. Russia chose 1990, the year they were in the throes of an economic collapse. Any reductions based on that era are meaningless. The same goes for the European Union and the United States who all cherry picked the most advantageous moment to claim environmental concern.

Of course Donald Trump is easy to condemn. He always is. Big business doesn’t need protection from the climate agreement. Most of corporate America were already on board precisely because it didn’t do very much. The signatory nations had little to fear because the agreement actually permitted world temperatures to rise 2 degrees. Even a seemingly small increase has devastating impacts and particularly on the nations that are least able to protect themselves. The Paris agreement even gave rich nations the ultimate get out of jail free card. It explicitly states that they would not have to pay poor countries for the damage that global warming does to them and to their people.

The United States isn’t alone in using marketing to give the appearance of progress. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is like former president Obama in many ways. He is young, photogenic, and good at giving the right impression. But his liberal government has made less progress on carbon reduction than his conservative predecessor and won’t meet even minimal targets. The Keystone XL pipeline starts in Canada’s tar sands producing regions, the scene of some of the worst environmental degradation on the planet. Trudeau joined Trump in supporting Keystone and every other pipeline going from Canada to the United States.

If the signatory nations were as concerned about climate change as they say, why is the planet now on the precipice? Some scientists predict that there is in fact no way out, that the damage done to date cannot be undone. It wasn’t done by Donald Trump, who only became president a few months ago. The world leaders who condemn Trump are even more guilty because they have used sleight of hand to give an appearance of concern and of action when they lie to the world and continue killing the planet. The United States, Canada, Japan and Russia are all rated inadequate in their anti global warming efforts.

Trump’s antics make him an easy target. When he isn’t misquoting climate change studies he is shoving other presidents, tweeting typos in the middle of the night and otherwise behaving as a parody of himself. But the car wreck we can’t turn away from is no reason to believe lies told by the global elite. The earth is getting warmer and leaders all over the world are responsible.

Researchers at Bielefeld University have developed a grasp system with robot hands that autonomously familiarizes itself with novel objects. The new system works without previously knowing the characteristics of objects, such as pieces of fruit or tools. It was developed as part of the large-scale research project Famula at Bielefeld University’s Cluster of Excellence Cognitive Interaction Technology (CITEC).

The knowledge gained from this project could contribute to future service robots, for instance, that are able to independently adapt to working in new households. CITEC has invested approximately one million Euro in Famula. In a new “research_tv” report from Bielefeld University, the coordinators of the Famula project explain the new innovation.

“Our system learns by trying out and exploring on its own – just as babies approach new objects,” said neuroinformatics Professor Dr. Helge Ritter, who heads the Famula project together with sports scientist and cognitive psychologist Professor Dr. Thomas Schack and robotics Privatdozent Dr. Sven Wachsmuth.

The CITEC researchers are working on a robot with two hands that are based on human hands in terms of both shape and mobility. The robot brain for these hands has to learn how everyday objects like pieces of fruit, dishes, or stuffed animals can be distinguished on the basis of their color or shape, as well as what matters when attempting to grasp the object.

The Human Being as the Model

A banana can be held, and a button can be pressed. “The system learns to recognize such possibilities as characteristics, and constructs a model for interacting and re-identifying the object,” explained Ritter.

To accomplish this, the interdisciplinary project brings together work in artificial intelligence with research from other disciplines. Thomas Schack’s research group, for instance, investigated which characteristics study participants perceived to be significant in grasping actions. In one study, test subjects had to compare the similarity of more than 100 objects.

“It was surprising that weight hardly plays a role. We humans rely mostly on shape and size when we differentiate objects,” said Thomas Schack.

In another study, test subjects’ eyes were covered and they had to handle cubes that differed in weight, shape, and size. Infrared cameras recorded their hand movements.

“Through this, we find out how people touch an object, and which strategies they prefer to use to identify its characteristics,” explained Dirk Koester, who is a member of Schack’s research group. “Of course, we also find out which mistakes people make when blindly handling objects.”

System Puts Itself in the Position of Its “Mentor”

Dr. Robert Haschke, a colleague of Helge Ritter, stood in front of a large metal cage with both robot arms and a table with various test objects. In his role as a human learning mentor, Dr. Haschke helped the system to acquire familiarity with novel objects, telling the robot hands which object on the table they should inspect next. To do this, Haschke pointed to individual objects, or gives spoken hints, such as in which direction an interesting object for the robot can be found (e.g. “behind, at left”). Using color cameras and depth sensors, two monitors display how the system perceives its surroundings and reacts to instructions from humans.

“In order to understand which objects they should work with, the robot hands have to be able to interpret not only spoken language, but also gestures,” explained Sven Wachsmuth, of CITEC’s Central Labs. “And they also have to be able to put themselves in the position of a human to also ask themselves if they have correctly understood.”

Wachsmuth and his team are not only responsible for the system’s language capabilities: they have also given the system a face. From one of the monitors, Flobi follows the movements of the hands and reacts to the researchers’ instructions. Flobi is a stylized robot head that complements the robot’s language and actions with facial expressions. As part of the Famula system, the virtual version of the robot Flobi is currently in use.

Understanding Human Interaction

With the Famula project, CITEC researchers are conducting basic research that can benefit self-learning robots of the future in both the home and industry.

“We want to literally understand how we learn to ‘grasp’ our environment with our hands. The robot makes it possible for us to test our findings in reality and to rigorously expose the gaps in our understanding. In doing so, we are contributing to the future use of complex, multi-fingered robot hands, which today are still too costly or complex to be used, for instance, in industry,” said Ritter.

On May 31, a truck bomb exploded in central Kabul killing nearly 100 people and injuring hundreds others. The continuing ghastly violence serves as a reminder of the difficulties the country has encountered in its search for a semblance of peace and stability. It is convenient to blame the Afghan security forces for their supposed inability to put to halt to such attacks. The larger issues, however, are the increased regional power competition and the international community’s ad hoc strategies with regard to the end state in Afghanistan.

Renewed Global Rivalry and Regional reconfiguration

The Trump administration mulls over an appropriate Afghan strategy. For the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. John Nicholson, the war with the Taliban is a stalemate. He has said several thousand more troops are needed to turn the tide of Afghan war. Even after the May 2017 Brussels summit, President Trump as well as the NATO countries are undecided on the requests for more troops. Meanwhile, Russia, a mute spectator in the 16 years of the U.S.-led war on terror in Afghanistan, is filling in the vacuum. This includes engaging the Taliban and leading a new diplomatic effort to shape Afghanistan’s future. Much of this coincides with the Kremlin’s attempt to wield greater international influence at the U.S.’ expense elsewhere, including intervening in the war in Syria and attempting to broker new Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.The renewed Russian interest in Afghanistan is perceived as a function of “American retrenchment’. The perception has intensified as President Trump since taking office has rarely mentioned Afghanistan.

Amidst such Russian maneuveres, the U.S. military targeted an Islamic State (IS) cave complex in eastern Afghanistan’s Nangarhar province with the 22,000-pound “mother of all bombs” (MOAB), the largest non-nuclear weapon ever used in combat on 14 April, 2017. It came a day before Russia was to host multi-nation talks on prospects for Afghan security and national reconciliation, the third such initiative since the December 2016 trilateral talks involving Russia, China, and Pakistan. Eleven countries – including Afghanistan, China, Iran, Pakistan, India, and former Soviet Central Asian states—met in Moscow. The U.S. skipped the talks, terming them a “unilateral Russian attempt to assert influence in the region.”

China, on the other hand, while assisting the Afghan government through security cooperation, has maintained links with the Taliban. It recently conducted joint law enforcement operations with the Afghan forces to fight terrorism. Beijing has also played host to the Taliban who visited China days after a trilateral meeting of senior diplomats from China, Pakistan and Russia in Moscow that supported lifting of international sanctions on the Taliban leaders. Reports from the field indicate that the Taliban in return has granted China the green light to restart a US$3 billion mining project in MesAyanak which has been mired in controversies since 2008. Iran too has maintained contacts with Taliban and at the same time supported to the Afghan government.

Non-state actors and ‘hedging strategy’

The advent of the Islamic State (IS-Khorasan or IS-K) in Afghanistan, with its local battles against Taliban for territorial domination has further complicated the security situation since 2014. Compared to the U.S. estimate of minimal IS strength (1,000 combatants), the Russian estimate is 3,500. Amidst reports of infighting having fractured the Taliban and weakened its leadership, efforts to undermine the IS-K has emboldened it and strengthened its negotiating potential. This has led to regional countries reaching out to the Taliban in order to establish /maintain linkages with a more ‘nationalistic’ Taliban that can be contained within the borders of Afghanistan and act as an effective counter to the transnational IS. Interestingly, efforts at decimating the IS-K are directed at making the Taliban more acceptable for peace negotiations. Russia has also promoted easing global sanctions on Taliban leaders who prove cooperative. The IS threat, thus, is part of a larger ‘hedging strategy’ on Afghanistandriving renewed Russian, Chinese and Iranian interest in the region. The emergence of Russia- China- Pakistan alliance has dramatically changed the equations on the ground for India.

India’s  interests and policy options

India hence finds itself in a queer position. Being the largest regional donor with pledges more than US $ 2 billion in various infrastructure and capacity building programs, India’s development assistance has accrued tremendous good will among the Afghans. During my visits to provinces in Afghanistan (Kandahar, Nangarhar, Badkshan, Bamyan, Balkh, Herat since 2007), Afghans have expressed gratitude and desire for more of India’s assistance. However, New Delhi has not capitalised this good will into tangible outcomes. Neither has New Delhi increased the scale of its assistance in such areas as governance and institution building to prevent the back sliding of the Afghan state apparatus. In discussions with Foreign Service officials in New Delhi, it is evident that Afghanistan is seen as a distant, volatile theatre that is of ‘secondary interest’ and are wary of an ‘over-stretch’.

In the security sector, New Delhi’s minimalistic approach has not helped strengthen the Afghan security forces to face the onslaught of the insurgency. This is viewed by the military elite in Afghanistan as reneging on the commitments made by India in the Strategic Partnership Agreement of October 2014, the first agreement signed by India in the neighbourhood.

As there is a scramble among major countries to embrace the Taliban, New Delhi exercise caution in participating in externally mediated peace processes. A number of pro-talks advocates and international commentators are not averse to granting concessions like ceding territory with an asymmetric federalism arrangement to the Taliban, such propositions are acceptable neither to the Afghans nor the Taliban. While some Indian commentators have joined the chorus of talking the Taliban, any such attempt violates India’s core objective of building a strong and stable Afghanistan that acts as a bulwark against the return of extremist forces. Beyond elite buy-in, New Delhi will have to work towards mobilizing the grass root participation in the state building process to preserve the fragile gains of the last decade.

Time, however, is in short supply in Afghanistan. In the regional reconfiguration of powers, New Delhi will have to signal its intent to be a reliable friend and important power in the region. During mydiscussions with senior government officials in Kabul it is evident that they expect that India plays a role commensurate with major power status in the region.  The present reticence has sent mixed signals. In April 2017, I spoke with Dr. Shaida Mohammad Abdali, Afghanistan’s ambassador to India in New Delhi. Ambassador Abdali expressed his desire to see India playing an important role in bringing peace and stability in the country. Neither can India be a lone bystander, nor can it fritter away the goodwill gained among the Afghan people by not taking a more proactive policy, Abdali said.

Being sidelined from its traditional alliance, New Delhi has the option of either joining the U.S. or maintain its independent position. President Trump’s senior military and foreign policy advisers have recently proposed a major shift in strategy in Afghanistan The new plan, which still needs the approval of the president, calls for expanding the U.S. military footprint (surge) as part of a broader effort to push an increasingly confident and resurgent Taliban back to the negotiating table. However, mere addition of troop numbers without a fundamental change in strategy will not help achieve such objectives nor stabilise Afghanistan. New Delhi needs to take a clear position in partnering with the US or any other regional power/block in addressing the causes of instability in Afghanistan, particularly when Afghans look up to India to play that leadership role.

By Alex Rawley*

A Prison Escape

On May 11, 23 prisoners escaped from Honduras’ largest and most overcrowded correctional facility, the Tamara prison.[i] The inmates were part of the “Scorpion” unit, which is reserved for members of the Barrio 18 gang, one of the most powerful and influential gangs in Latin America.[ii] Following the escape, the prison director and several guards were put on administrative leave.[iii] With this incident, 65 prisoners have escaped between April 28 and May 11 of this year from three Honduran penitentiaries, highlighting the chronic dysfunction to be found in Honduras’ prison system. As a result of massive overcrowding owing to mandatory pre-trial detention and harsh penalties for drug-related offenses, as well as a lack of effective administrative control over the facilities, the Honduran prison system is desperately in need of reform. Recent efforts by the Hernández administration to build more maximum-security facilities are merely a band-aid approach that has failed to address the systemic inadequacies present in the current arrangements.

Harsh Sentencing Practices Run Amok

Honduras’ prison system now holds 17,000 inmates, while designed to hold only 8,000, making it overcrowded by more than 200 percent.[iv] The problem has been exacerbated in recent years due to the expansion of mano dura or “iron fist” policies, which have resulted in harsher sentencing practices.[v] Following a 2013 reform to Article 184 of the Honduran Criminal Code, the Hernández administration put mandatory pre-trial detentions in place which prohibit judges from choosing alternatives to time served behind bars. This policy targets 21 crimes including drug trafficking, extortion, money laundering, and sexual assault and is in line with Hernández’s “tough on crime” stance, which he emphasized during his presidential campaign.[vi] The policy places those awaiting trial for these types of crimes in preventive custody without any possibility of being released on bond. In 2016, the numbers of prisoners being held without a trial and conviction had reached 9,100 or around 53 percent of the total prison population.[vii] On August 9, 2016, the Instituto Nacional Penitenciario (National Penitentiary Institute, INP) released statistics demonstrating that the prison population in Honduras had grown by 30 percent since 2013, increasing it from 12,032 to 17,017.[viii]

The Sad State of Honduran Prisons

Complications due to overcrowding have been exacerbated by the deplorable conditions found inside Honduran prisons, which tend to promote criminality rather than rehabilitating the inmates. A 2012 investigation undertaken by the Associated Press (AP) in which journalists toured a San Pedro prison found that it was “essentially an autonomous town complete with women, children, businesses and a marketplace.”[ix] The prison yard included a “line of death”, a yellow boundary which neither prisoners nor guards dared cross. Due to a lack of effective supervision, certain prisons in Honduras have often deteriorated into complete chaos with gang members killing leaders and acquiring informal power. Certain prisoners, called coordinators, have special privileges and are in charge of negotiating special privileges with the guards and keeping the peace.[x] Even so, violence is rampant; in early 2012, one inmate, Jose “Chepe” Cardozo, murdered a gang leader, and subsequently fed his heart to a dog.[xi] The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IAHCR) has referred to these prisons as “dehumanized, miserly, and corrupt” and “completely contrary to human dignity” arguing that these problems have occurred due to structural deficiencies present in Honduran correctional facilities which have allowed inmates to gain autonomy over prison institutions.[xii][xiii]

Indeed, the Honduran prison system has repeatedly failed to live up to international human rights standards. According to a 2014 report by the Comisionado de los Derechos Humanos de Honduras (CONADEH), Honduras’ penitentiary system is plagued by poor nutrition, lack of professional and medical attention, and the presence of drugs, alcohol, weapons, and violence.[xiv] A 2012 incident showcased the complete lack of effective safety precautions in the prisons when more than 350 inmates perished in one of the worst prison fires in Latin America, after an inmate set fire to his mattress.[xv] The disastrous response contributed to these immense casualties as guards with keys were nowhere to be found. This tragedy could also have been easily avoided by effectively monitoring the prisoners. Some inmates managed to survive by forcing their way through the roof and thereby escaping. In response to the fire, Jose Miguel Vivanco, director of the Americas division of Human Rights Watch, declared that the incident was “symptomatic of the country’s larger public security crisis.”[xvi]

The conservative administration of Juan Orlando Hernández has sought to improve the situation by offering leniency to those convicted of minor offenses who have demonstrated good behavior while creating new maximum security prisons which aim to isolate the big offenders.[xvii] Hernández has stated that in maximum-security prisons like El Pozo, high-risk inmates will be allowed only one hour outside per day and will have no right to make phone calls or be visited by friends and family, arguing that these criminals had “abused. . .their rights to visits and communications, using codes and other tricks to send messages to their accomplices on the outside.”[xviii]

Thinking Outside the Box

These measures do not address the complete lack of administrative control over existing Honduran prisons nor do they provide a long term strategy for reducing the number of Hondurans being placed behind bars without being charged with a crime. Honduran authorities should be allocating more of its resources towards reforming existing prison facilities rather than creating new ones that will likely produce similar dire results. As Cindy Woods of the ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law has argued, Latin American governments like that of Honduras would do better to provide alternatives to incarceration for relatively low level drug offences, ensuring that sentencing practices are proportional depending on the type of crime, abolishing mandatory minimum sentences, and avoiding pre-trial detentions in cases of low-level and non-violent offences.[xix] Due to the extremely high levels of crime and the hardline approach taken by President Hernández, any comprehensive prison reform seems unlikely in the near future. Meanwhile, in one of the most impoverished countries in Latin America, the government continues to expand a prison system that is not only dangerous but exceedingly inhumane.

*Alex Rawley, Research Associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs. Additional editorial support provided by Lynn Holland, Senior Research Fellow, Liliana Muscarella, Extramural Research Associate, and Alexia Rauen and Sharri K Hall, Research Associates at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

[i] Gustavo Palencia. “More than 20 break out of military-guarded prison in Honduras.” Reuters. May 14, 2017. http://in.reuters.com/article/honduras-prison-escape-idINKBN18A044.

[ii] Ibid

[iii] Ibid

[iv] Ibid

[v]“Honduras.” World Prison Brief. August 2016. http://www.prisonstudies.org/country/honduras.

[vi]Tristan Clavel. “New Prison Data Backs Reform of Honduras Detention Rules.” InSight Crime. August 11, 2016. http://www.insightcrime.org/news-briefs/new-data-on-prison-overcrowding-supports-honduras-decision-to-backtrack-on-mandatory-pre-trial-detention.

[vii]Leonardo Goi. “Series of Escapes Underscores Weakness of Honduran Prison System” InSight Crime. May 15, 2017. http://www.insightcrime.org/news-briefs/honduras-prisons-spotlight-65-escape-less-2-weeks.

[viii]Tristan Clavel. “New Prison Data Backs Reform of Honduras Detention Rules.” InSight Crime. August 11, 2016. http://www.insightcrime.org/news-briefs/new-data-on-prison-overcrowding-supports-honduras-decision-to-backtrack-on-mandatory-pre-trial-detention.

[ix] Mathew Clarke. “Report: Prisons in Honduras are Dangerous, Violent and Corrupt” Prison Legal News. August 12, 2014, https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2014/aug/12/report-prisons-honduras-are-dangerous-violent-and-corrupt/

[x] Ibid

[xi]Jose Luis Sanz. “The Just King of Honduras’ Prison from Hell” InSight Crime. January 15, 2014. http://www.insightcrime.org/news-analysis/the-just-king-of-honduras-prison-from-hell

[xii]“IACHR Presents Report on Persons Deprived of Liberty in Honduras” OAS. August 2, 2013. http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/media_center/preleases/2013/058.asp

[xiii]Mimi Yagoub “Honduras Prisons Put Inmates at Risk, Fuel Gang Violence: OAS” InSight Crime. March 22, 2016. http://www.insightcrime.org/news-analysis/honduras-prisons-put-inmates-at-risk-fuel-gang-violence-oas

[xiv]Ibid

[xv]Mayra Navarro. “Honduras prison fire kills more than 350 inmates” Reuters. February 15, 2012. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-honduras-jail-fire-idUSTRE81E0OK20120215

[xvi]Javier C. Hernández and Randal C. Archibold “Blaze at Prison Underscores Broad Security Problems in Honduras” New York Times. February 15, 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/16/world/americas/prison-fire-in-honduras-leaves-high-death-toll.html

[xvii]David Gagne “Honduras Overhauls Prison System” InSight Crime. November 10, 2014. http://www.insightcrime.org/news-analysis/honduras-overhauls-prison-system

[xviii]Tristan Clavel “Honduras Takes First Step Toward Prison Overhaul with New Facility” InSight Crime. September 20, 2016. http://www.insightcrime.org/component/content/article?id=8140:honduras-first-step-prison-overhaul-new-facility

[xix] Cindy S. Woods “Addressing Prison Overcrowding in Latin America: a Comparative Analysis of the Necessary Precursors to Reform” ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law 22 (3) 534 – 560.

By Pier Francesco Zarcone*

The sudden rupture of diplomatic relations with Qatar announced by Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates and Yemen on Jun. 5 triggers a crisis with unexpected outcomes and is likely to spell big trouble as much for those who wanted it as for the likely behind-the-scenes co-protagonist: the United States.

It takes no stretch of the imagination to argue that this situation, which exploded shortly after US President Donald Trump’s May 20-21 visit to Saudi Arabia for the Riyadh Summit, is connected with this trip. On that occasion, the US president assumed two positions that were only formally contradictory but, in substance, reveal the existence of a precise design for further destabilisation in the area.

Trump both riled against jihadist terrorism and pointed to Iran as his great enemy. So, on one hand, he sides with that Saudi Arabia which has spread and fuelled the real feeding ground of that terrorism around the world, namely Wahhabi Islamic radicalism; on the other, picks on Iran which is not spreading that terrorism if for no other reason than jihadism is Sunni while the Iranian state is Shiite. Iran certainly has something to do with the Qatar crisis, but not as the only factor.

The issue is complex and has to be put in context.

In Trump’s view, two “mistakes” made by the United States in the Middle East have to be rectified: the first was the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime, with the consequence of allowing the Iraqi Shiite majority to gain power, thus extending Iranian influence in the region, then expanding with the Syrian crisis; the second was former US President Barack Obama’s “clearance” of Iran by reaching an agreement with Tehran on the nuclear issue. For Trump, the logical outcome of this is strengthening ties with Israel and Saudi Arabia.

From this point of view, Qatar became a target because of its ambiguous and opportunistic policy. At the Riyadh Summit, the government of this small state failed to adhere to the Saudi programmes – which are shared by Trump – and furthermore the media of Qatar carried the fiery declarations of Emir Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani against the decisions of the summit: namely the lines against Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Palestinian Hamas movement, two organisations that Qatar supports and finances. Add to this the fact that Qatar maintains excellent political and trade relations with Iran.

The lack of religious and ideological homogeneity between Doha and Tehran is totally irrelevant both because Middle East policies have particular logics – in fact, Qatar is a well-known supporter of jihadism in Syria and Libya – and because economic interests have their weight – in fact, Qatar and Iran share exploitation of a very rich offshore gas field, the South Pars/North Dome field.

The latter is already sufficient for Qatar not to break its relations with Tehran, given that it accounts for more than two-thirds of the gas production of both countries.

At the same time, Qatar is home to the headquarters in the Middle East of the US Central Command (CENTCOM), where at least 10,000 soldiers are stationed.

Arab politics is sometimes two-sided, sometimes three-sided.

In the current situation, Qatar’s eccentric position with respect to the political interests of the other countries of the Arabian Peninsula could not remain without consequences: in Syria and Iraq, the jihadists are close to defeat, and Arab monarchies have hurried to “reposition” themselves, aligning with the United States as if they had never supported Jihadist radicalism and collecting the reward of generous US military aid for their about-turn. Qatar instead insists on wanting to play on its own.

It is always difficult at the start of an international crisis to rule out or not whether talk will give way to arms. For the time being it can only be noted how the well-known Qatar TV channel Al Jazeera has modified the language about Syria, speaking for the first time of a “government army” or “Syrian army” when referring to President Bashar al-Assad’s troops, hitherto called “troops of the regime”. Furthermore, due to closure of the only land border (that with Saudi Arabia), the more than probable hypothesis is being ventilated in Doha of increasing sea-going trade with Iran.

However, it is not at all a foregone conclusion that Qatar will become part of the Iranian block: to do so would, with all probability, mean war.

Iran aside, the divergence between Saudi Arabia and Qatar has nothing to do with religious ideology, given that both are Wahhabi states. The contrast is political and personal, and has deep roots: as early as 1955, when the father of the current emir seized power in Qatar through a coup d’état, Saudi Arabia came to the point of asking Egypt for a military intervention against the usurper, without obtaining it.

Then, when Abdel Fattah al-Sisi overthrew President Mohamed Morsi in Egypt with Saudi support, there was a brief suspension of diplomatic relations between Riyadh and Doha, which instead supported the Muslim Brotherhood. Qatar’s support for this organisation has never ceased and, although not definable hostile a priori to Wahhabism, it is however a bitter political enemy of the Saudi monarchy – not to mention the current Egyptian and Syrian regimes.

In addition, Saudi Arabia has long accused Qatar of providing active support to Shiite minorities in the territories of Riyadh and Bahrain, and this casts dangerous shadows over Yemen, where the Saudis are bogged down in a war against Houthi rebels (Shiites), a conflict that they have not been able to win so far, even with US aid.

Ultimately, what was supposed to be the “Arab NATO” wanted by Washington is dead even before being born, and the consequence could be great instability throughout the Persian Gulf. Trump has wanted to play a dangerous card and it will come as no surprise if misguided US attempts at destabilisation backfire once again.

Especially if it were to be true that Trump is aiming for a military clash with Iran.

* Pier Francesco Zarcone, with a degree in canonical law, is a historian of the labour movement and a scholar of Islam, among others. He is a member of Utopia Rossa (Red Utopia), an international association working for the unity of revolutionary movements around the world in a new International: la Quinta (The Fifth). This article originally appeared in Italian under the title Perché il Qatar? in Utopia Rossa. Translated by Phil Harris.

Bob Higgs in a recent article on all the foolishness in American higher education reminds us of what a danger we face as our colleges attempt to mold students into young Jacobins.

In light of the state of American education, we need some bright spot on what is a dismal landscape. One bright spot I have found is the blog America Restored which is operated by several high school students.

In trying to rekindle a respect for liberty in modern America, these students advise “the key to accomplishing this is to stop asking the world for approval, and begin doing what you know is right.

Once you do this, you will feel happiness and joy, rather than discomfort and nervousness. Read the words from the men and women who came before us, who loved and cherished liberty, and you will see that they knew these things to be true.”

This is a good point for us all to remember. Rather than seeking approval from those in power or those enthralled with our current welfare-warfare state, we should do what we know is right whether it causes discomfort or chastisement. It encourages me to see young folks devoted to liberty in a world that prefers to focus on power and intervention. Check them out.

This article was published at The Beacon.

By Laurence M. Vance*

I saw a small sign stuck in the grass near the side of a road where I live in Orlando that I have never seen before. I wrote down the text on the sign so I could remember it. It simply said:

Legal Weed

Office Visit $199

Signs like this were inconceivable until January 3 of this year. That is the day when Florida’s Amendment 2 took effect, “The Florida Medical Marijuana Legalization Initiative.” Amendment 2 appeared on the November 8, 2016, ballot in Florida as an initiated constitutional amendment under the title of: Use of Marijuana for Debilitating Medical Conditions. The ballot summary reads:

Allows medical use of marijuana for individuals with debilitating medical conditions as determined by a licensed Florida physician. Allows caregivers to assist patients’ medical use of marijuana. The Department of Health shall register and regulate centers that produce and distribute marijuana for medical purposes and shall issue identification cards to patients and caregivers. Applies only to Florida law. Does not immunize violations of federal law or any non-medical use, possession or production of marijuana.

Florida voters overwhelmingly passed Amendment 2 by a vote of 71.32 to 28.68 percent. Article X, section 29 of the Florida constitution has been amended to allow Floridians access to marijuana for medical use. There are now 29 states that have legalized medical marijuana, plus the District of Columbia.

But all is not well.

According to the text of Amendment 2, a “debilitating medical condition” means

cancer, epilepsy, glaucoma, positive status for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), Crohn’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, or other debilitating medical conditions of the same kind or class as or comparable to those enumerated, and for which a physician believes that the medical use of marijuana would likely outweigh the potential health risks for a patient.

“Identification card” means “a document issued by the Department that identifies a qualifying patient or a caregiver.”

“Medical use” means “the acquisition, possession, use, delivery, transfer, or administration of an amount of marijuana not in conflict with Department rules.”

“Caregiver” means

a person who is at least twenty-one (21) years old who has agreed to assist with a qualifying patient’s medical use of marijuana and has qualified for and obtained a caregiver identification card issued by the Department. The Department may limit the number of qualifying patients a caregiver may assist at one time and the number of caregivers that a qualifying patient may have at one time. Caregivers are prohibited from consuming marijuana obtained for medical use by the qualifying patient.

“Physician” means “a person who is licensed to practice medicine in Florida.” According to the Orlando Sentinel: “More than 630 physicians have been licensed by the state — with dozens in Orlando — to recommend medical cannabis to patients.”

“Physician certification” means

a written document signed by a physician, stating that in the physician’s professional opinion, the patient suffers from a debilitating medical condition, that the medical use of marijuana would likely outweigh the potential health risks for the patient, and for how long the physician recommends the medical use of marijuana for the patient. A physician certification may only be provided after the physician has conducted a physical examination and a full assessment of the medical history of the patient. In order for a physician certification to be issued to a minor, a parent or legal guardian of the minor must consent in writing.

“Qualifying patient” means “a person who has been diagnosed to have a debilitating medical condition, who has a physician certification and a valid qualifying patient identification card.”

All medical marijuana treatment centers (MMTCs) must be registered with the Florida Department of Health.

RELATED: “Ludwig von Mises Explains the Drug War” by Laurence Vance

The Department of Health is tasked with issuing “reasonable regulations necessary for the implementation and enforcement of this section” to ensure “the availability and safe use of medical marijuana by qualifying patients.” No later than six months after the effective date of section 29, “the following regulations shall be promulgated”:

1. Procedures for the issuance and annual renewal of qualifying patient identification cards to people with physician certifications and standards for renewal of such identification cards. Before issuing an identification card to a minor, the Department must receive written consent from the minor’s parent or legal guardian, in addition to the physician certification.
2. Procedures establishing qualifications and standards for caregivers, including conducting appropriate background checks, and procedures for the issuance and annual renewal of caregiver identification cards.
3. Procedures for the registration of MMTCs that include procedures for the issuance, renewal, suspension and revocation of registration, and standards to ensure proper security, record keeping, testing, labeling, inspection, and safety.
4. A regulation that defines the amount of marijuana that could reasonably be presumed to be an adequate supply for qualifying patients’ medical use, based on the best available evidence. This presumption as to quantity may be overcome with evidence of a particular qualifying patient’s appropriate medical use.

The text of the amendment is also very clear that nothing in it “shall affect or repeal laws relating to non-medical use, possession, production, or sale of marijuana” or “authorizes the use of medical marijuana by anyone other than a qualifying patient.”

What a racket.

No one in Florida in pain because he suffers from a “debilitating medical condition” can obtain marijuana to alleviate his pain without jumping through numerous hoops and going to great expense even though he can easily purchase and consume all the Tylenol, aspirin, or alcohol he wants to. Yet, these three substances (especially alcohol) cause many deaths every year while the number of deaths from marijuana every year is still a big fat zero.

So, what’s a libertarian to make of all this?

First of all, some freedom is better than no freedom. Some marijuana freedom is better than no marijuana freedom. Legal medical marijuana and illegal recreational marijuana is better than illegal medical and recreational marijuana. Legal medical marijuana with regulations and restrictions is better than illegal medical marijuana.

Second, limited federalism is better than no federalism. On the federal level, marijuana is classified as a Schedule I controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act with “a high potential for abuse” and “no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.” The Supreme Court case of Gonzales v. Raich (2005) affirmed the power of the federal government under the Constitution’s commerce clause to ban the medical use of marijuana. Yet, 29 states, including Florida, are permitted by the federal government to allow the medical use of marijuana.

Third, any adult should be able obtain marijuana just like he would obtain any other medicine. It shouldn’t matter what his medical condition is. He shouldn’t have to obtain an identification card. He shouldn’t have to be a qualified patient. No physician should need a special license to prescribe marijuana. Patients should be able to chose anyone to be a caregiver. No qualifications and standards for caregivers should be promulgated. No physician certification should have to be issued. No MMTCs should have to be registered. No regulations, reasonable or otherwise, should be issued by the government. The amount of marijuana possessed by a patient should not be limited. No prescription should have to be obtained to purchase marijuana. No physician should have to be seen before one is able to use marijuana for some ailment.

And fourth, the use of marijuana for any reason should be perfectly legal. There should be no laws at any level of government regarding the buying, selling, growing, processing, transporting, manufacturing, advertising, using, possessing, or “trafficking” of marijuana for any reason. There should be no laws at any level of government to prohibit, regulate, restrict, or otherwise control what a man desires to smoke, drink, inject, snort, sniff, inhale, swallow, or otherwise ingest into his mouth, nose, veins, or lungs. There should be no federal or state DEAs, no Office of National Drug Control Policy, no drug schedules, and no Controlled Substances Act. There should be marijuana freedom.

Originally published at LewRockwell.com.

About the author:
*Laurence M. Vance is an Associated Scholar of the Mises Institute, founder of the Francis Wayland Institute, and a columnist for LewRockwell.com and the Future of Freedom Foundation. He is the author of The War on Drugs is a War on Freedom; War, Christianity, and the State: Essays on the Follies of Christian Militarism, and War, Empire, and the Military: Essays on the Follies of War and U.S. Foreign Policy.

Source:
This article was published by the MISES Institute

After eight grueling years in the White House, ex-president Barack Obama looked forward with his wife Michelle to a deserved, extended rest and vacation. Nearly five months later, he’s enjoying the company of the rich and famous at their secluded mega-retreats so much that a generally sympathetic media has begun to describe a playboy’s leisure.

Since leaving office, the former self-styled community organizer has yachted with Tom Hanks and Hollywood mogul David Geffen, gone kite-surfing with billionaire Richard Branson at Necker Island in the British Virgin Islands, enjoyed the hospitality of designer Michael S. Smith in Southern California, turned up at the Mid-Pacific Country Club in Hawaii, journeyed to Tetiaroa in French Polynesia where, it is reported, he wants to write some of his memoir – part of a $65 million double book deal with Michelle.

In late April, he enjoyed a $400,000  pay day for a speech before a Wall Street firm, followed by an undisclosed fee for speaking in Milan, Italy. The former First Couple stayed at a “restored eight hundred year old village” owned by John Phillips, a former lawyer for the powerless turned multi-millionaire.

Meanwhile, back in Washington, DC, where the Obamas have purchased an $8 million home, Donald Trump is dismantling with cruel gusto as much of Obama’s legacy as he can. Obama spent his last months in office, with his lawyers, striving to Trump-proof his legacy.

However, apart from a few general statements objecting, without mentioning Trump, to the White House’s ban on people entering the United States from six majority Muslim countries, which is heading to the Supreme Court, and to Trump’s withdrawal from the voluntary Paris Climate Accord, Obama continues to engage in what Time Magazine calls his “staycation.”

In private conversations, Obama must be fuming, both personally and for the country’s future, as he sees it. But publicly, he is hewing to the tradition that former presidents do not criticize their successors, just as new presidents do not go after their predecessors. There is an unwritten understanding that such behavior is beneath the dignity of the Presidency and can lead to barrages of accusations. But, with mad Donald Trump in the White House, the old rules of engagement are clearly no longer applicable.

Self-serving traditions should be going out the window with the boorish, tweet-fueled mania of Donald Trump putting the wrecking ball to just about every federal program and obligation serving the health, safety and economic necessities of people in need. At the same time, Trump regularly attacks Obama for “the mess” he left him and serves up other fallacious jabs against his predecessor.

President Obama’s silence is all the more noticeable in the absence of new leadership from the Democratic Party. Despite the tradition of former presidents passing the baton to the next generation of leaders of their party, today’s Democratic Party is largely leaderless, leaving Obama still at center stage for much of the public. He understands the gap. For while launching the Obama Foundation for his presidential library in Chicago, he announced as a major goal the “training and elevating of a new generation of political leaders in America.”

Obama no doubt believes that taking on Trump would distract from Trump’s daily penchant for self-destruction and the deepening quagmire surrounding his conflicted, frantic, bellicose, narcissistic White House. Still, there is a need to offer positive reinforcement for all those people marching, rallying and filling the usually empty seats at Congressional town meetings around the country.

That is a mission Obama avoided during his presidency as he flew out of town for nearly five hundred fat-cat fundraisers during his eight years in office.

Barack Obama has always been very clever at telling us that he shares our sense of fair play. In his best-selling book, The Audacity of Hope (2006), then Senator Obama admitted: “I know that as a consequence of my fund-raising I became more like the wealthy donors I met. I spent more and more of my time above the fray, outside the world of immediate hunger, disappointment, fear, irrationality and frequent hardship of…the people that I’d entered public life to serve.”

Well, it is never too late for Obama to translate these candid words into deeds. With his wealth and a few other donors he can assemble and organize watchdog groups in Washington, DC to counter the corporate wish lists being presented to a very accommodating White House. Each group, with a modest $1 million annual budget, can field ten determined public advocates to resist what Trump advisor Steve Bannon has referred to as the “deconstruction of the administrative state.” This, of course, means in real terms the dismantling of the Food and Drug Administration, the Federal Trade Commission, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, sensible protections for auto safety, railroads and aviation and so many other agencies and programs that protect Americans every day. Other groups can resist the expanding corporate welfare and corporate tax giveaways, the bloated waste at the unauditable Pentagon, the surrenders to Wall Street  and the curtailment of our civil liberties and civil rights.

That’s one immediate and impactful way of fomenting a “new generation of leaders.”

With his resources and platform, Obama can put additional, organized civil actions on the back of Trump’s regime of corporatism, militarism and racism. He can do that with ease, if he can resist the temptations of his plutocratic friends that he cautioned himself, and us, about in public eleven years ago.

Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) is already drafting articles of impeachment related to Trump’s firing of FBI Director James Comey, believing there’s enough evidence of Trump’s obstruction of justice to begin an impeachment inquiry (not to mention Trump’s blatant violation of the Constitutions emoluments clause by profiting off his presidency, and much else).

But Democratic leaders are pushing back, warning there aren’t enough facts to justify an impeachment inquiry at this point, and, in any event, such an inquiry would politicize ongoing congressional investigations.

Baloney.

Historically, the three previous impeachment inquiries in the House (involving presidents Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton) rested on less evidence of obstruction of justice than is already publicly known about Trump.

Comey’s testimony to Congress is itself more than enough – confirming that Trump demanded Comey’s loyalty, asked Comey to stop investigating Michael Flynn, repeatedly told Comey the FBI investigation was a “cloud” on his presidency, and asked Comey to declare publicly that Trump wasn’t an object of the investigation

In addition, we have Trump’s interview with Lester Holt on NBC and Trump’s subsequent meeting with Russian officials in the Oval Office. In both instances, Trump connected his firing of Comey with the Russian investigation.

Also bear in mind the obstructions of justice that caused the House to impeach previous presidents concerned issues far less serious than Trump’s possible collusion with a foreign power to win election.

Democratic leaders say they don’t want to talk about impeachment now because they’re worried about politicizing the current congressional investigations, which aren’t impeachment inquiries. Hello? Republicans have already politicized them.

The real reason Democratic leaders don’t want to seek an impeachment now is they know there’s zero chance that Republicans, who now control both houses of Congress, would support such a move. So why engage in a purely symbolic gesture?

Democratic leaders figure that between now and the midterm elections there will be even more revelations from non-partisan sources – future testimony by Trump operatives like Michael Flynn and Roger Stone, early reports from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, and leaks to the press – that will build the case, and fuel more public outrage.

That outrage will give Democrats a strong chance of taking back the House and maybe even the Senate. Then they’ll really impeach Trump.

I can’t argue with the political logic of Democratic leaders. And if their strategy will lead to Trump’s ouster sooner than any other way, I’m all for it.

But here’s the problem. It’s not clear America can wait for the midterm elections, followed by what’s likely to be a long and drawn-out impeachment investigation, followed by a trial in the Senate. (Note that none of the presidents listed above was ever convicted by the Senate and thrown out of office.)

With each passing day, Donald Trump becomes a greater danger to America and the world. We don’t have time.

The advantage of introducing a bill of impeachment now – even attempting to do so – is that such an action might itself galvanize the vast majority of Americans who want Trump out of office. It could mobilize and energize people around the most important immediate issue facing the country.

Never underestimate the power of a public aroused to action. It is worth recalling that Nixon resigned of his own accord before the House had even voted out an impeachment resolution. The American public demanded it.

While the party of power seems to be in total control of elections both in the regions and for the country as a whole, all candidates must recognize that the worldwide anti-elite wave that led to Brexit and other unexpected changes in Western countries could come to Russia and affect electoral outcomes there, according to Minchenko Consulting.

Such outcomes are unlikely, the Moscow analytic company says. They are “black swan” events, of course; but they are not impossible and could affect one or more of the 16 gubernatorial races in the Russian Federation this year (znak.com/2017-06-05/eksperty_predupredili_vremennyh_gubernatorov_o_riskah_vyalotekuchih_izbiratelnyh_kampaniy).

As things stand now, the Minchenko experts say, there is a chance of genuinely competitive elections in only four of the 16 federal subjects were elections are to be held – Buryatia, Mari El, Sevastopol, and Kirov Oblast – largely because of the existence of serious intra-elite divisions.

In four others – Novgorod, Yaroslavl, Sverdlovsk and Saratov oblasts – the incumbent is seeking to build on his support; and in the remaining eight, the elections are currently of the “referendum” type. There are no serious competitors and none are foreseen. As a result, voters are being asked simply to reaffirm their support for those now in charge.

But things could change in any of these contests, Minchenko Consulting says, promising to provide monthly updates in the run-up to the voting. Among the “black swan” events would be the growth of local protests, the intersection of regional voting and the upcoming presidential election, and the impact of what they call “the Brexit effect.”

Because of these risks, the consultants say, no governor can afford to assume that what is true now will be true on election day and rely on the inertness of the population. And they add that there is a particular reason for this: Campaigns without clear alternatives “add nothing to legitimacy, but on the other hand, they raise the level of risk.”

Traditionally, farming community have always been held in high esteem in India.  Therefore, if the farmers feel distressed, Indian society as a whole should feel concerned and want such distress conditions to be removed as early as possible.

In the last few months, the farming community has become very vocal in India and has resorted to agitations on one count or another.

Distress due to different reasons

In some states like Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, many farmers have suffered during last one year due to drought conditions and consequent fall in crop output.  In other regions like Maharashtra and Telangana, farmers are distressed due to surplus crop production and consequent crashing of prices in the market.

Both are genuine issues and it is the duty of the country to help the farmers in such scenario.

Types of farmers

There are different types of people involved in agricultural operations and all of them claim that they are farmers. The question is whether all of them are  justified  in  claiming themselves as farmers.

One section of people have agricultural land in rural areas but they live in far away places engaged in some other profession and  they lease out the land.  They also call themselves as farmers.

Another section live near the agricultural land they hold  but never get into the land to plough or cultivate, but engage workmen to do the physical labor and pay them wages. They also call themselves farmers.

Another section hold small area of land and physically work on the land themselves. They are genuine farmers.

A fourth section of people do not hold any land but work on the agricultural field on daily wages basis. They are tillers and economically most distressed. The three classes of people described above do not recognize these tillers as farmers.

The most affected lot during the distress conditions in agricultural operations are the tillers (agricultural workers) who are left high and dry.

Benefits for farmers

The government has initiated number of schemes such as crop insurance, soil health card e marketing of agri products, kisan credit card scheme to avail quick loan etc.  No doubt, the farmers  are given considerable benefits by the government such as free electricity, exemption from income tax etc. There is no distinction made in providing such benefits to the large , medium and small scale farmers.

However, it appears that such schemes are not giving adequate relief to the farming community.

Demand for loan waiver

While the government has given number of relief to the farmers, the major demand of the farmers now is that the entire agricultural loan should be waived all over the country. The government and the banks find it difficult to do so as it would cause distress situation for the banks and severely affect the finances of the government. But, the farmers do not seem to care  about the problems of the government and the banks.

Nevertheless, several state governments have waived agricultural loan availed by the farmers partly and in some states fully in recent years, inspite of the deficit scenario that the government will face. Such waiver of loan inevitably would affect the ability of the government and banks to implement development projects and introduce welfare measures for the poor people.

Now, the question is that while distress in agricultural operations do cause serious problems to the farmers resulting in default of loans, even in the non distress period , many farmers default on loan repayment due to many reasons including their indiscipline in personal and family finance management. Violently agitating farmers seem to ignore this view.

Violent agitation not appropriate

In any case,  it is not appropriate that farmers should engage themselves in violent protests like stoning transport buses and blocking roads and rails or  unseemly protests  like eating rat or undressing themselves in public.

Such behavior of agitating farmers are causing harm to the good will enjoyed by them so far and many discerning observers wonder whether the farmers should resort to such extreme form of protests . Many people are also wondering whether these agitators are really the hard working farmers or some people with vested interests whose goal  may not be farmers’ welfare alone.

There is no doubt that conscience of the nation feel disturbed when farmers are in distress. But, farmers should realize that such violent form or unseemly agitations do not help their cause.
It is always seen that some of the so called leaders of agricultural groups talk and behave more like politicians these days than like farmers.

Common men in the country are noting this.

The farmers need to realize that there are many people who are not involved in agricultural operations but in several other areas who are equally distressed. If everyone start violent agitations, where would such conditions end up?

On Thursday, all of the attention of Trump-impeachment-obsessed Democrats and the majority of their news media minions was focused on the hearing of fired FBI director James Comey.
While the news media actively protected President Obama from negative coverage, the same media people can’t bash President Trump enough.

These President Donald Trump-hating leftists were disappointed when Comey testimony showed that: Trump is not now, nor has he ever been, under investigation by the FBI; President Obama’s attorney general, Loretta Lynch, told Comey not to call the probe into Hillary Clinton’s endless scandals an “investigation,” but rather a “matter”; and that Comey himself leaked his own memo about meetings with Trump, giving them to a leftist university professor to secretly turn over to a news media denizen.

But on Thursday, there was another hearing that uncovered much more explosive and disturbing information: President Barack Obama and his administration disbanded national security units which were originally charged with investigating Iran’s network of Islamic terrorism funding.

Obama, Valerie Jarrett (born in Iran), Susan Rice and other members of the former President’s inner-circle “systematically disbanded” special law enforcement units throughout the federal government that were investigating the Iranian, Syrian, and Venezuelan terrorism financing networks. Obama and his Secretary of State John Kerry were concerned the counter-terrorism units would lead to Iranian officials walking away from Obama’s precious nuclear deal with Iran, according to a former U.S. official with expertise in dismantling criminal financial networks.

The key witness during the Iran hearing, David Asher, had worked for U.S. Army Gen. John Allen at both Defense and State Departments. He testified before Republican and Democratic members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee that top cops and spies with several key law enforcement and intelligence agencies in the Obama administration were intentionlly prevented from targeting the terrorism financing operations of Iran, Hezbollah, and Venezuela during Kerry’s nuclear negotiations with his Iranian counterparts.

After months of investigating President Donald Trump’s unproven conspiracy with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin to derail the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton, some lawmakers are turning their attention to the alleged deception by President Barack Obama and his minions to get his “do or die” nuclear deal with Iran.

Republican leaders of the House Committee initiated a full-scale investigation into the Obama administration’s activities getting a nuclear deal many believed was a farce at best, a deadly mistake at worst. They are also probing last year’s controversial prisoner swap with Iran for over a billion dollars.

Lawmakers and national security experts believed — and continue to believe — that Obama, his Secretary of State John Kerry and White House advisers actually hurt the U.S. government’s effort to end Iran’s nuclear weapons program. The so-called “pact” was also sold to the American people as a step in the right direction to ceasing the Iranian government’s weapons trafficking networks.

“A number of former intelligence and counter-terrorism officers were concerned with the way the deal was negotiated and the misrepresentation of the nuclear pact’s details by Obama’s questionable national security team,” said former military intelligence operative and police unit commander George O’Brien. “Remember how the assistant national security adviser Ben Rhodes admitted to being deceitful in order to get the deal accepted? That alone should have triggered a probe not only by Congress, but also the Justice Department,” Lt. O’Brien said.

In a May 5 letter, Republican Reps. Jason Chaffetz and Ron DeSantis asked Attorney General Jeff Sessions to produce Justice Department documents they said would “help the Committee in better understanding these issues.” They sent the same letter to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson demanding all related documents to the Iran deal in the State Department’s possession.

Chaffetz had given both officials a deadline to provide one copy of them to committee Republicans, and another to the Oversight Committee’s Democratic Party lawmakers.

In part, the letter stated: When President Obama revealed a prisoner exchange agreement with Iran in January 2016, he announced the release of one Iranian and six Iranian-Americans convicted of crimes or awaiting trial. The President described the exchange as a benign “reciprocal humanitarian gesture,” and went as far as to call the individuals released “civilians” who “were not charged with terrorism or any violent offenses.” Among those granted clemency were individuals that the Justice Department deemed threats to national security. The news account identified 14 Iranian fugitives accused of serious crimes for whom the Obama Administration dropped criminal charges, but never released the names or charges. These reports note an Iranian spokesperson contradicted the Administration’s position by claiming there were 28 Iranians “freed or relieved from judicial restrictions” as part of the prisoner exchange agreement. If true, this leaves seven individuals unaccounted for. [It was] also reported that Obama Administration officials blocked and delayed law enforcement efforts to lure Iranian fugitives to countries where they could be arrested and to extradite Iranian suspects in custody overseas.

Chaffetz also wrote to the officials, “Please also make your staff available for a briefing on these issues no later than May 25.”

“The noose tightens, the clock is ticking and Jason Chaffetz will get to the bottom of this. Don’t forget Jason has an ace up his sleeve, Trey Gowdy is also on the committee investigating Obama. That should terrify him,” according to the Republican Post.

Goth-rock legend Alice Cooper has revealed his ‘Paranoic Personality’, the first single from his forthcoming album Paranormal, set for release on June 28, Gigwise said.

Produced by long-time collaborator Bob Ezrin, the track premiered on BBC Radio 2’s Chris Evans Breakfast Show on Thursday June 8, as well as on Alice Cooper’s own radio show Nights With Alice Cooper.

Fuelled with heavy riffs and guitar solo, ‘Paranoic Personality’ marks a return to the Cooper’s classic rock roots as the 69-year-old lambasts a number of personal attacks predicting his downfall.

The first taste of new album material from the iconic School’s Out rocker for six years, Paranormal features a host of rock royalty in support, including ZZ Top guitarist Billy Gibbons, U2 drummer Larry Mullen, Deep Purple bassist Roger Glover.

It also sees the highly anticipated mini-reunion of the original Alice Cooper band members on a very special bonus release, featuring two brand new studio songs written and recorded together with Dennis Dunaway, Neal Smith and Michael Bruce.

As the diplomatic crisis in the Gulf entered its seventh day with Doha failing to gain support from major world powers, Qatari Foreign Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al-Thani visited Moscow Saturday.

But Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov took a neutral stand and called for dialogue to resolve the crisis. He said: “We cannot be happy in a situation when the relations between our partners are worsening. We are in favor of resolving any disagreements through… dialogue.”

Riyadh, meanwhile, stressed that an immediate change of policy by Qatar is essential.

“Fighting terrorism and extremism is no longer a choice, rather… a commitment requiring decisive and swift action to cut off all funding sources for terrorism regardless of its financier,” the Saudi Press Agency (SPA) cited an official source as saying.

Yousef Al-Otaiba, UAE ambassador to the US, told the official WAM news agency: “The next step is for Qatar to acknowledge these concerns and commit to reexamine its regional policies. This will provide the necessary basis for any discussions.”

Bahrain “stressed the necessity of Qatar’s commitment to correct its policies and to engage in a transparent manner in counter-terrorism efforts,” its official BNA news agency said.

Meanwhile, the EU is talking to all sides directly involved in the diplomatic crisis with two messages: Avoid any further escalation and engage in a political dialogue, in particular taking advantage of Kuwaiti mediation efforts, said a top EU official.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said he has never known Qatar to give support to terror organizations. “They declare foundations established to provide different services as terror organizations. Something like this should not happen. I know those foundations. Until today I have not witnessed Qatar give support to terror,” Erdogan said.

The Turkish leader called for the “blockade” against Doha to be “completely lifted,” urging Saudi Arabia to show leadership and encourage good relations in the region.

In another development, Qatar hired John Ashcroft, the US attorney general during the Sept. 11 attacks, as it seeks to rebut accusations from US President Donald Trump and its Arab neighbors that it supports terrorism.

By Maria Dubovikova*

Links between seemingly unconnected matters have become apparent. Russia is considering delivering the S-400 missile system to Turkey. The two sides are finalizing the agreement over delivery of the sophisticated air-defense system. Moscow is even considering giving Ankara a loan to seal the deal. The S-400 is supposed to protect Turkish airspace from any infiltrators. The purchase marks further improvement in bilateral ties and cooperation.

The two countries are intensively trying to rebuild relations since their clash over Ankara’s downing of a Russian fighter jet in November 2015 over the Turkish-Syrian border. A NATO member, Turkey is currently experiencing turbulent relations with other member states.

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s ambitions and political tools hardly correlate with the West’s visions and aspirations. While the West severely criticizes Ankara for oppressing political opponents and moving toward dictatorship, Turkey is looking for its own distinguished status on the geopolitical map.

Recent developments around Raqqa and full-scale US support of Kurdish militias raise many questions for Ankara regarding the situation after the Syrian city’s liberation from Daesh, as the Kurdish issue is critical to Turkey.

Meanwhile, Turkey and Russia are cooperating over Syria despite serious disagreements, which appear to be less significant than those with the West. Moscow and Ankara are forming a resilient trilateral alliance with Tehran in the framework of the Astana formula, to some extent counterbalancing the US and its allies.

At present, Russia and Turkey are ready to communicate, negotiate and diversify their options. They are interested in each other as strategic partners to solve many issues on their national agendas. Their rapprochement has become far more interesting in the context of the current crisis between Qatar and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). Qatari leaders, among others, have had phone calls with Russian, Iranian and Turkish counterparts.

Turkey historically has had very close ties with Qatar, and both support the Muslim Brotherhood, whose designation as a terrorist group is under discussion within the Trump administration.

Erdogan on Tuesday said the sanctions against Qatar are “not right,” asking: “Have we solved the crises in Libya, Yemen, Syria and Iraq to also add this (Gulf) crisis?” Turkey is calling for an easing of tensions while announcing its support of its old ally, despite the risk of tensions with other GCC states.

Qatar and Russia enjoy very warm relations due to mutual economic interests, mainly in the last two years. Qatar owns 20 percent of the Rosneft integrated oil company, which is majority-owned by the Russian government. Meanwhile, Qatar is actively investing in Russia’s economy and is a major player in its investment market.

When tensions with the GCC escalated, Qatar’s ambassador in Moscow had an urgent meeting with Russia’s foreign minister, after which there were phone conversations between both countries’ foreign ministers.

There are indications that Russia and Turkey are coordinating their stances on the issue. Most likely their positions will fully correlate, with calls to ease tensions while maintaining ties with Doha. Qatar has received the endorsement from its two close friends that it was seeking.

Tehran is closely watching the crisis, and immediately offered to boost ties with Doha at the expense of other GCC members. This poses the question of whether Iran is trying to interfere, as it is eager to use the situation for its own interests. The trilateral alliance of Russia, Turkey and Iran is turning out to be a quartet with Qatar.

This latest crisis was unexpected considering the unity of GCC states, and it is endangering them. Phone calls amid the crisis have been deemed a litmus test for real friends who are willing to voice their firm backing of Doha.

If Qatar persists in funding terrorism and extremism in the region, as well as supporting the Brotherhood, without easing tensions by accepting what its fellow GCC members require, it is doomed to lose and be an outcast. This is undesirable for Qatar.

Analysts expect that Doha will not relinquish its policies due to backing from Turkey, Russia and Iran. Miscalculations by major players in the Middle East could leave the region in the hands of Tehran, which would worsen the GCC dispute for its own interests.

• Maria Dubovikova is a prominent political commentator, researcher and expert on Middle East affairs. She is president of the Moscow-based International Middle Eastern Studies Club (IMESClub). She can be reached on Twitter: @politblogme.

By Giancarlo Elia Valori*

Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain – a small Shiite-majority State governed by the Sunnis – Eastern Libya of Haftar and the “Council” of Cyrenaica, the Maldives, Yemen and the Mauritius have all broken off any political, diplomatic and economic relations with the Qatar Emirate, governed by Sheikh Abdullah bin Nasser bin Khalifa al-Thani.

It is not the first time that Saudi Arabia interferes heavily in the internal affairs of the Emirate. In fact, on June 26, 2013, the very strong Saudi pressures forced the then Prime Minister Hamad bin Yassim Al Thani to resign.

The airlines of the aforementioned Sunni nations have also announced they will no longer operate flights to Doha, Qatar’s capital. The ships of the aforementioned countries do no longer dock in the Emirate’s ports and, above all, the small State’s food supplies, 50% of which are shipped by land by Saudi Arabia, are no longer delivered to Doha.

Seven-eight hundred articulated lorries that do not supply food to Qatar from its only land border and remain blocked in Saudi Arabia.

Hence the Emirate cannot hold out for long, and not even Iran, which is very cautious and does not want to create a casus belli right now, has so far shown any interest in replacing Saudi Arabia in preserving Qatar’s food supplies and commercial communications.

If Iran did so, it would automatically agree with Saudi Arabia and other countries that follow the block of Qatar ordered by Saudi Arabia.

It is worth recalling that so far Doha has not been economically affected by the many Middle East tensions. It hosts the Al Jazeera satellite network, linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, as well as Sheikh al-Qaradawi, who resides in the Emirate after being expelled from Egypt.

Qatar is the largest exporter of natural gas in the world and one of the top ones for oil, which tempts many people and, above all, could become the point of reference for some smaller Sunni producers and for a new economic and extraction negotiation between Sunnis and Shiites.

It should be noted that Al Jazeera was born from the ashes of the BBC Arab section.

In fact, al-Thani studied in Great Britain, as all the Jordanian royal family and it is by no mere coincidence that the Hashemite Kingdom of Joardan has not followed – at least for the time being – the hard line of Saudi Arabia and its allies.

Jordan is aware that it would only stand to lose in a Middle-East bellum omnium contra omnes. Moreover, in the division of the work underlying the new Saudi-US alliance, Jordan focuses on the Iraqi-Syrian axis, while the Sunni central bloc is moving rapidly against Iran.

Furthermore, in one single hour of trading, the Emirate stock market has dropped by 7.6% and Qatar’s Central Bank share prices have fallen by 5.7%.

The Emirate has also raised foreign and domestic loans for a total of 200 billion Us dollars to fund the new infrastructure network that shall be ready within 2022, the year of the Doha World Cup.

There will not even be the Gulf Council Football Cup scheduled for this year.

The Egyptian banks do no longer deal with Qatar’s and the Emirate’s currency is no longer accepted, traded and exchanged in the Sunni countries. The Egyptian entrepreneurs are rapidly disinvesting in Qatar.

As is always the case, the economic war begins before the military war.

In all likelihood, it is the beginning of a real war that will hit Qatar indirectly and the Islamic Republic of Iran directly.

After Donald Trump’s visit to Saudi Arabia on May 20, the first US foreign visit of the new US President and the beginning of a historic alliance – much stronger and sounder than the one that has already characterized Saudi and US bilateral relations since the First Gulf War – this act against Qatar is the first action of the “Sunni NATO” proposed by Trump.

The political and propaganda foundation is trite and largely counterfactual: Iran “favours terrorism”.

The pot calling the kettle black. In fact the main States that have been supporting the “sword jihad”, at least since 1996, are Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

According to some US sources, Saudi Arabia has spent at least 100 billion US dollars to spread Wahhabism, the Sunni tradition characterizing the Saudi Kingdom.

Just think that – in its 70 years of life – the USSR spent only 7 billion US dollars to spread Soviet Communism abroad.

2,500 Saudis are supposed to be still in Daesh-Isis ranks,

According to Iranian sources, the Iranians who joined Daesh-Isis are only 23 and are only Sunni Kurds.

As clearly shown by the Wikileaks of Hillary Clinton’s private e-mails, everybody knows that Saudi Arabia is a careful and generous funder of the Syrian-Iraqi Caliphate and it is strange that today Iran is blamed instead of Saudi Arabia.

Conversely, it is much more likely that Saudi Arabia, which now experiences a well known depletion of its largest and “oldest” oil wells, wants to immediately settle its accounts with the Iranian competitor.

According to data of March 2017, Iran currently exports as many as 3,37 million barrels a day as against 10,000 barrels per day before the P5 + 1 agreement.

The occasion making the riots between Saudi Arabia and Qatar occur was a note written last May by Emir al-Thani praising Israel and Iran – a note that Qatar’s news agency had defined fake news, as is today customary practice.

Nevertheless, later the Emir of Qatar congratulated Hassan Rouhani, the re-elected Iranian president, in an official phone call.

It was really too much for Saudi Arabia which, however, should know that Qatar and Iran have long been managing – on an equal footing – the largest natural gas field in the world, namely the South Pars-North Dome, even though the Iranian media criticize Qatar for the excessive gas extraction. It should also know that the Iranian Pasdaran leaders have long been collaborating with the Emirate’s intelligence services and that Qatar did not criticized Iran’s interferences during the Shiite uprising in Bahrain in January 2011. Finally, it should also know that the two States have had normal diplomatic relations since the demarcation agreement signed with Shah Pahlavi in 1969.

Therefore it is obvious that all the Gulf countries, including Qatar, are deeply concerned about Iran’s nuclear-conventional rearmament. In fact, all the Gulf Sunni powers, including Qatar, have already invested a total amount of 122 billion US dollars for rearming the region.

Hence realizing only today that the Emirate was a voice from outside, not following the herd of Saudi Arabia’s Sunni-Wahhabi hegemony, is really specious.

Also the United States should be more careful to take action against Qatar.

Al-Thani’s Emirate hosts the US Central Command, which is responsible for all US military operations and part of the intelligence ones for Afghanistan and the whole Middle East.

The US Air Force Command operating against Daesh-Isis is just outside the Emirate’s air base at Al-Udeid.

The United States knows all too well that Qatar has funded some Islamist groups and, above all, the Muslim Brotherhood that, in relation to the current jihad, plays the same role as the role played by the Eastern Communist Parties with regard to the Red Brigades or the Rote Armee Fraktion.

The Emirate, however, was also a very useful channel for the talks between the United States and the Taliban or other Islamist groups, as was the case with the liberation by the “Afghan students”’ of sergeant Bergdahl, who had been captured by the Taliban in 2009 and subsequently released in 2014.

Instead of mediating between Sunnis and Shiites, especially after Iran’s nuclear agreement of July 2014, the United States – and we fear even some of the most servile European allies – is even mounting fully useless tensions with Qatar only to follow their Saudi masters.

Conversely, in their meeting of May 20, the United States and Saudi Arabia drafted a document stating that Iran is the first sponsor of terrorism, which Qatar refused to sign, thus marking its end.

And creating the final casus belli with Iran, if nothing new emerges over the next few days.

An attack on Iran might come from Saudi Arabia itself, backed by Jordan on the sidelines, or, from a nuclear strike from the distant but nuclearized Pakistan, although we cannot rule out a Saudi-American naval block of the Persian Gulf to close communications and, above all, oil exports – as is already the case with Qatar.

Incidentally, a rise in oil price would currently be in the Saudi and US interest, but it would also favour Iran, which could sell its oil barrels to China – as it is already doing – and be paid in yuan, with the same trade logic of the current relations between Russia and China.

On the other hand, Saudi Arabia has long been giving orders and the United States is obeying them.

The Saudi lobby in the US establishment is much stronger than the Israeli one, that is much less powerful than it is believed.

From Henry Ford I, who translated Hitler’s Mein Kampf, to the Protestant and Puritan merchant banks, which have never hesitated to put obstacles in the way of Jewish finance, rarely avowed anti-Semitism has always been spreading in North American elites.

Colin Powell, the Secretary of State under George W. Bush’s Administration, was familiar with the Saudi Ambassador to Washington – and certainly the two Gulf Wars were better suited to the Saudi that the US strategic goals.

It is worth recalling that the Gulf strategic redesign, after Saddam Hussein’s fall, has really helped only one country, namely Iran.

Hence the United States eliminated a fierce enemy of Iran, with which the Shiites were fighting for ten years, and compressed the Taliban Sunni jihad, another deadly threat to the Shiite Republic of Iran.

Therefore, from now on, for the United States, Islamic terrorism (to which we never refers with its real name, jihad, which is a complex warlike technique, very different from Western war rationale) will be that of Hamas, which is a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood and is anyway funded by Iran, but also by the Sunni powers, and the Lebanese Hezb’ollah, which is certainly backed by Iran, but also by other Islamic and Sunni countries.

Hence, if the issue is “support to terrorism,” the United States should blame also and above all their Sunni allies, much more than they currently do with Iran and Qatar.

Therefore what would happen to the US Joint Command in the Emirate?

Does the United States think of transferring it, or rather, holding it hostage of Saudi Arabia?

Furthermore, Turkey signed a military alliance treaty with Qatar and pledged support for the Emirate if it were attacked.

And the Fifth US Fleet is stationed in Bahrain, another possible blackmail to the US in case of a Shiite-Sunni clash.

Obviously, considering the situation, an incident may occur at any time, especially between the US fleet and the Pasdaran small boats. There maritime areas are very narrow and Iran closely monitors the region: its large fleet of drones scans and patrols the ground and the movements of the troops.

Do we possibly want Turkey, NATO’s second Armed Force, to declare war on Saudi Arabia, with currently unimaginable consequences for the Alliance and the European economy?

It is really a nightmare to think about what would happen if a new oil crisis broke out in Europe, while there still persists the financial crisis originated in the United States in 2008, which shows no signs of abating.

According to the Financial Times, currently in North America, the burden of private and public debt is at record levels, even higher than those which caused the great financial crisis of 2008.

Indeed, the crisis had started in 2006 with the collapse of Lehman Brothers JP Morgan. Puritans vs. Jews.

American citizens have debt with credit cards to the tune of one trillion US dollars, and an additional trillion debt for student loans and also for buying houses and cars.

As from 2010 to date, US companies have debt amounting to 7.8 trillion US dollars and the aggregate debt – which is the sum of public and private debt – is even equal to 350% of GDP.

Just as the United States came out of the 1929 crisis only with World War II war expenses – and certainly not with the small Keynesian initiatives such as the Tennessee Valley Authority – today it could get out of the debt spiral and regain global strategic prominence only by starting a new great war, having the Middle East at its core.

A region that serves to contain Russia and China, regulate and control their economies and regionalize Europe and its euro, which is bothering the United States, as well as check where all the regional seas of the earth come, apart from Southeast Asia.

Nevertheless, currently the distribution of potentials is no longer that of the 1930s and 1940s and the strategic calculations described above may not provide the solution the United States desire.

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

Source:
This article was published by Modern Diplomacy

Pakistan-Afghanistan relations have dependably observed good and bad times for different reasons. Although, there have remained several expressions of friendly relations with the leadership of both the countries from time to time. The mistrust and blame game towards each other could never help bring the two countries on the same page with regard to various challenges that the two countries are faced with. As the two are important regional countries and both nations have stayed suspicious of each other. Both keep on remaining to experience some miscommunication, which will additionally hurt their long haul of security and economic interests. Let’s see what happened in Past? And how the present scenario will shape the future discourse and foreign Policy of the two neighbouring countries.

The recent waves of terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan have further fanned the blame game. In the previous week, Kabul was attacked badly which killed and wounded dozen of People. Pakistan was once again blamed for the attack which asserted 150 lives. Numerous experts contend that it was a security lapse on the part of Afghan security agencies. Since attacks carried out in Kabul, Helmand and Kandahar were all in security zones.

When Hamid Karzai assumed charge he was more prone toward India and wanted more role for the latter in Afghanistan due to which he often criticized Pakistan for destabilization in the country. After Karzai, Pakistan and Afghanistan relations saw a subjective change with enhanced respective relations. President Ashraf Ghani demonstrated his eagerness through his activities to work intimately with Pakistan to wipe out menace of terrorism. It was a noteworthy change in Afghan outside arrangement, which agitates Northern Alliance and frightened India.

Despite the fact that ISIS has claimed responsibility for various attacks but Afghanistan’s administration has constantly censured Pakistan for the turmoil, insurrection, supporting fear mongering, and so on and so forth in Afghanistan. Pakistan’s repeated assurance that cooperation in regional security issues is in the common interest of both and that they should work together to address the challenges, unfortunately, could not change Afghanistan’s stance. As a result, the Afghan Taliban and the TTP have continued to take full advantage of such increasing mistrust between Pakistan and Afghanistan by organizing deadly terrorist attacks on both sides of the porous border.

The fundamental distinction between the two militant groups in Pakistan and Afghanistan are quite clear. The TTP and its partners have been totally removed from Pakistan, and they now direct operations against Pakistan from Afghan soil. The Afghan Taliban on the other hand, may have some of its leader in Pakistan, but the rank and file of the organization is in Afghanistan and seems to be in the ascendance in its war against the Afghan national army and the rump US troops. The Afghan government has made it clear that it would not make any move against anti-Pakistan militant group, unless Pakistan made a move against the Haqqani Network. Pakistan does not want to widen the conflict by taking action against the Haqqani’s. Pakistan understand that the best way to peace in Afghanistan would be through peace negotiations.

Another wellspring of uncertainty and blame game between the two nations in the dominating part that India has begun playing in Afghanistan. Besides investing 2 billion in Infrastructure development, India has additionally grown extremely solid defense ties with Afghanistan, to Pakistan’s consternation. Pakistan feels that its nightmare of dealing with both its threatening Eastern and Western fronts in the meantime has come to be figured it out. To handle this danger and to support its wagers against cross-border terrorism, Pakistan has briefly shut its outskirt with Afghanistan at Torkham, Chaman and Ghulam Khan. Pakistan has also shelled militant camps across the border with artillery. In this regard, Pakistan efforts for stable Afghanistan are praise-worthy. It is also needs of time that Afghanistan should think out of the box and step ahead to create an environment of mutual trust and without their consensus it is would be difficult to achieve peace and prosperity in the region.

Pakistan and Afghanistan need to leave the Prisoner’s Dilemma as their future and destiny is connected. A precarious Afghanistan directly affects stability in Pakistan. It is important to say that the improvement of their trust that can best be accomplished through successive communication which is key for local peace and security. Both need to understand that to accomplish their destinations they need to trade off and collaborate on different issues. It is a fact that cooperation has better pay-offs. In order to come out of this dilemma, transparent and consistent policies need to be adopted. Pakistan understands that so as to secure its western outskirt and to secure exchange courses to CARs for the interest for oil and gas, it needs to work intimately with Afghanistan; while Afghanistan being landlocked will profit by steady and genuine association with Pakistan and can be free from Indian influence. In such manner, significant forces like the United States, China and Russia can play an important role to break the Prisoner’s Dilemma between the two and encourage and urge them to collaborate and cooperate for their economical political and territorial steadiness.

In nutshell, the Enemy of Pakistan and Afghanistan is same and in same shape and dress. Now it is a question that whether Afghanistan recognizes its enemy or will it externalize internal problem through blame game and false allegations against Pakistan?
*The writer is a Research Associate at Strategic Vision Institute and he can be reached at babarkhanbozdar@yahoo.com/babar@thesvi.org.

North Korea’s sabre rattling with nuclear programs and missile launches continue, with no concern to international opinion. In 2016, it conducted two nuclear tests and has launched dozens of missiles since the beginning of last year in defiance of world counsel and United Nations resolutions and in its quest to develop a missile capable of delivering a nuclear warhead to the continental US. Each time, there are indications that it is making advance with the ultimate aim to put a nuclear warhead atop a missile capable of hitting a US target.

Why is North Korea investing so much capital in such unproductive ventures when the country needs money to feed its impoverished people? Possession of nuclear weapon is seen as the only secured deterrence and ultimate guarantee to its security. The presence of close to 30,000 US marines in South Korea, the existence of US-South Korea security alliance and the conduct of annual military drills unnerve Pyongyang. It has always seen the annual military drill as preparation for the eventual invasion, which is why possessing nuclear weapons is considered as the only insurance from external attack. While North Korea’s contention is debatable, the truism is that it has hugely impacted the security of the region, creating unwelcome possibilities of escalation.

In the latest provocative act, North Korea launched a salvo of several suspected short-range surface-to-ship cruise missiles off its east coast on 8 June 2017 in continuation of weapons launches. Such acts by Pyongyang have rattled Washington and Seoul as the North seeks to build a nuclear missile capable of reaching the continental mainland US. According to South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, the launch came from North Korea’s eastern coastal town of Wonsan, and that the projectiles flew about 200 km with an apogee of about 2 km.

It may be recalled that after the conservative president Park Geun-hye was impeached, elections were held and a liberal has come to power. North Korea’s sabre rattling poses new challenges to the new liberal President Moon Jae-in even as he desires to reverse the former conservative rule’s hard-line policy and chosen a policy of engagement with the North. Even the Trump administration in the US is rattled and Trump has announced that all options, including a military strike, on the table. He also wants Beijing to do more to rein in the North’s weapons activities.

The missile firing of 8 June marked Pyongyang’s fifth known round since Moon took office in early May and fourth missile test in less than five weeks. It remains to be seen if Moon’s intended intensive push for easing military tensions and improving inter-Korean relations has any hope. By its acts, Pyongyang continues to defy UN warnings and US threats of possible military action.

The decision and timing of Pyongyang to launch the latest missile is significant. The projectiles were fired into waters between Japan and South Korea where US aircraft carriers USS Carl Vinson and USS Ronald Reagan participated in joint exercises with the South Korean Navy, which has just ended. It is possible that North Korea wanted to demonstrate that it has in its possession wide range of missiles that can hit participating ships in joint drills with precision strike capabilities.

Earlier on 29 May North Korea had fired a Scud-type ballistic missile from Wonsan. This kind of missiles can be used against both ships and ground targets. Understandably, the US is increasingly concerned about North Korea’s advance in missile capability, especially its intercontinental ballistic missile technology, with the US missile defence chief making his worries public. The Trump administration’s aim is to deter the North from making further advance so that it does not succeed to put a nuclear warhead small enough to fit atop a missile. Though it could take several years for the North to reach that stage, the pace in which it is making advance in perfecting the missile technology, the possibility for the North to succeed in its aim might not be unthinkable. While some analysts claim that North Korea has already developed the capability, others doubt such claims by the North. Trump has vowed it “won’t happen”, for whatever it means.

The intentions behind North Korea’s weapon tests are to build a nuclear and missile program that can stand up to what it sees as US and South Korean hostility. Outside analysts however see North Korea’s acts as means of bargaining and make political demands to the US and South Korea, including the removal of nearly 30,000 US troops in South Korea meant to check North Korean aggression.

North Korea is already under multiple UN resolutions and prohibited from testing nuclear weapons or missile technology and is already subject to multiple international sanctions. The UN Security Council has imposed additional sanctions and further tightened measures following more nuclear tests and missile launches by North Korea. Following the missile firing on 8 June, the UNSC unanimously adopted a US-drafted resolution imposing new targeted sanctions on a handful of North Korean officials and entities. The fresh sanctions by the UN Security Council unanimously approved to add 14 North Korean individuals and four North Korean companies or organisations to its blacklist. Out of the 14, Japan had already added two to its own sanctions blacklist.

North Korea remained undeterred and slammed the latest sanctions as “mean” and rejected the fresh wave of sanctions. It vowed to press ahead with its missile and nuclear weapons programs. Its relentless surge in weapons and missile program is to project an image to the world that international sanctions can never subdue its resolve to be a full-fledged nuclear power with striking capability, equal to sit at the high table with other nuclear powers. Its spokesperson for the Foreign Ministry said in a statement issued after the sanction were announced: “Whatever sanctions and pressure may follow, we will not flinch from the road to build up nuclear forces which was chosen to defend the sovereignty of the country and the rights to national existence and will move forward towards the final victory”.

Though Trump expects China, North Korea’s sole major ally, to do more to put pressure, China prefers talks and not more sanctions, though it stopped importing coal from North Korea. One of North Korea’s main sources of foreign currency is exports of coal. This came to a complete halt in April, according to data released by the UN Security Council’s committee on sanctions against North Korea.

In November 2016, the U.N. Security Council adopted a sanctions resolution setting value and volume limits on coal imports from North Korea. Complying to the UN resolution, China subsequently announced the suspension of coal imports from North Korea in February 2017. According to a report in Yimouri Shimbun, only one country reported imports of North Korean coal from January to March 2017. While the total volume of imported coal in January was 1.44 million tons, it was 1.23 million tons in February. Though the name of the country importing coal from North Korea was not revealed, it was apparent that China did continue importing coal in both January and February 2017. It is also believed that Malaysia too imported some amount of coal in March 2017.

The US is unwilling to enter into talk unless North Korea halts its missile and nuclear tests. Endorsing Trump’s hard line approach, American officials have indicated that military intervention in North Korea is an option on the table.

While the US ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley sent a clear message to North Korea: “Stop firing ballistic missiles or face the consequences”, China’s ambassador Liu Jieyi stressed that the resolution reiterated the importance of maintaining peace and security on the Korean Peninsula and northeast Asia and expressed the council’s commitment to a peaceful diplomatic and political solution, and to the importance of reducing tensions. Liu reiterated China’s often touted “dual-track” proposal, which means North Korea to suspend its nuclear and missile activities in exchange for a suspension of massive military exercises by the US and South Korea.

Russia with borders with North Korea backs the freeze-for-freeze proposal and prefers diplomatic option to address the issue. Russia is opposed to the logic of confrontation as a means to settle the issue. Thus both Russia and China being neighbours of North Korea prefer a peaceful diplomatic solution to the decade-long conflict and seek to restart talks with Pyongyang so that tensions do not exacerbate in the Korean Peninsula. The US and its allies, on the other hand, seek tougher sanctions to curb North Korea’s nuclear and missile development.

With both sides hardening their positions with no sign of either yielding to their respective positions, there is no way this deadlock could be broken. In the meantime, tension is aggravating by the day as North Korea continues to advance its missile technology. This creates enough room for an unintended conflict whose repercussion could be beyond imagination.

*Professor (Dr.) Panda is currently Indian Council for Cultural Relations India Chair Visiting Professor at Reitaku University, JAPAN. Disclaimer: The views expressed are author’s own and do not represent either of the ICCR or the Government of India.