By Sechaba Mokhethi

Snap elections held on June 3 have ushered Lesotho into a new political era, but the outgoing Pakalitha Mosisili government insists on setting terms for the new administration after losing the election on the heels of its earlier loss of a vote of no confidence on March 1.

The tiny Southern African kingdom has been plagued by political instability since 2014, with the Southern African Development Community (SADC) periodically intervening to restore peace and order – having also called for the 2015 snap election that was envisaged to resolve internal strife.

However, two-years down the line, Lesotho plunged into yet another election, the third in the space of five years. The latest election saw Prime Minister Mosisili lose executive power to All Basotho Convention (ABC) leader and former premier Thomas Thabane.

Although Mosisili conceded defeat and resigned, his administration has called for an international inquiry into what it calls “massive elections fraud leading to victory by the opposition Thabane-led pact” which also includes the Basotho National Party (BNP), the Reformed Congress of Lesotho (RCL) and the Alliance of Democrats (AD).

As he lost popularity, Mosisili – who leads the Democratic Congress (DC) – teamed up with the Lesotho Congress for Democracy (LCD) of outgoing Deputy Prime Minister Mothetjoa Metsing in a resolve to tighten their grip on power ahead of polls.  Their pact also included the Popular Front for Democracy (PFD) led by outgoing Minister of Home Affairs, Advocate Lekhetho Rakuoane.

The Mosisili-led election pact picked up 44 parliamentary seats, falling short of the 50 plus 1 percent necessary for forming a government. Its adversaries have declared they will move to form a new coalition government after they won 63 parliamentary seats in the polls, enabling them to form government.

“As the leaders of the four parties being the ABC, AD, BNP and the RCL, we accept the mandate given to these parties by the people through their vote, and we will therefore form the third coalition government of Lesotho,” said coalition leader Thabane.

However, Metsing, who has publicly called for the protection of the Lesotho Defence Force (LDF) – the army and air force of Lesotho – against the incoming Thabane regime, is urging the SADC to launch an urgent forensic audit of the election material used for the June 3 elections. Mosisili has, however, remained silent.

In a statement issued in Maseru on June 16 by Metsing, the coalition voiced concern over irregularities in elections as well as misconduct during the campaign period by individual parties comprising the opposition quartet that emerged victorious in the poll.

Metsing said the disgruntled alliance called for an in-depth forensic audit into electoral material that includes the national voters’ roll, certifications presented at voting stations, ballot accounts, the declaration of secrecy documents and applications for advance voting, among others.

He charged that some voters in particularly selected constituencies had registered after the closing time stipulated by the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC), that some individuals appeared several times on the electoral roll and voted twice, and that “there were also reports of people who voted yet did not appear on the roll at all.”

The government coalition has hinged its protest on Section 109 of Lesotho’s electoral law provision that “the Director (of elections) shall, for a period of 12 months after the elections period concerned, make available for public inspection the contents of all packets received by the director under this Act.”

“We forward this protest because we have tangible evidence that these elections were rigged using the voters’ roll,” said Metsing, though no evidence was adduced to support the claim. He added that evidence also indicated the registration of voters after the registration process had been closed by the IEC.

“Some of these people were added to the voters’ roll with a pen on election day and allowed to vote,” he said.

“We appeal to the SADC to conduct a forensic audit of the voters’ roll used for the June 3 elections,” the losing coalition said in a statement, further appealing for the involvement of international organisations and all stakeholders in ensuring that the audit succeeds.

In an interview with IDN, IEC spokesperson Tuoe Hantši said he was surprised at how government had accused the IEC of misconduct yet no complaint was lodged before the commission during the election period.

Nonetheless, he said, the commission had no problem with the auditing of its work, although “going to the SADC went too far because they had not even requested the IEC for an audit, which is allowed.”

Mafa Sejanamane, professor of political science at the National University of Lesotho, interprets Metsing’s utterances as tantamount to incitement to stage either a rebellion or a coup.

“We have had the experience of some politicians who tend to wrap themselves up with the army,” he said. “When they fail to get support to either stay in power or to get to power, they suddenly become the great protectors of the army against their opponents.

“Metsing has a reputation for doing just that. From 2014 when he had his difficulties with the law about corruption, he was suddenly surrounded by over a dozen heavily armed soldiers wherever he went.

“This continued until he boldly declared on national television that [Lieutenant General Tlali Kennedy] Kamoli – who had been dismissed as Commander of the Lesotho Defence Force – would remain in his position regardless. He incited continued rebellion within the military,” argued Sejanamane.

The South African government has made it clear that it will not tolerate a coup in Lesotho. “The coup thing is clear … we will not let it happen. Not in our backyard,” said the country’s Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, Maite Nkoana-Mashabane

Despite discontent on what he said were “rigged elections”, Metsing has called on the four parties that have already declared their coalition government to consider a government of national unity that would include all the parties represented in parliament.

In responding to this proposal, BNP deputy leader Joang Molapo recalled “the time we were preparing for a vote of no confidence and we approached the Mosisili-led government requesting the formation of a government of national unity for undertaking reforms because we had the numbers, but Metsing and other partners laughed at us.”

The incoming coalition’s main challenge remains the restoration of peace and stability through the implementation of the SADC-sponsored Commission of Inquiry into the killing of former LDF commander Maaparankoe Mahao by his soldiers.

Cardinal in the recommendations was the suspension of LDF officers suspected of crimes including treason, murders and attempted murder while the investigations proceeded. The Mosisili administration has since protected these suspects.

Twenty-three soldiers were imprisoned in 2015 and then placed under open arrest, while scores fled to South Africa. The government then tabled a Bill in parliament which was aimed at pardoning all LDF suspects wanted for crimes committed between 2007 and 2015. However, Mosisili was overthrown before the Bill could be endorsed by the House.

The incoming administration has voiced disinterest in the Bill, but wants to the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission that would see all people who have committed crimes and corruption confessing before the commission.

However, as it prepares to move out of office, Mosisili’s administration has set terms for the formation of such a commission. It says that the Commission should cover events beginning from 1970.

“It will not see the light of the day if it will only target Deputy Prime Minister Mothetjoa Metsing, Lieutenant General Kamoli and the events of 2014. They will not even appear before that commission if that is the case,” said Lesotho People’s Congress secretary general Bokang Ramatšella, who is also a partner in the outgoing coalition.

Kamoli and Metsing are the main suspects in the events that led to the country’s 2014 attempted coup and investigations into this incident were foiled when Mosisili came to power in 2015.

By Mariya Cheresheva

Members of the royal families of the Balkans and of Spain have descended on Sofia to celebrate the 80th birthday of Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Bulgaria’s last monarch and a former prime minister.

Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Bulgaria’s last reigning monarch before the Communist coup in 1944, will mark his 80th birthday at the royal palace on the outskirts of Sofia at Vranya at an event uniting members of European royal families, Bulgarian political and business leaders and prominent public figures.

The birthday of the ex-Tsar [a title his grandfather adopted in 1908] who served as prime minister of Bulgaria between 2001 and 2005, will be marked with an official service held by the Patriarch of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church in Sofia’s Alexander Nevsky Cathedral on Friday morning.

Almost the whole Bulgarian royal family, including Simeon’s wife, Queen Margarita, will be present at the service, which will be the family’s first big get-together in Bulgaria since the King’s 70th birthday ten years ago, the King’s press office announced.

Simeon has informed the royal families in Europe in January that he will have to limit the number of royal guests because the presence of royal couples from acting monarchies would require state security measures, while the birthday reception is private.

However, an exception has been granted to Balkan royals, many of whom will be present at the celebration.

Guests included Princess Margarita and Prince Radu of Romania, Prince Alexander and Princess Katarina of Serbia/Yugoslavia, Prince Nikola of Montenegro, Prince Leka and his wife Princess Elia of Albania, as well as Osman Sellahadin Osmanoglu – the last living descendant of Turkish Sultans Murad V and Mehmed V.

Beyond the Balkans, Sophia, the Queen Mother of Spain and her sister, Princess Irina, will also be coming. King Simeon spent most of his life in exile in Spain before returning to Bulgaria.

The doyen of the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha family, to which Simeon belongs, Prince Andreas, will also attend, as will the Austrian Archduchess Elena.

Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha was born in 1937, the son of King Boris III and his Italian Queen, Giovanna.

He was the grandson of the famous “Foxy” Ferdinand – whose dynamism turned an obscure Balkan backwater into a force to be reckoned with – but who came badly unstuck in the Balkan wars of 1912/13 and picked the wrong side in 1914.

Simeon acceded to the throne at the age of six in 1943 following the mysterious death of his father immediately following his return from Nazi Germany.

Bulgaria was then governed by a three-member Regency on his behalf until the Communist coup on September 9, 1944, when the regents were murdered.

Simeon remained on the throne until 1946, when a communist-run referendum on abolishing the monarchy was held and when he, together with his mother and sister, Princess Maria Luisa, were forced to flee the country.

Without ever abdicating, the young ex-King spent long years in exile, first in Alexandria, Egypt, and after 1951, in Madrid, where the Bulgarian royal family was granted asylum by General Franco.

In 1955, on his 18th birthday, Simeon II issued a manifesto to the Bulgarian people in which he confirmed his will to remain King of Bulgaria and dismissed the results of the referendum.

In 1962, he married a Spanish aristocrat, Doña Margarita Gómez-Acebo y Cejuela, with whom he had five children, four sons and a daughter. One his sons, Kardam, has predeceased him, having died tragically as a result of a car accident. He has 11 grandchildren.

He paid his first visit to Bulgaria since his childhood in 1996 after spending almost 50 years of exile. Two years later, his family regained ownership of their royal estates, which had been nationalized by the Communist regime back in the 1940s.

He returned for good to Bulgaria in 2001 and, in a historic address to the nation that year, proclaimed the formation of his own party, the National Movement Simeon II, NMSII.

The movement went on to win the 2001 parliamentary elections with a convincing majority and as a result, the ex-king became Prime Minister on July 24, 2001. Despite his promise “to fix Bulgaria in 800 days”, the actual results left many Bulgarians disappointed.

However, his coalition government with the ethnic-Turkish Movement for Rights and Freedoms, MRF, ruled for a full mandate until the next election in 2005.

After the 2005 elections, the NMSII became part of a tripartite coalition together with the Bulgarian Socialist Party and the MRF, but in the 2009 election Simeon II’s party failed to enter parliament, gradually losing political significance.

Last year marked the end of Pakistan’s most recent IMF Loan Programme. While many commemorate at the thought of finally coming out of the programme and its forced macroeconomic restrictions, others remain doubtful about our future with the Fund. Are we likely to relapse into the fold of yet another burdensome and economically disastrous programme? In truth, our relationship with the IMF has been a long and uncomfortable one. Loans from the Fund continue to be the gift that keeps on giving, even if at times we do not want it, and certainly regardless of whether or not we are in the position to return it.

As of 1988, Pakistan has entered into 12 different programmes with the IMF, which by contrast, is greater than all countries in the region combined. India till now has signed only 1 facility with the Fund, while countries such as Nepal and Bangladesh have signed a mere 2. Pakistan, for this very reason, was classified as a ‘prolonged user’ by the IMF in 2002, ranking third in the world, higher than every low-income African nation, but surpassed only by two countries; the Philippines and Panama.

One reason for this most certainly has been our constant and very costly effort to keep at par with India, economically and militarily, as well as our long-standing war on terror, all of this done too in the face of exceptionally low levels of savings in the country. As a result of such expenditures, our external accounts have typically remained under pressure, which along with soaring costs of commercial borrowing from international markets, made the IMF was an easy solution to our problems.

For Pakistan unfortunately, out of the programmes we have signed on, we have been unable to complete the majority of them, thereby abandoning them halfway. It would seem, therefore, that any merriment surrounding the completion of our latest programme is exceedingly warranted, given that we have only successfully completed a total of 4 programmes over the last two decades.

As a result of being continuously under several IMF programmes across the last two decades, Pakistan’s economy has faced many blows. No loan comes without a price, and in IMF’s case, this meant we were obligated to implement a series of poorly designed structural programmes, which left the economy in terrible shape. Under the Fund, we saw dramatic reductions in subsidies, overall public spending on critical areas such as health and education, as well as a wage freeze and a ban on employment in the public sector for the sake of austerity and fiscal consolidation. In a country such as ours, where the government is the largest employer, this undoubtedly had serious adverse effects. As a result of such policies we saw a fall in investment and growth rates, while unemployment, poverty and inequality rose.

So the question arises, did Pakistan end up in the clutches of an egocentric lender? If so, then why do we continue to borrow, if it does us so much harm? While it would be convenient to make the IMF the culprit for all our troubles, that isn’t entirely the case. Turning to the IMF on many occasions has certainly been the right decision given the state of affairs at the time. The IMF is considered as a lender of last resort, meaning when a country is on the verge of a sovereign default and is unable to obtain a loan elsewhere, it turns to the IMF. Therefore, faced often with depleting foreign exchange reserves and balance of payment problems, our unending relationship with the IMF is henceforth not surprising. Once part of a programme however, many at times the reason for our failure has been the result of our own government’s lack of political will to implement policies, such as those needed to mobilize funds through domestic resources (for example through taxation) as well as other factors such as widespread corruption, economic mismanagement or numerous exogenous shocks, namely terrorism, unforeseen natural disasters, hike in oil prices, etc.

But does necessity mean we must blindly adhere to all of our lenders demands, in spite of how damaging they may be?

It is no secret that IMF’s working model is seriously flawed, and has far-reaching consequences for economies. Most programmes are ‘self serving’ in nature, aimed to help the Fund retrieve their money rather than fix the economy of the borrowing country. In fact, judged on its mission to ‘promote high employment and sustainable economic growth, and reduce poverty around the world’, the IMF is an utter failure. The Fund has lent billions of dollars to developing nations since its formation, but such loans have in fact hurt their clients and reduced economic opportunities, instead of promoting growth.

Loans from the Fund and other multilateral institutions have left the citizens of borrower nations heavily burdened with enormous debts and, as a result, deprived of meaningful economic opportunities. This anti-growth reputation is as a result of the Fund’s fixation with fiscal austerity and stabilization-first policies, an approach it prescribes religiously, irrespective of individual country circumstances.

In addition to its ineffectiveness in maintaining economic stability and growth, many accuse the Fund of being a tool of the United States foreign policy, advancing the country’s strategic and economic interests. Being the only nation with an outright veto helps Washington sway decisions to its benefit, which are often taken not on the basis of strong economic motives, but rather political ones. This can be plainly grasped in our own relationship with the Fund, whose pockets are generous to us during times when Pakistan’s position is favorable with the West and penny-pinching otherwise. By far the best example of this has been post 9/11, when we were handed a very large hearted loan package as a compensation for joining America’s war on terror.

To conclude, while ending our dependency on the IMF may be far-fetched, one thing remains clear; future programmes with the Fund, if any, must be negotiated bearing in mind the needs and interests of our own people and economy. Furthermore, it is well time for the IMF, along with other Breton Wood Institutions, to change their outlook on the economics of lending and abandon the damaging cookie-cutter approach to which they cling on so dearly.

*Sara Cheema currently works as a Research Associate at the Strategic Vision Institute (SVI), Islamabad. She can be reached at szcheema93@gmail.com

References
“About The IMF”. Imf.org. Web. 12 June 2017.
Aziz Ahmed, Meekal. “THE IMF AND PAKISTAN (A Road To Nowhere)”. PIDE Lectures Series (2012): Web. 12 June 2017.
“Evaluation Of Prolonged Use Of IMF Resources”. IMF Independent Evaluation Office (2002): Web. 12 June 2017.
“IMF Programs In Pakistan (1988-2008) – An Analysis – Criterion Quarterly”. Criterion Quarterly, 2017. Web. 12 June 2017.
Nasir, Jamil. “IMF Programs In Pakistan (1988-2008) – An Analysis”. Criterion-Quarterly 6.4 (2012): Web. 12 June 2017.
Qayyum, Mian. “IMF: A BLESSING OR CURSE FOR PAKISTAN’S ECONOMY A CRITICAL ANALYSIS”. Academia.edu. Web. 12 June 2017.
Whalen, Christopher. “Why We Should Terminate The IMF & World Bank”. Cs.uwaterloo.ca. Web. 12 June 2017.

By Demelza Hays*

Two years ago, Bitcoin was considered a fringe technology for libertarians and computer geeks. Now, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, such as Ethereum, are gaining mainstream adoption. However, mainstream adoption has been propelled by financial speculation instead of by demand for a privately minted and deflationary medium of exchange. After the Fed’s rate hike this week, Bitcoin and alternative cryptocurrencies, such as Ethereum and Dash dropped in value instantly. Bitcoin, for example, dropped by approximately 16% in value while other coins dropped by approximately 25%. However, Bitcoin’s price recovered to the previous high within 18 hours.

The reaction of the cryptomarket to the Federal Reserve announcement provides evidence that cryptocurrencies are seen as a safe-haven investment during times of significant fiat currency dilution. As I wrote for Forbes Austria in April, this is why the demand for Bitcoin is going up in countries that are demonetizing their fiat currencies, such as India and Venezuela. Following the demonetization of the 500 and 1,000 rupee banknotes in November of last year, the price of Bitcoin on India’s largest Bitcoin exchange, Unocoin, shot up to $818 while American exchanges quoted the exchange rate as $709 per Bitcoin. Similarly, Surbitcoin, Venezuela’s largest Bitcoin exchange, saw an increase from 450 accounts in 2014 to over 85,000 in 2016.

Reacting to Fed Policy

However, if the Fed continues to raise rates, then the demand for cryptocurrency may decrease. When the Fed closes the faucet on newly printed money, there is less newly printed money that can flow into asset classes such as real estate, stocks, and cryptocurrencies, etc. Therefore, investors will have less demand for assets that hedge against inflation.

Bitcoin Inflation

Contrary to popular belief that Bitcoin is deflationary, the currency currently has an annual inflation rate of approximately 4%. The reason that Bitcoin allows investors to hedge the expansionary monetary policies adhered to by central banks is because the demand for Bitcoin is growing at a pace that is higher than the increase in the supply of Bitcoin. As explained in a Mises Daily article written by Frank Shostak in 2002, the term inflation was originally used to describe an increase in the money supply. Today, the term inflation refers to a general increase in prices.

If the original definition is applied, then Bitcoin is an inflationary currency. However, as I discussed in the 2017 edition of In Gold We Trust, the supply of newly minted Bitcoin follows a predictable inflation rate that diminishes over time. Satoshi modeled the flow of new Bitcoin as a Poisson process, which will result in a discernible inflation rate compared to the stock of existing Bitcoin by 2020. Every four years, the amount of Bitcoin minted annually is halved. The last programmed “halving” occurred in June of 2016. Therefore, the next halving will occur in 2020. The inverse of the inflation rate, the StFR, also indicates the decreasing flow of newly minted coins into the Bitcoin economy. The stock to flow ratio (StFR) of Bitcoin is currently 25 years; however, the StFR ratio will increase to approximately 56 years. This means that the StFR of Bitcoin should surpass gold’s during the next five years. Prior to January 3, 2009, no Bitcoin existed. Therefore, Bitcoin’s StFR was effectively zero. However, the rapid reduction in the amount of Bitcoin mining over time results in an increasing StFR over time. By 2024, only 3.125 Bitcoin will be mined every ten minutes resulting in a StFR of approximately 119 years.

If the new meaning of inflation is applied, then Bitcoin is deflationary because the purchasing power of each unit increases overtime. When I began investing in Bitcoin in 2014, a Model S Tesla worth $70,000 cost 230 Bitcoin. Today, a Model S Tesla worth $70,000 costs 28 Bitcoin. On June 11 of this year, the price of Bitcoin reached a new all-time high above $3,000 after trading at approximately $2,300 two weeks ago. Furthermore, Bitcoin’s market capitalization of $40 billion is expected to rise further as the uncertainty surrounding this technology decreases. Bitcoin’s price data only covers the past six years, which means there is basically no data available for statistical analysis.

Risk Assessments

The Ellsberg paradox shows that people prefer outcomes with known probability distributions compared to outcomes where the probabilities are unknown. The estimation error associated with forecasts of Bitcoin’s risks and returns may be negatively biasing the price downward. As time passes, people will become more “experienced” with Bitcoin, which may reduce uncertainty and the subsequent discount it wields on the price of Bitcoin.

An economic downturn occurs approximately once every ten years in the US, and it has been a decade since the 2007/2008 financial meltdown. If the economy cannot handle the increase in rates, and the Fed is forced to reverse their decision, the price of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are likely to respond positively. Although the cryptocurrency market took a steep plunge after Janet Yellen’s second rate hike of 2017, prices fully recovered within a day. The quick rebound underscores the lack of assets that allow investors to accumulate wealth safely. Negative interest rates in Europe and fiat demonetization in developing countries are still driving demand for Bitcoin and alternative cryptocurrencies. Although Bitcoin was initially ridiculed as money for computer nerds and a conduit for illegal activity, investors are beginning to see the potential for this technology to be an integral part of wealth management from the perspective of portfolio diversification.

About the author:
*Demelza Hays is a doctorate student in the Department of Economics at the University of Liechtenstein in Europe. Prior to attending the University of Liechtenstein, Demelza completed her Master’s in Economics at the Toulouse School of Economics in Southern France. As a Summer Fellow at the Mises Institute, she investigated if cryptocurrency is compatible with fractional reserve banking.

Source:
This article was published by the MISES Institute

By Anne Rathbone Bradley*

President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the Paris climate agreement just days ago, provoking a brouhaha over environmental policy. For those who are genuinely concerned about environmental stewardship, we can in fact do better without the UN-sponsored framework. We can generate solutions by using economic incentives to harness human ingenuity.

In 2015, the United States among nearly 200 other parties that agreed to what is commonly known as the Paris Agreement. Participating countries adopt standards to combat greenhouse gas emissions and report their progress to the other participants.  There is no measure of accountability or force beyond a country’s own commitment to reduce its emissions.

Climate change is a real phenomenon; we can track it over time.  The real question is how much has the climate changed because of modern industrialized life and how much of that change is harmful?  The other relevant question is what does the trend line look like into the future — in other words, how worried should we be?  Once we try to get a handle on these questions, only then can we understand what to do.  We do know that  while U.S. carbon emissions are at a 25-year low, global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide are steadily increasing and show no signs of slowing. Creative thinking that fosters prudence and develops alternatives is key.

Economists can’t perfectly predict the future and there is much that scientists, economists and policy makers don’t know regarding climate change.  We don’t fully understand cause and effect, which makes the future hard to know with certainty. What economics can do is provide a means-ends framework for coming up with the best solutions that economize on our scarce resources. As such, economic thinking is a roadmap for prudence and in terms of environmental policy, that’s precisely what we need.

Human Creativity is the Solution

What we can all agree on is that we are called by God to steward his creation.  The earth belongs to God as does everything in it.  We are stewards of his good creation and are asked to do two things.

• To work it
• To care for it

These commands come from Genesis 2:15 (NIV): “The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.”

God created the Earth for us and his own glory.  It is mysterious, orderly and beautiful for it reflects Gods creativity and his love for humanity.  It is created to support life and creativity.  We cannot work and care for the Earth if we are pillaging and plundering it.  But we are not asked to keep it untouched, to preserve it as is, either.  We are to cultivate, create, tinker and innovate.

We are made “imago dei” (in the image of God). This has critical implications for our roles and responsibilities here on Earth.  God is a creator and we are creators.  We cannot create something out of nothing in the way God can, but we can and are commanded to create something out of something.

We are here to do just that: create and cultivate God’s work.  What does all of this have to do with greenhouse gas emissions and the Paris Agreement? Everything. The role of human creativity as described in Genesis is our narrative for life.  What it tells us is that change, even climate change, might not always be a bad thing.  To the extent that greenhouse gases are destroying the climate, we require productive solutions and ways to economize on those gases, maybe even do away with them altogether.  The question is around what is the best means for accomplishing this and does the Paris Agreement help?

Virtue Signaling Versus Discovery

Economic growth which extends itself in the forms of greater income and increased wealth has surged over the past hundred years. This growth is both caused by and fuels human ingenuity. The biggest material problem we face as humans is scarcity.  We don’t have enough hours in the day and we don’t have enough resources in any given moment to satisfy our needs and wants.  In fact, it is only recently in human history that we can worry about our wants.  Most humans over most of human history have been categorically poor and lived short and difficult lives as a result.

As we get richer, our tradeoffs are eased and some of them even go away.  This is good and it benefits not just the rich but particularly the poor. Human progress fueled by greater industrialization brings with it externalities, like greenhouse gas emissions.  We can and should dedicate our human creativity to solving or lessening this problem.

The way to do that is not by supplanting the discovery process of entrepreneurship with technocratic planning which is what the Paris Agreement does, at best. The UN framework uses the “expertise” of planners and relies on bureaucracies to deliver the planning.  What we really need is creative problem-solving incentivized by the profit and loss mechanism.  Markets do this and they do it well.

If you want to solve a problem, put a profit on the solution — this is the surest path to a solution.  It may not be perfect but it would certainly be better than an agreement that centralizes planning over greenhouse emissions and that has no accountability mechanism. Profits and losses keep entrepreneurs accountable to results.  Entrepreneurial energy is what has made us so rich and is the best bet we have to solve the problems that the Paris Agreement never will.

About the author:
*Anne Rathbone Bradley, Ph.D. is the Vice President of Economic Initiatives at the Institute for Faith, Work, and Economics, where she develops and commissions research toward a systematic biblical theology of economic freedom. She is a visiting professor at Georgetown University, and she also teaches at The Institute for World Politics and George Mason University. Additionally, she is a visiting scholar at the Bernard Center for Women, Politics, and Public Policy. Previously, she has taught at Charles University, Prague, and she has served as the Associate Director for the Program in Economics, Politics, and the Law at the James M. Buchanan Center at George Mason University.

Source:
This article was published by the Acton Institute

The response of the crew of the severely damaged USS Fitzgerald “was swift and effective, and I want to point out — as we stand by the ship — how proud I am of them,” Navy Vice Adm. Joseph P. Aucoin, commander of the U.S. 7th Fleet, said Sunday at a press conference in front of the stricken ship that’s now moored in Yokosuka, Japan.

The U.S. Navy Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer USS Fitzgerald collided with the Philippine-flagged merchant vessel ACX Crystal in the Philippine Sea at approximately 2:30 a.m. local time, June 17, while operating about 64 miles southwest of Yokosuka, Japan, according to U.S. 7th Fleet news releases.

The Fitzgerald was able to return to its home port at Yokosuka under its own power aided by tug boats about 16 hours after the collision, according to a release.

Extensive Damage, Flooding

The Fitzgerald experienced extensive damage and flooding after the collision, Aucoin said in a news release issued today. The damage, he added, included a significant impact under the ship’s pilothouse on the starboard, or right, side and a large puncture below the ship’s waterline, opening the hull to the sea.

The ship, he continued, experienced rapid flooding of three large compartments that included a machinery room and two berthing areas for the ship’s 116-member crew.

Aucoin said the Fitzgerald’s commanding officer’s cabin was also directly hit, trapping Navy Cmdr. Bryce Benson, the commander, inside. Benson is one of three injured sailors who were transferred by helicopter to U.S. Naval Hospital Yokosuka for treatment after the collision.

All three patients are alert and under observation at the hospital, he said.

Thanks Japanese for Assistance

Shortly after the collision the U.S. made a request for support from the Japanese Coast Guard, which was the first on scene, according to a release.

Several U.S. Navy aircraft, as well as Japanese Coast Guard and Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force helicopters, ships and aircraft were deployed to render assistance to the Fitzgerald, a release said.

The Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force ships JS Ohnami, JS Hamagiri and JS Enshu were sent to join the JCG ships Izanami and Kano, according to a release. The U.S. Navy Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer USS Dewey served as an escort for the Fitzgerald and has also returned to Yokosuka.

The admiral expressed his “most heartfelt appreciation to our Japanese allies for their swift support and assistance.”

Praises Crew’s ‘Heroic Efforts’

At today’s press conference in Yokosuka, Aucoin saluted the Fitzgerald crew’s “heroic efforts” that prevented the flooding from spreading, which could have caused the ship to founder or sink.

The crew, he continued, navigated the Fitzgerald into one of the busiest ports in the world with a magnetic compass and backup navigation equipment. One of two of the ship’s shafts became locked, he added.

“Because of the tireless damage control efforts of a resolute and courageous team, the ship was able to make its way back to port safely on its own power last evening,” Aucoin said in the release.

“The Fitzgerald crew responded professionally as all sailors are expected to fight the damage sustained to their ship. They are known as the “Fighting Fitz,” and the crew lived up to that name,” the admiral added.

Navy Finds ‘A Number’ of Missing Fitzgerald Sailors

Seven Fitzgerald sailors were reported unaccounted for after the collision, and the Japanese Coast Guard launched a search effort, according a release.

After the Fitzgerald returned to its home port in Yokosuka, search-and-rescue crews gained access to the ship’s spaces that were damaged during the collision, according to a release.

At the press conference, Aucoin said the Navy “has found the remains of a number of our missing shipmates.”

He added, “Our deepest sympathies are with the families of these sailors. Out of concern for the families and the notification process, I will decline to state how many we have found at this time. We owe that to the families and friends of these shipmates and hope you can respect this process.”

The sailors’ remains were transferred to Naval Hospital Yokosuka, Aucoin said, noting the “families are being notified and will be provided the support they need at this difficult time. Please keep them in your thoughts are prayers.”

He said the names of the deceased will be released pending notification of next of kin.

In a Twitter message issued yesterday, President Donald J. Trump said his “thoughts and prayers [are] with the sailors of the USS Fitzgerald and their families. Thank you to our Japanese allies for their assistance.”

Investigations

Aucoin said he’s initiating a Judge Advocate General Manual investigation into the collision, and that he’ll appoint a flag officer to lead that investigation.

There will also be a safety investigation, he added.

“We owe it to our families and the Navy to understand what happened,” Aucoin said.

The U.S. Coast Guard is slated to take the lead on the marine casualty investigation, he said.

More information on any further investigations will be forthcoming, the admiral said.

“I will not speculate on how long these investigations will last,” Aucoin added.

Forest fires that have killed scores of people in central Portugal have been brought under control in two of the four zones affected by the blaze, senior Interior Ministry official Jorge Gomes said Sunday.

The latest death toll now stands at 62, an increase of five since the last report.

Gomes, who is at the civil defence service’s central command in Pedrogao Grande, the area worst hit by the blaze, said the deployment of firefighting aircraft and helicopters had been delayed earlier Sunday due to thick smoke.

High temperatures, extremely dry conditions and strong winds also hampered efforts to tackle the fire, he added.

Prime Minister Antonio Costa announced three days of mourning, set for Monday through Wednesday. In addition, a moment of silence for the victims of the blaze is expected at the Confed Cup football match between Portugal and Mexico.

A number of bodies have been recovered from burned-out vehicles, Gomes said at the civil defence service’s central command in Pedrogao Grande, the area worst hit by the blaze.

Almost 700 firefighters and more than 200 fire engines have been deployed to tackle the flames, according to the civil defence service. Two planes were also dumping water on the blaze.

Firefighting aircraft were being sent from France and Spain, the EU’s humanitarian aid commissioner Christos Stylianides said.

The French government confirmed that three French planes would be at the location of the fire and operational by Sunday afternoon.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel spoke to the Portuguese Prime Minister Antonio Costa and also offered assistance, a spokesman said.

“The EU is fully ready to help. All will be done to assist the authorities and people of Portugal at this time of need,” Stylianides’ statement said.

According to police, the fire, which began on Saturday at around 2 pm (1300 GMT), was triggered by a lightning strike.

“Everything points clearly to natural causes,” director of police Jose Almeida Rodrigues told the Lusa news agency.

Portuguese President Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa flew overnight to the scene and spoke on arrival of an “unprecedented situation.”

Premier Costa, who had been monitoring developments overnight from the civil defence headquarters in Carnaxide on the western outskirts of Lisbon, has expressed his shock at the scale of the tragedy.

The mayor of Pedrogao Grande, Valdemar Alves, said that some villages had been “completely surrounded by flames,” as quoted in the Publico newspaper. Alves complained about the shortage of emergency teams to cope with the disaster.

One resident of Pedrogao Grande told broadcaster RTP she had “not seen a single fireman” as the flames approached her house during the night.

Those found dead in cars had found themselves suddenly trapped by fire, the Interior Ministry said. Three victims are also thought to have died from smoke inhalation near a graveyard.

Pope Francis called on worshippers in Saint Peter’s Square in the Vatican to pray for those affected by the “devastating fire” in Portugal.

(RFE/RL) — A U.S. jet shot down a Syrian government warplane after it attacked forces fighting against the Islamic State (IS) militant group on the southern edge of Raqqa, the U.S.-led coalition in Syria says.

The Combined Joint Task Force on June 18 said the U.S. jet shot down the Syrian fighter “in accordance with rules of engagement” and “collective self-defense.”

“At 6:43 p.m. (1743 GMT), a Syrian regime SU-22 dropped bombs near SDF fighters south of Tabqah and, in accordance with rules of engagement and in collective self-defense of Coalition partnered forces, was immediately shot down by a US F/A-18E Super Hornet,” the statement said.

SDF fighters make up an Syrian Arab and Kurdish alliance known as the Syrian Democratic Forces, who are being supported by the U.S.-led coalition in the fight against IS extremists and, separately, the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in that country’s six-year civil war.

A Syrian Army statement said the plane crashed, and the pilot was missing in the incident near the village of Rasafah.

The “flagrant attack was an attempt to undermine the efforts of the army as the only effective force capable with its allies…in fighting terrorism across its territory,” the Syrian Army said.

“This comes at a time when the Syrian army and its allies were making clear advances in fighting the [IS] terrorist group,” it added.

Coalition officials said Assad’s forces attacked SDF fighters in the town of Ja’Din south of Tabqah, “wounding a number of SDF fighters and driving the SDF from the town.”

U.S.-led air support then hit the Syrian pro-government forces with a “show of force,”officials said.

Russian news agencies quoted Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov as saying on June 19 that the United States should respect Syria’s territorial integrity and refrain from unilateral actions there.

“As for what is happening ‘on the ground’ in Syria, we proceed from the assumption that it is necessary to fully respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity in Syria,” Lavrov was quoted as saying. “Therefore, any actions ‘on the ground’, and there are many participants there, including those who carry out military operations, should be coordinated with Damascus.”

The U.S. military said the coalition had “contacted its Russian counterparts by telephone via an established ‘de-confliction line’ to de-escalate the situation and stop the firing.”

“The Coalition does not seek to fight Syrian regime, Russian, or pro-regime forces partnered with them, but will not hesitate to defend Coalition or partner forces from any threat,” the U.S. military said.

U.S.-led SDF fighters are in the process of encircling the city or Raqqa, the Islamic State group’s final major stronghold in Syria.

The Syrian Army has also taken territory from retreating IS in the area as the multifaceted battle in Syria rages on after six years.

The United States and Turkey support differing rebel groups against IS and pro-government forces, while Russia and Iran back Assad’s government.

IS fighters are also under pressure in their final major stronghold in Iraq. On June 18, Iraqi security forces launched an operation to fully liberate Mosul, the country’s second-largest city.

U.S. officials said coalition forces had breached the Old City, where the final IS extremists are clinging to their last positions, using more than 100,000 civilians as human shields.

Despite a record low voter turnout, French President Emmanuel Macron’s party won an absolute majority of seats in parliament Sunday.

France’s new centrist president and his Republic on the Move party are seeing a resounding victory. With nearly all the votes counted, Macron’s party and its allies are expected to take between 355 and 425 of the 577 seats in the National Assembly.

This will enable Macron to push through his promised reforms of France’s strict labor laws and its ailing social security system.

Macron’s centrists easily beat the traditional left and right parties that have led the National Assembly for decades.

​Far-right trailing badly

The far-right National Front party of Macron’s rival in the elections, Marine le Pen, has likely won fewer than 10 seats in parliament, including one for le Pen herself. She had predicted a rousing victory for the National Front, but the party will now be left virtually silent with so few seats.

Macron has been in office a little more than a month but has already made his mark on the international stage. He beat U.S. President Donald Trump at his own handshake game; Macron criticized Russia’s Vladimir Putin while standing beside him; and jumped in with new proposals after the U.S. announced a u-turn on climate change.

That has had an effect at home. After five years of Socialist Party rule, in which former President Francois Hollande failed to meet his objectives of reducing unemployment and giving a boost to the flagging economy, the French were depressed and downbeat.

Seeing the new president widely acclaimed and admired on the international stage has made voters at home sit up and take note – and decide to give him a chance.

Prime Minister Edouard Philippe has said Macron “has embodied trust, willingness and audacity.”​

A phase 1 randomized controlled trial has found an Ebola virus disease (EVD) vaccine, developed in Canada, was well-tolerated with no safety concerns, and high antibodies were present in participants 6 months after immunization. The study, led by Canadian researchers, is published in CMAJ (Canadian Medical Association Journal).

The research team conducted the clinical trial “as part of a coordinated, international effort to expeditiously evaluate candidate EVD vaccines and make them available to control the epidemic,” writes lead author Dr. May ElSherif, Canadian Center for Vaccinology, IWK Health Centre, Halifax, Nova Scotia, with coauthors.

There have been some recent clusters of Ebola cases in Africa and more expected as survivors may still spread the virus to uninfected people.

The trial involved 40 healthy people aged 18 to 65 years and looked at safety of the vaccine and the lowest dose required for an immune response after injection with one of 3 doses. At a ratio of 3:1, thirty participants received the vaccine and 10 received placebo injections. The researchers found that adverse events were mild to moderate, with only 3 severe reactions, including headache, diarrhea and fatigue, which completely resolved.

“The results of this trial were positive and very promising; all 3 dose levels of the VSV [vesicular stomatitis virus] Ebola vaccine were well-tolerated by participants, and no safety concerns were identified,” said Dr. May ElSherif.

Several Ebola vaccine candidates are being assessed in ongoing or recently completed phase 1, 2, and 3 trials in various parts of the world. This VSV-Ebola vaccine (formal name: rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP) was developed at the Canadian National Microbiology Laboratory of the Public Health Agency of Canada. A similar parallel trial was conducted at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (WRAIR) in the United States.

Wild type VSV primarily infects animals (e.g., cattle and horses) and rarely infects humans.

Data from this trial and others indicated an optimum dose of 20 million pfu that will be assessed among people with compromised immune systems in areas where Ebola is endemic. An upcoming study at 2 sites in Africa, as well as in Montréal and Ottawa in Canada, will test the safety and protection levels of the VSV-Ebola vaccine in HIV-infected adults and adolescents. A completed phase 3 trial showed that the vaccine is effective in preventing EVD in contacts of recently confirmed cases.

Given the ongoing presence of Ebola, “these facts underscore the importance of continuing efforts and collaborations that may ultimately lead to licensed Ebola vaccines that would protect humans and prevent or control outbreaks in the future,” concluded the authors.

Every human being has a unique DNA “fingerprint”. In other words, the genetic material of any two individuals can be clearly distinguished. Computational biologists at the Technical University of Munich (TUM) have now determined that the impact of these variations has been greatly underestimated. The new insights could importantly impact advances in personalized medicine.

Proteins are the machinery of life. Without them, no cell can function. About 20,000 different proteins are responsible for metabolism, growth and regeneration in the human body. The building blocks of proteins are the amino acids. These are assembled in the cell according to a defined blueprint contained in DNA.

An extensive study in which blood samples of 60,000 people were examined has shown that surprisingly wide variations exist between the proteins of healthy individuals: In two non-related individuals, on average 20,000 building blocks — i.e. amino acids — have differences known as SAVs (single amino acid variants). The MacArthur Lab in the USA has assembled about 10 million of these SAVs.

“Until now, many experts believed most of these variants to have no substantial impact upon protein function,” said Prof. Burkhard Rost, Chair for Bioinformatics and Computational Biology at TUM.

This assumption is difficult to prove: Experimental studies cannot be carried out for such an enormous number of SAVs. In fact, relevant experimental data are available for fewer than 0.01 percent of the SAVs.

The TUM researchers have therefore developed a method that enables predicting the effects of the SAVs through computer simulations. Using data obtained in laboratory experiments, a program predicts the probable effect for the 99.99 percent of the SAVs about which nothing is known.

“Along with statistical methods, we use artificial intelligence, and in particular machine learning and neural networks. That enables us to create models,” explained Yannick Mahlich, lead author of the study.

The researchers were surprised by their own results: For millions of SAVs in the proteins of healthy people, strong effects were predicted. Sequence variations seen in more than five percent of the population, are predicted to have a bigger impact on cell functions than rare variations, i.e. those observed in fewer than one percent of the people.

The computational biologists cannot determine the exact nature of the effects, however. The variations might, e.g. affect our ability to detect smells or might result in differences in metabolism; they might lead to disease, or increase the immunity to pathogens. They can also affect an individual’s response to environmental influences or medications.

“None of these effects might be detected in everyday life,” said Prof. Rost. “But under certain conditions some of them could become significant, for example when we are given a certain drug or are exposed to a certain influence for the first time.”

In his view, the effects of the protein variations cannot be simply categorized as good or bad.

“The comparison of the effects of the variations between individuals as well as between humans and related species suggests that every species tries out many variations.” These may even be detrimental to individuals under today’s conditions. But if the environmental conditions change, it is conceivable that the same variations might help the species to survive.

“Research into the effects of variations on the structure and function of proteins is just getting started,” said Prof. Rost. However, he believes that the new insights will deliver important impetus paving the way to advances in personalized medicine: “The capabilities already exist to use DNA to discover the function of individual proteins. In the future we will also be able to use that information to determine the best foods and drugs for the individual.”

“Bush appeared on television to praise the invading troops and to say his cowardly vision – all that a wimp with an inferiority complex could be capable of.” –- Manuel Noriega on George H. W. Bush

The late General Manuel Antonio Noriega has done more to demonstrate the bipolar nature of US foreign policy in the Americas than any single, historically anointed individual. In its tendency to veer between outraged morality and cynical cold steel Realpolitik, US foreign policy found in Noriega a thermometer of sorts, though the temperature readings were often confused.

When it suited Washington, Noriega was the CIA’s man in Panama, a glorified errand boy who got above his station. Then, the winds turned, leaving Noriega high and dry. It was not that he wasn’t a serial human rights abuser, though this was used against him in due course. (The role of the US School of the Americas, located in Panama till 1984, remains a memorably disturbing stain behind various Latin American death squads.)

What mattered was his cultivation, in time, of a network of power interests and influences across Latin America, including Havana. His lukewarm response to assisting Washington in that dirty conflict against Nicaragua with the aid of the Contra army sounded another nail into coffin. Then came the drugs and the dance with the Colombian cartels.

Noriega would subsequently claim in his memoirs that Colonel Oliver L. North had requested he mine Nicaraguan harbours as a willing servant of Washington’s interests. The General preferred to ignore him. He was no longer in favour in the morally weary halls of Washington. He had to be gotten rid off.

The US invasion of Panama in December 1989 was typically imperial: brute force masquerading as moral mission. The ground had been softened by a massive campaign singling out Noriega’s human rights abuses, and the threat to American lives. Provocations by US soldiers were initiated. Few media outlets in the United States bothered to question the accounts, humming to the sound of government press releases.

Noriega, and Panama, had become symbols of convenient outrage and props for the projection of US power in the closing chapters of the Cold War. (The previous month, the Berlin Wall had fallen, the Iron Curtain rapidly parting.)

In purely power terms, the General had stepped out of turn, having helped himself to the largesse of US interests and Latin American favour. He would simultaneously supply secrets about Cuba to US authorities while happily selling Fidel Castro thousands of Panamanian passports to be used by Cuban agents.

Murray Kempton captured this predicament well: “To feed off the United States is to subject yourself to all sorts of inconveniences from a Senate where Jesse Helms arraigns your friendship with Fidel Castro one day and Christopher Dodd your human records the next.” These subtleties evaporate before the decision to transact with the Medellín and Cali cartels, liberating the subject “from even the lightest chains of ideology.”

Would this caricatured, cartoon villain be able to withstand the US? Initial suggestions were made that Noriega might manage to bring about another quagmire for US forces. The “Dignity Battalions” were taken as representatives of genuine patriotic worth. But there was little getting away from the fact that an Uncle was providing some stern discipline for a pygmy relation. The invasion resulted in a good deal of slaughter.

The Medellín temptation was powerful, assuming a galloping temptation that supplied Noriega with cash and power broking prestige. The Senate subcommittee on narcotics and terrorism fielded material about Noriega’s conversion to the narcotics market in the late 1980s. The tainted Ramon Lillian Rodriguez was a source of ratting inspiration, explaining to the Committee chaired by Senator John Kerry that Noriega had assumed money laundering responsibilities while also supplying Panamanian security forces to the cartels. The golem had gotten out hand.

The more astute operatives would have worked out that he was never controllable in the least. Furtive sexual encounters do not necessarily suggest understanding, let alone influence. Links forged in 1976 with George H. W. Bush, who was then the director of Central Intelligence, were not blood insured covenants, but understandings of interest. But no US leadership can keep unctuousness out for long. There is always an understanding about who sets the terms.

After the invasion commenced, Noriega fled to the Apostolic Nunciature of the Holy See. A reluctant Monsignor Jose Sebastian Laboa relented to the imposition, having had next to no time to consult the higher-ups in the Vatican. US special forces, in the meantime, were charged with the task of capturing the diminished figure.

What followed was an ignominious effort to force Laboa’s hand. The State Department hectored him; military operatives rained psychological warfare upon the compound. Laboa, in time, decided that the church’s promise of sanctuary needed to be reneged – by dissimulation if necessary. Surrender was a foregone, bitter conclusion.

Noriega would subsequently face a farcical and poorly conducted trial. (Resorting to 40 convicted drug traffickers as witnesses for the prosecution is treacherous ground indeed.) In 1992, he was sentenced to 40 years in Florida as prisoner No. 41586, convicted on cocaine trafficking charges, racketeering and money laundering.

Subsequent in absentia trials took place in Panama (the execution of soldiers in the 1989 coup attempt) and France (money-laundering). His release in the US lead to extradition battles that landed him first in France, then back in Panama.

Was he being punished for being too American, the showman who went just a touch too far? Ultimately, the puppet can never be permitted to be the puppet master.

By Manpreet Sethi*

Democracies often undergo swings in policies with change of governments. India’s nuclear policy, however, in both its dimensions – weapons and power generation – has enjoyed broad support across political parties. The pace of development of these programmes may have varied depending on the personal inclination of the leadership, but the general direction of the policies has mostly remained the same irrespective of the party in power. India’s ability to conduct nuclear tests in 1998 was enabled by the continued support given to the programme by leaders of all hues while occupying the prime minister’s chair between 1948-98.

More recently, the broad-based consensus on nuclear weapons-related issues has been demonstrated through the continuing validation of India’s nuclear doctrine. This was first articulated in 1999 (and officially accepted with slight revisions in 2003) under the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government led by Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. The change of administration in 2004 with the coming in of the UPA (United Progressive Alliance) government headed by Dr Manmohan Singh did not lead to any alteration in the doctrine over two of his terms (2004-2014). Subsequently, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has yet again expressed his support for the doctrine despite the noise made by his party during the election campaign about a possible doctrinal revision.

The PM’s endorsement of the doctrine, especially its attribute of no first use (NFU), early in his tenure was the right move to set the record straight on India’s nuclear strategy. Given that India believes that nuclear weapons are meant to deter use of similar weapons, the principle of NFU is grounded in sound political and military logic. Using them first is sure to bring back nuclear retaliation from India’s nuclear-armed adversaries, both of whom have secure second strike capabilities. Hopefully, India’s leadership will continue to understand and uphold this simple logic even as India is passing through not so benign nuclear developments in the neighbourhood. Even if the adversaries develop ostensibly counterforce capabilities, the NDA government would do the country a favour by steadfastly declining to go down the route of nuclear war-fighting.

Instead of effecting any doctrinal changes, the focus of India’s nuclear strategy must be on capability build-up to further the survivability and reliability of the nuclear arsenal to lend credence to the promise of assured retaliation. To its credit, the NDA government has retained the momentum on capability as evident in the regular testing of delivery systems. Its focus has also rightly been on the full operationalisation of INS Arihant, as well as making future additions more potent to enhance the credibility of deterrence.

As regards India’s nuclear power programme, the NDA inherited the major breakthrough achieved through a full operationalisation of the Indo-US civilian nuclear cooperation agreement, including a waiver granted by the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) to its members to do nuclear trade with India. The UPA had already captured the new opportunities through the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding on peaceful nuclear cooperation with as many as 11 countries by 2011. However, the nuclear accident at Fukushima, and the subsequent enactment of the Civil Liability Nuclear Damage Act (CLNDA), which was imbued with many strict provisions that the nuclear industry considered unfriendly for investment, significantly slowed India’s ability to encash the cooperation agreements.

On its occupation of the seat of power, the NDA – whose main constituent party, the BJP, when in opposition had been responsible for the stridency of the CLNDA – began to take steps to resolve some of the hurdles to the rapid expansion of India’s nuclear energy programme. In order to address liability concerns, the government issued new clarifications on the provisions in 2015, besides creating an insurance pool to assure nuclear industry in 2016. PM Modi also used his visits to the major nuclear supplier countries to allay their fears. However, the results have been slow, running into further problems because of the flux in international nuclear industry. Even as price negotiations with AREVA were being worked out, it was taken over by Electricite de France (EdF). Organisational and procedural realignments at their end are sure to slow the finalisation of the contract with India. Meanwhile, in another blow, Westinghouse declared bankruptcy earlier this year, placing in jeopardy India’s cooperation with the Toshiba-Westinghouse consortium.

Owing to these developments, India has not yet been able to start construction of any imported reactor. However, in an attempt to keep some of the targets on track, the NDA government has approved construction of 10 indigenous nuclear power plants of 700 MWe each. This is a good move and will give a boost to the local nuclear industry. In fact, it would be best if the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL), the national nuclear builder and operator, is able to show the capacity to build these plants with no financial overruns and time delays since nuclear power is today competing in the mind space with fast expanding renewable energy.

One major disappointment for the NDA has been its inability to secure NSG membership for India. On this issue, they seem to have run into the China Great Wall even as proactive Indian nuclear diplomacy was able to bring around some of the other countries that had earlier expressed reservations on India’s inclusion. China, however, remains intransigent for now and some clever diplomacy will be required to make a breakthrough here.

One such idea could be to prepare India to step into the nuclear export market with its own wares. India could be a nuclear supplier even without being an NSG member. It certainly has the requisite expertise especially in small and mid-sized nuclear reactors that could be suitable for many countries. In case the need for financial and fuel support to enable export of Indian nuclear reactors is felt, India could explore the possibility of partnering with some other nuclear suppliers such as Rosatom or even a Chinese company. In the next two years, the NDA administration could put in place a nuclear export strategy for India and provide a new direction and momentum to national nuclear policy and diplomacy.

* Manpreet Sethi
Senior Fellow and Project Leader, Nuclear Security, Centre for Air Power Studies (CAPS), New Delhi

This week, in New York City, representatives from more than100 countries will begin collaborating on an international treaty, first proposed in 2016, to ban nuclear weapons forever. It makes sense for every country in the world to seek a legally binding ban on nuclear weapons.

It would make even more sense to immediately deactivate all nuclear weapons. But, by boycotting and disparaging the process now underway, the U.S. and other nuclear armed nations have sent a chilling signal. They have no intention of giving up the power to explode, burn and annihilate planetary life.

“The United States is spending $1 trillion USD over the next thirty years to modernize its nuclear weapon arsenals and triple the killing power of these weapons,” says Ray Acheson, programme director at Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF).

Acheson also notes that the excessive spending for nuclear weapons contrasts with U.S. cuts to vital anti-poverty programs.  On June 19^th, more than a dozen people blocked the entrances to the U.S. Mission to the UN, in  protest of  Washington’s decision to boycott the negotiations. They were arrested for disorderly conduct, but I believe it’s incomparably  more disorderly to plan for nuclear war.

During the past weekend, WILPF called for “Women’s March to Ban the Bomb” actions in cities across the U.S. and around the world. Jane Addams, who helped found the League in 1919, was a Chicago woman who understood the crucial need to put an end to war, all war, and instead care for the neediest people. She dedicated herself to assuring that many new immigrants in her city were treated with respect, given assistance to meet basic needs and encouraged to live and work together, peaceably. Addams worked passionately to prevent nations from sleepwalking into the horrors of World War I, and she vigorously campaigned to stop the United States’ entry into it.

Upon return from visiting soldiers who had been maimed while fighting in the trenches of World War I, she spoke of how the young men couldn’t have carried on the war without mind-altering substances -sometimes absinthe, sometimes extra rations of rum. Families were sending laudanum and even heroin to the front lines in hampers. The soldiers couldn’t kill, she concluded, if left in their right minds.

The WILPF gatherings help us ask hard questions about our capacity to prepare for massive obliteration of entire cities, through nuclear weapon buildup, while failing to meet the needs of children, like those in Yemen, whose survival is jeopardized by war and indifference. Can we persist in perfecting our nuclear arsenals, indifferent to millions of children at risk of starving to death or dying because they lack clean water — and because U.S. supported Saudi airstrikes decimate the infrastructure that might have supplied food and water, –can we do so and claim to be in our right minds?

WILPF gathered us in Chicago where we took time to remember a remarkably brave former Chicagoan, Jean Gump, a mother of twelve whose altruism led her to help dismantle an intercontinental ballistic missile. On March 28, 1986, Jean and her companions in the Plowshares movement enacted the biblical call to turn swords into plowshares. Picture it in the words of Lila Sarick’s article, “The Crime of Ms. Jean Gump:”

The early morning sun was beginning to glow red over the horizon as a trio ran through the dew-soaked Missouri field.

Silently, a young, bearded man cut the chain-link fence topped with barbed wire, while his two companions, another man and a woman, hung banners beside the scarlet sign that warned them not to enter.

Beside the warning sign, the pair hung a photo collage of the woman’s 12 children and 2 grandchildren. Alongside it, they hung a pennant that bore the group’s logo: “Swords into plowshares — an act of healing.”

The trio then clambered through the hole in the fence and entered M-10, a Minuteman II missile site at Whiteman Air Force Base, Knob Noster, Missouri.

The missile site resembled an abandoned railway yard. Rust-colored tracks ended abruptly in the middle of the site. Tall signal arms and white concrete bunkers dotted the landscape.

Wordlessly, the three set to work. Ken Rippetoe, 23, swung a sledgehammer at the railway tracks, designed to launch a nuclear missile with the punch of one million tons of TNT.

Larry Morlan, 26, snipped the wires on the signal arms, which pointed blindly toward the sky.

And Jean Gump uncapped a baby bottle filled with the trio’s blood and poured it in the shape of a cross on the gleaming hatch from which a missile could emerge. Underneath, she painted the words “Disarm and live.”

For this action, Jean Gump was sentenced to 4 ½ years in prison. The following year, her husband, Joe Gump, performed a similar action, believing Jean was right about assuming personal responsibility to deactivate nuclear weapons. The couple galvanized a group of Midwesterners to form a 1988 campaign, the “Missouri Peace Planting,” which involved dozens of people climbing over barbed wire fences onto the grounds of nuclear weapon silos in Missouri, and planting corn on top of  the missile silos. I remember entering a nuclear weapon site in Missouri’s Whiteman Air Force Base, planting corn, and shortly thereafter finding myself kneeling in the grass, handcuffed, as a soldier stood behind me with his weapon pointed toward me. I lasted about two minutes in silence, and then started talking about why we did what we did and how we hoped the action would benefit children that he loved as well. And then I asked him, “Do you think the corn will grow?”

“I don’t know,” he responded, “but I sure hope so.” And then he asked me, “Ma’am, would you like a drink of water?”  I nodded eagerly.  “Ma’am,” said the soldier, “would you please tip your head back.” I did so, and he poured water down my throat. Recalling his question jolts me into awareness about the relationship between that bomb under the ground below us and people in our world who are acutely in need of water.

Imagine if his question, “Would you like a drink of water?” were asked, today, to people living in Yemen. Now, as  the U.S. insists on having an exceptional right to dominate the planet, insists on being armed with enough explosive fire power to obliterate entire cities, suppose we were to ask people in Yemen, millions of whom now face cholera and starvation, if they would like a drink of clean, pure water?

Or, let’s bring the question closer to home and ask people in Flint, MI, whose water is contaminated, “Would you like clean, pure water?”

And as we grope for solutions to the signs of climate change, including severe droughts and the rush to privatize dwindling resources of potable water, imagine asking the children of future generations, “Would you like a drink of water?”

President Eisenhower was right to equate possession of nuclear weapons with commission of crime.

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone.

It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

It’s a big “ask”:  get rid of nuclear weapons. Along with planning and joining protests, another  way to remain awake and focused on saving ourselves from nuclear annihilation involves recognizing how interconnected we are with others, so much so that the suffering and death of another person diminishes our own lives.

This wakefulness entails abiding care for others. Jean Gump and Jane Addams practiced such care throughout most of their lives. We, likewise, can work toward justice for those who live in communities like Flint, MI; we can seek sane approaches to the climate crisis; and we can insist that those who are targets of war, like the cholera-ridden, desperately hungry children of Yemen, be spared from aerial terrorism and given full access to clean, life-saving waters.

Over 2,000 prominent leaders from politics, business, civil society, academia and the arts will convene in Dalian, People’s Republic of China, from June 27 – 29 for the 11th Annual Meeting of the New Champions. The theme of the meeting is “Achieving Inclusive Growth in the Fourth Industrial Revolution”.

Established in 2007, the Annual Meeting of the New Champions has become the foremost gathering on science, technology and innovation. It serves as a platform for leaders to deepen their understanding of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. This year’s meeting will focus on how technology and policy innovations can be deployed to accelerate the transition towards a more inclusive style of economic growth that prioritizes meaningful job creation and sustainable development.

“Technology and innovation have a huge role to play in helping to build societies that are resilient, prosperous and inclusive. The Annual Meeting of the New Champions is unique not only in its ability to equip leaders with the insights needed to successfully navigate this period of change, but also in the way it convenes leaders from across all stakeholder groups. We hope in this way that it provides leaders with a platform to build meaningful, multistakeholder partnerships to address the critical challenges our world faces,” said David Aikman, Chief Representative Officer, Greater China, Managing Director, World Economic Forum.

“The Forum has enjoyed privileged support from the Chinese central government over the past 10 years. For this year’s meeting, we are looking forward to the continued participation of Chinese senior leaders. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs will make an announcement in this regard in due time,” added David Aikman.

The 2017 programme focuses on four thematic tracks that will shape more than 200 sessions over the three-day meeting:

• Scaling up human-centred technology: Exponential increases in knowledge bring risks as well as opportunities. What partnerships, policies and practices are needed to make sure the interests of humanity lie at the very centre of the technology we create?
• Leading continuous reinvention: No industry will be left unaffected by the Fourth Industrial Revolution. How do companies build resilience in the face of unprecedented supply- and demand-side disruption?
• Creating sustainable systems: We are consuming more of our scarce resources than ever before, but new technologies are coming online that hold the potential to improve quality of life while reducing our reliance on the global commons. How can leaders create more sustainable systems in areas such as energy, mobility, production, health, education, gender and work?
• Responding to geo-economic shifts: Technological innovation is creating newly advantaged and disadvantaged stakeholders during a period of increasing geopolitical uncertainty. How can communities, companies and countries better prepare for the coming economic changes?

“The Annual Meeting of the New Champions is an important platform for Dalian and China. Dalian is honoured to successfully host five of the last 10 meetings. Dalian Municipal Government attaches great importance to the preparation of this year’s meeting with new innovative ideas in order to ensure that, once again, the meeting can best present the city as well as of the international standard,” said Lu Lin, Vice-Mayor of Dalian.

“The theme of this year’s meeting reflects a strong will of the international community to share the opportunities and face the challenges arising from technological innovation together. We expect the discussions and insights on the impact of the Fourth Industrial Revolution to bring us valuable inspiration and suggestions on how to build the world economy to be more creative, inclusive and sustainable,” said Liang Linchong, Deputy Director-General, International Cooperation Department, National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC).

As part of a broader effort to provide a narrative vision as well as a practical policy agenda for ensuring technology progress augments rather than substitutes human potential and employment, the World Economic Forum has today published a new report on Advancing Human-Centred Economic Progress in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. In addition to providing a framework for much of the discussion during the Annual Meeting of the New Champions, the report also forms part of portfolio of thought leadership that has been specially commissioned ahead of this year’s G20 Summit, which is taking place on 7-8 July in Hamburg, Germany.

Leading personalities who will take an active role at the meeting are: Jean Liu, President, Didi Chuxing, People’s Republic of China (Young Global Leader); Alex Molinaroli, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Johnson Controls, USA; Shu Yinbiao, Chairman, State Grid Corporation of China, People’s Republic of China; Vishal Sikka, Chief Executive Officer, Infosys, USA; Maria-Elena Torres-Padilla, Director, Institute of Epigenetics and Stem Cells, Helmholtz Zentrum München, Germany (Young Scientist); and Xu Jinghong, Chairman, Tsinghua Holdings, People’s Republic of China.

Despite Putin’s upbeat comments, Russians living in the regions are even in the most successful balanced at the edge of survival: with one household in five in 20 percent of the federal subjects now having only enough money for food but for nothing more, according to Moscow experts.

Made responsible for ever more unfunded liabilities, regional government shave have cut their budget deficits by more than 90 percent; but the consequences of that are that the population is suffering even more than would otherwise be the case, Anastasiya Bashkatova writes in Nezavimaya gazeta (ng.ru/economics/2017-06-15/1_7008_regions.html).

Nonetheless, according to Standard&Poor’s, a quarter of Russiaa’s regions are close to bankruptcy and less than a quarter are showing signs of industrial growth, a third growth in agriculture, just over a third in consumer services, just under half in construction, and 61 percent in retail trade, the economics editor says.

Only six show growth on all five of these measures; only 13 more, on four; while in 10 there has been a decline in four or five of them. But even in those subjects doing well, 19 in all, in 12, “many citizens are now literally at the edge of survival,” Bashkatova continues, citing the work of Moscow scholars who have been analyzing Rosstat data.

In addition, an extremely detailed report by the Regnum news agency on the Russian Far East, one of the more depressed regions of the country, again despite Putin’s claims, shows that in that enormous territory, people are suffering and see few prospects for any turn-around (regnum.ru/news/society/2288362.html).

By Natasha Bhiwgade

Artificial intelligence (AI) is gaining high importance among key executives across the globe in almost every end use industry. AI technologies especially machine learning, deep learning, natural language processing, speech recognition, and voice recognition are intended to provide machines with human like intelligence and features such as reasoning and learning. In fact, AI technology can perform certain tasks better than human being such as processing huge chunks of database efficiently and accurately.

Industries such as healthcare, government service, IT and telecommunication, media and advertising, BFSI, retail, travel, tourism, and hospitality create a huge amount of data base which is difficult to maintain by the conventional computing system. However with the introduction of artificial intelligence in these industries processing and managing of database became much efficient and rapid.

Key Industries Impacted by Artificial Intelligence Technology

Manufacturing is one of the first industry to take advantage of emerging AI technology, especially in the manufacturing process where robots were used to assemble and package products. Moreover, with the advent of technology, advanced robots will be able to perform complex operation in the manufacturing process such as assembling and testing of smart homes, smart city, vehicles, and electronics.

Healthcare is another industry largely impacted by the deployment of AI technology. In fact, AI in healthcare industry would be the key area of contribution towards the ‘Fourth Industry Revolution’. AI will provide physicians with medical information to take better decisions and make effective treatment plans. In the field of pharmacy, deep learning technology will help in analysing the effect of drugs on patient with accuracy and in less time as compared to the traditional method which is time consuming. Key players offering AI technology are either in the process of developing AI or have already launched AI technology and solutions in the healthcare field. For instance, IBM’s ‘Watson for Oncology’ and ‘Medical Sieve’ is already in market and are key AI technologies in healthcare, whereas Google has ‘Google Deep mind Health’ project that provides medical data to physicians through data mining. Some of the start-up and established companies that are contributing towards the growth of AI technology in healthcare field are IBM, Google, iCarbonX, Ayasdi, Babylon Health, and Flatiron Health among others.

Huge investment by start-ups and key players, ability of AI to perform complex medical operation is driving the AI market in the healthcare field. As per market research report published by ‘Markets and Markets’ on ‘Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare Market’ the AI market in healthcare is expected to grow from USD 667.1 million in 2016 to USD 7,988.8 million in 2022 at a CAGR of 52.68%.

Transportation and automotive industries have also gained a lot of hype in the area of artificial intelligence owing to the rise in smart transport and automated cars across the globe. Artificial Intelligence technology will acts as an agent of change in transforming the future of automotive industry. Professional drivers will be replaced by smart cars, and public transport will become driverless thus saving ample amount of cost and time. For instance, recently ‘The Roads and Transport Authority (RTA) of Dubai have announced driverless cars in Dubai by 2030. Through driverless car concept the government of Dubai is planning to make 25% of road transportation autonomous, which will increase productivity by 13%, reduce cost by 44%, and decrease yearly accidents rate by 12%.

Artificial intelligence has endless opportunity in the retail industry, and its growth can be attributed to the developing ecommerce websites. In ecommerce artificial intelligence helps in giving personalised services by understanding taste and preference of customers. Moreover, retailers are also providing visual search option to its customers so as to improve their customer’s online shopping experience. Neiman Marcus, Urban outfitters, and Asos are some of the retailers providing visual search option to their customers. Moreover, AI powered chatbots are also gaining high importance in the retail industry. Currently, chatbots are the hottest trend in retail industry that are not only automating the purchase process but are also offering personalised recommender services to its customers. Retailers are also using AI technologies especially machine learning to understand the behaviour of their customers based on their data available on social networking sites. Artifacia, Bloomreach, Infinite Analytics, Layer 6 AI, Mona, and Optoro are some of the players offering AI in retail industry.

Banking, Financial services, and Insurance (BFSI) are another industries benefited by AI technology. BFSI industry deals with a huge amount of customer’s personal data, so it is important to ensure security of such confidential data. AI can be applied in numerous applications in banking service such as customer service, back office operation, product delivery, compliance, marketing, and risk management. Furthermore, in financial service automated financial planners and advisors often named ‘robo advisors’ support users in making financial decisions and recommending them for buying stocks and bonds. Smart wallet is another key application of AI in financial industry, these wallets understand the users spending habit and send alert notification to them whenever user is overspending.

Lastly, the bottom line is increasing investment in AI has become business necessity across key industries. AI has not only created virtual workforce but has also enhanced the ability and skill of existing one. However, we also need to understand that substantial part of fiscal growth from artificial intelligence will not come from substituting prevailing workforce and investment, but in aiding them to use more effectively and efficiently.

About the author:
*Natasha Bhiwgade is a technology analyst at ‘Markets and Markets’ since 2016. She is an electronics engineer and has a Master’s degree from Pune University, India. She is passionate about researching on emerging technologies especially artificial intelligence (AI) and internet of things (IoT).

Source:
This article was published by Modern Diplomacy

By TCA Rangachari*

“The prospects of the 21st century becoming the Asian century will depend in large measure on what India and China achieve individually and what we do together.” — Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Beijing, 15 May 2015

“Simultaneous re-emergence of India and China as two major powers in the region and the world offers a momentous opportunity for realization of the Asian Century. … India-China bilateral relations are poised to play a defining role in the 21st Century in Asia and indeed, globally….. The two countries pursuing their respective national developmental goals and security interests must unfold in a mutually supportive manner with both sides showing mutual respect and sensitivity to each other’s concerns, interests and aspirations.” –India-China Joint Statement, 15 May 2015

Has the relationship lived up to these exalted sentiments?

The first question to ask is whether we can make a worthwhile assessment of India-China relations by looking at this one short phase of a relationship stretching back a millennia and more? Or, should we view the relationship as a continuum where the past, present and future are all component parts?

The past will remain ever present in our bilateral dealings given that India and China have inherited a rich historical and cultural legacy. The present is relevant because that is what we have to deal with; also because, in democracies, governments have to gain and retain the support of their peoples whose judgement will be based on real-time consequences and benefits. Ignoring the future is not an option as China and India are both projected to become the second and third largest economies of the world in a conceivable time-frame. The displacement of established powers with attendant implications for global governance makes it imperative to evolve new arrangements and adjustments.

The broad choice before India and China is ‘Cooperate or Compete’. Cooperation in a constructive spirit would contribute to peace, stability and economic betterment of the region. It will provide an impetus for speedier regional integration. Commonalities in the problems faced by India and China – poverty elimination; ensuring balanced and equitable growth; governance and rule of law; demographics; rural-urban migration; labour flows and employment; environment and climate change – should encourage cooperation. Containment would derail these objectives. It would aggravate bilateral tensions and hostility, and widen the trust deficit that the leaderships in both countries are committed to redressing.

India and China both seem to be engaged in a combination of the two. There exists a clear acceptance of the need for a cooperative approach; the underlying suspicions, however, linger on. How successful we are in managing each other will significantly influence the achievement of our respective ‘dreams’ and influence regional and global stability and developmental goals.

In this back-drop, the past three years have been a part of the continuum to maximise mutual benefit while limiting differences to manageable levels. There have been notable gains even as unresolved problems persist and new ones have emerged.

Multiple mechanisms have facilitated exchanges and dialogue at various levels. In the last three years, new ones have been added covering health, science & technology, vocational education and skill development, and other sectors. Civil society dialogue is being institutionalised. In acknowledgement of our federal polity, new arrangements have been agreed upon for exchanges at the state and city levels. Exposure to the progress made by China might help our state-level leadership overcome ideological or other reservations in formulating and implementing growth-oriented policies. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s initiatives like promoting Yoga have been warmly welcomed and supported.

The biggest gain has been on the economic side. Investments from China have shown a notable increase. On 31 August 2016, Chinese newspaper Global Times reported that against $1.35 billion FDI in India during April 2000-March 2016, investments worth $2.3 billion were announced in the second quarter of 2016.
Another report on 10 May 2017 noted that an increasing number of Chinese companies are now investing in India covering sectors such as hardware, software, marketing, medicine, e-commerce, manufacturing, insurance and research & development. In effect, the Summit level decisions of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping are yielding results. The amounts are still much too small to offset India’s trade deficit in excess of $ 50 billion. It will require much effort on the two sides for investments to leap-frog and the deficit to decline. Nevertheless, this is a welcome development.

Dialogue may have led to greater understanding of each other’s viewpoints but problems persist. Some of China’s policies and actions – some enduring, some of recent origin – including in our neighbourhood and the Indian Ocean, remain adverse to India’s interests. China’s position on India’s membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, its stand on the issue of Pakistan-based terrorist outfits and the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) under the rubric of Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative disregards India’s interests and concerns. China’s own stated position is opposition to terrorism in all its forms. It has also been a victim of Pakistan-based terrorist groups. Most recently, on 10 June 2017, China expressed “grave concern” to Pakistan over the abduction and killing of two Chinese teachers in Pakistan. In these circumstances, covering up for Pakistan is inexplicable.

Equally inexplicable is the dismissiveness regarding India’s position on CPEC given China’s own position on sovereignty and territorial integrity. The border issue is not amenable to quick resolution. While the border areas have, by and large, remained peaceful, China needlessly complicated matters by upping the rhetorical ante by notifying, on 14 April 2017, Chinese names for six places in Arunachal Pradesh. The Chinese Foreign Office spokesman said this was “legitimate and appropriate.” “These names reflect from another angle that China’s territorial claim over South Tibet is supported by clear evidence in terms of history, culture and administration.” Would it not, in consequence, be “legitimate and appropriate” for India to review its Tibet policy which was not predicated upon claim being laid to Arunachal Pradesh as “South Tibet?”

China might also view some of India’s policies as adverse to its own interests. One recent development relates to China’s fears that India is moving too close to the US.

At the multi-lateral level, there has been cooperation in several different forums, the latest being at the June 2017 Shanghai Cooperation Organization Summit (SCO) in Astana, with India finally becoming a full member of the SCO. Xi then said China wished to “maintain coordination and cooperation on major international and regional issues” with India. India and China are partners in the BRICS Bank, AIIB and other organisations.

Thus, we have a mixed bag. Some positives, some negatives.

If there is a lesson from the past three years, it is that India and China have to work together to accommodate differing, competing, even conflicting, interests in a cooperative arrangement.

* TCA Rangachari
Member, Governing Council, IPCS; former Indian diplomat; and former Director, Academy of International Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia University, New Delhi

Canada passed a law Thursday making it illegal to use the wrong gender pronouns. Critics say that Canadians who do not subscribe to progressive gender theory could be accused of hate crimes, jailed, fined, and made to take anti-bias training.

Canada’s Senate passed Bill C-16, which puts “gender identity” and “gender expression” into both the country’s Human Rights Code, as well as the hate crime category of its Criminal Code by a vote of 67-11, according to LifeSiteNews. The bill now only needs royal assent from the House of Commons to pass into law.

“Great news,” announced Justin Trudeau, Canada’s prime minister. “Bill C-16 has passed the Senate – making it illegal to discriminate based on gender identity or expression. #LoveisLove.”

“Proud that Bill C-16has passed in the Senate,” said Jody Wilson-Raybould, the country’s attorney general and minister of justice. “All Canadians should feel #FreeToBeMe.”

“[There’s an argument] that transgender identity is too subjective a concept to be enshrined in law because it is defined as an individual’s deeply felt internal experience of gender,” said Grant Mitchell, a conservative senator, in November 2016. “Yet we, of course, accept outright that no one can discriminate on the basis of religion, and that too is clearly a very deeply subjective and personal feeling.”

Jordan Peterson, a professor at the University of Toronto, and one of the bill’s fiercest critics, spoke to the Senate before the vote, insisting that it infringed upon citizens’ freedom of speech and institutes what he views as dubious gender ideology into law.

“Compelled speech has come to Canada,” stated Peterson. “We will seriously regret this.”

“[Ideologues are] using unsuspecting and sometimes complicit members of the so-called transgender community to push their ideological vanguard forward,” said the professor to the Senate in May. “The very idea that calling someone a term that they didn’t choose causes them such irreparable harm that legal remedies should be sought [is] an indication of just how deeply the culture of victimization has sunk into our society.”

Peterson has previously pledged not to use irregular gender pronouns and students have protested him for his opposition to political correctness.

“This tyrannical bill is nothing but social engineering to the nth degree, all in the name of political correctness,” Jeff Gunnarson, vice president of Campaign Life Toronto, a pro-life political group in Canada, told LifeSiteNews.

The Daily Caller News Foundation reached out to the director of communications for the House of Commons, but received no comment in time for publication.

The bombing of a market in Yemen’s northern province of Saada last Saturday resulted in the death of more than 20 civilians and several injured.

The EU on Monday expressed its condolences to the families of the victims and wished a speedy recovery to all those injured.

“The bombing is a stark reminder that Yemeni civilians are the ones bearing the brunt of a war that has devastated their country, threatening to undermine regional stability,” said the European External Action Service (EEAS) in a statement. “The EU is increasingly worried by the humanitarian situation in the country, on the verge of widespread famine and most recently hit by a cholera outbreak.”

The EU expects all parties to re-engage constructively, under the auspices of the UN, to find a peaceful and negotiated political solution to the conflict so as to bring an end to the current unprecedented humanitarian crisis, said the EEAS.

“As stated by its Foreign Affairs Ministers in April, the EU will continue to work with the UN and all Yemeni and regional actors in the search of a political solution to the crisis while remaining committed to provide humanitarian assistance to the Yemeni population according to their rising needs,” said the EEAS