The number of recorded suicides and attempted suicides has soared at the Mae La refugee camp in Tak province, Thailand’s largest camp for refugees from Myanmar.

The International Organisation for Migration on June 19 called for urgent action to treat high levels of distress.

Twenty-eight refugees in Mae La camp have killed themselves and 66 have attempted suicide in the last two years, more than three times the global suicide rate, according to an IOM study published to mark World Refugee Day on June 20.

The Mae La camp, established in 1984, holds an estimated 50,000 people. It is the largest of nine camps along the Thai-Myanmar border maintained by Thai authorities.

“The number of suicides is very alarming, and we urgently need to address this,” the Thomson Reuters Foundation reported Harry Smith, IOM’s project officer in Thailand, as saying.

“There is a high level of distress in the camps which results from myriad reasons including lack of freedom of movement, uncertainty about the future, economic hardship and a lack of educational opportunities.”

There were 14 suicides in Mae La in the last year compared to one in the period June 2014 to May 2015. But the IOM said the jump could be due to a change in data collection.

Men under 50 were most at risk, but one child had also taken his life and three had tried to.

Nearly four in 10 deaths were from drinking weed-killer, which is widely available in the camps where residents grow food.

Family problems were a factor in nearly half of suicides. Alcohol and substance abuse played a role in more than a third.

Starting next month, Oregon will be the first state to offer a non-binary option on forms of DMV identification for residents who do not identify as male or female.

Oregon residents will have the option to mark “X” instead of female or male on state IDs, driver’s licenses, and learner’s permits.

The X is for non-binary, meaning the individual identifies as something other than either sex. This may include non-gender or some combination of both sexes.

The state’s Transportation Commission approved the option on Thursday, and it will officially go into effect on July 3. It follows an Oregon judge’s decision last year to recognize an army veteran’s legal change to non-binary sex; the first state in the U.S. to do so.

Jamie Shupe, who won the decision to change recognized genders last June, provoked the state’s transportation department to decide how to officially recognize and record “third-gender” residents.

Shupe had entered the army as a man and his discharge papers eventually indentified him as a woman, but, according to the Guardian, he claimed to have continued struggling with his identity until he believed he was a combination of both male or female.

There are nearly 20,000 Oregon residents who recognize themselves as transgender, making it one of the top 10 per capita transgender states in the U.S., according to the Williams Institute, a sexual orientation and gender identity think tank at UCLA law.

Oregon’s new policy has joined it with countries like Germany, Pakistan, India, Australia, and Canada who also offer a “third-gender” option, according to the BBC.

California is close behind with a similar proposed policy, which would not only offer a third binary option on driver’s licenses but birth certificates as well. The bill recently passed California’s senate in May and has been sent to the state assembly.

(EurActiv) — An explosion rocked the central train station in Brussels Tuesday evening and a man was shot by police during the incident, prosecutors told Belgian media. He was later reported dead.

The perpetrator reportedly shouted out “Allahu Akbar” (God is Great) before causing the explosion, a witness said.

Belgium’s national crisis said the perpetrator had been “neutralised” and the situation was under control.

The incident took place around 1900 GMT, causing the city’s Gare Centrale to be evacuated. The nearby Grand Place, a major tourist destination, was also evacuated.

“I went down the mezzanine level, someone was shouting. Then he cried ‘Allahu Akbar’, and he blew up a trolley,” Nicolas Van Herrewegen, a railway sorting agent, told reporters.

“I was behind a wall when it exploded. I went down and alerted my colleagues to evacuate everyone. He (the suspect) was still around but after that we didn’t see him.”

Van Herrewegen added: “It wasn’t exactly a big explosion but the impact was pretty big. People were running away.”

He described the suspect as well-built and tanned with short hair, wearing a white shirt and jeans.

“I saw that he had something on him because I could see wires emerging, so it may have been a suicide vest,” the witness said.

About an hour after the events, the situation was “under control”, the federal crisis centre said in a tweet.

“People are running everywhere,” a witness told RTL news as soon as the incident occurred.

“Panic in the Gare Centrale. Shots heard,” another witness told the broadcaster.

Firemen were called to the scene after the report of the small explosion, Belgian broadcaster RTBF reported.

The incident in Brussels comes a day after a man mowed down Muslims near a mosque in London, and a radical Islamist on a terror watch-list rammed a car laden with weapons and gas into a police vehicle in Paris.

Brussels has been on high alert since Islamic State suicide bombers struck the city’s airport and metro in March 2016, killing 32 people and injuring hundreds more.

The Islamic State group claimed the attacks, which were carried out by the same jihadist cell behind the November 2016 Paris attacks that killed 130 people.

Soldiers have been deployed at railway stations, government buildings and European Union institutions in Brussels since the aftermath of the Paris attacks when a link to Belgium was first established.

Belgium suffered a further shock last August when a machete-wielding man shouting “Allahu akbar” attacked two policewomen in the industrial town of Charleroi, before being shot dead.

The country’s law enforcement agencies and intelligence services came under intense scrutiny after the attacks for apparently missing a series of leads after the Paris attacks that could have led to the Brussels bombers.

National defence is not only the obligations of peoples who are in armed forces but it is a responsibility of the all citizens of a nation. Admissions for the new session is likely to kick start in colleges and universities the Defence and strategic studies (DSS), begin to grow or increase rapidly as a discipline in India would be a correct choice for students who wanted to make career in defence and strategic analyses. It is a prospective subject that any potential scholar who studied can not only become a common social scientist (subject expert) but can grow as an internationally renowned strategist. This course not only provides the opportunity to educate and research simply on strategic issues, but also supports stakeholders and security establishments in planning grand strategic policies of the nation.

Mostly Military science as a single optional subject in BSc or Defence studies as a single choosen optional subject in BA is offered by various colleges/Universities in India, some rare colleges also offered BA in Defence studies (specialization) or BSc in Military science also. Traditionally at Post Graduation level it is mainly offered as M Sc in Military Science and for MA as Defence and strategic studies. Most newly established Central Universities offered this course now as National Security studies (NSS) in India after the Jasjit Singh Committee report in 2010. First and foremost, this committee concluded that the nomenclature of defence and strategic studies was outdated and limiting; that this needed to be replaced with a more comprehensive, contemporary and generic title of National Security Studies. To incentivize this change the report suggested giving large, one-time, grants to few existing prominent departments. They also recommended recasting of all teaching courses to reflect contemporary themes and perspectives. Indeed, the committee recommended setting up of a separate apex Council on National Security Research and Studies as overarching body to guide and direct National Security Studies across India’s universities.

Finally, while it urged for upgrading and renaming of existing departments as Departments of National Security Studies, it recommended setting up of at least five new such departments to be opened up in selected other universities. All these departments were to receive additional funding directly from the union government to revamp their research and teaching. Every year UGC conducted NET test jointly for all under the name of Defence and strategic studies twice in a year conducted through CBSE. This course is currently not offered through distance mode for PG students (earlier Kurukshetra and Madras university offered) and only offered as a regular masters course, some Distance education departments of Punjabi university Patiala, PU Chandigarh, MDU Rohtak, Kurukshetra University Kurukshetra and some more offered this course to UG students only.

There are nearly 30 universities in India that offer Defence and strategic studies research and teaching programmes and award ‘degrees’ in their defence and strategic studies departments either at college level or in their university departments. In addition to these more than 150 other colleges ‘associated’ with 27 other universities offer ‘courses’ covering various aspects of the security studies—like military history, military studies, military science, strategic studies, diplomacy, disarmament, peace and conflict or war and peace, etc.—largely at the undergraduate level. Most military institutions also run higher command and other training courses which conclude with writing of a dissertation on themes of security studies and result in award of research degree from universities to which these are affiliated.

Then many deemed-to-be universities and other recognized and unrecognized private teaching institutions offer diplomas and degrees that include courses covering several sub-themes of security studies. Starting from late 1950s, an overwhelming number of these institutions offer security studies under the nomenclature of defence and strategic studies and most of these are located in northern and central India though there are few well-known university departments located in metropolitan cities in west (Pune) and south of India (Chennai) that as well offer specialization in security studies teaching and research. Over the years, University Grants Commission (UGC) has also encouraged and groomed several ‘area studies’ programmes in various universities specializing on various regions and countries.

These too have often had though only a limited focus on the teaching and research which overlaps with concerns of security studies. Indeed, this has been the regular complaint against ‘area studies’ that these remain confined to only studying foreign, security and economic policies instead of dwelling deeper with issues relating to their region’s cultures, classics, sociology, anthropology and languages.

India’s rise as an emerging power, since early 1990s and especially India’s nuclear tests of 1998, has given a boost to ever-expanding interest and infrastructure for India’s teaching and research in security studies. The proliferation of new think tanks and growing coverage of security-related issues in visual, print and online media has been more than noticeable. This has since transformed the nature and nurture of India’s security studies. Ex Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on 23 May 2013 led down the foundation stone of the Indian National Defence University (INDU) at Binola in Gurgaon district, Haryana, as an unique autonomous institution of national importance. The INDU would provide higher education for management of defence forces and keep military leadership abreast of emerging security challenges through scholarly research and training.

According to an official statement, the INDU would develop and propagate higher education in defence studies, defence management, defence science and technology, and promote policy-oriented research related to defence. The university will provide inputs for policy formulation and prepare officers for high-level leadership, staff and policy responsibilities. It will promote coordination and interaction between armed forces and other institutions in the country. It will focus on higher education in defence studies, defence management and defence science and technology. The university will offer post-graduate studies, and doctoral and post-doctoral research in defence and security related studies. The constituent colleges of the university would include the National College of Defence Studies (NCDS), Indian Institute of Defence Technology (IIDT), Indian Institute of Defence Management (IIDM) and Defence Institute of Distance & Open Learning (DIDOL). The review committee set up by the government after the Kargil conflict, headed by eminent strategic expert K. Subrahmanyam, had recommended establishment of a university to exclusively deal with defence and strategic matters.

What is the scope of Defence and StrategicStudies/ National Security studies (NSS)?

After independence, India has faced many ebbs and flows in the fields of defence and developments. Wars with Pakistan and lost to China in 1962 highlighted the neglence and unawareness of the India’s security policy. Our decision makers within the exception of very few, lack adequate knowledge of defence and security matters. Although our political leadership exercise greater care in their utterance on defence and security matters, these are essentially confined to generalities and are not the outcome of a well though out policy.

There is a lack of a well informed public opinion on defence and security related matters. In the absence of a well define defence policy in India; this state of affairs is likely to continue. So this requires a sound background based on study, research and in depth understanding. In India, the government and the armed forces and the average civilian debars them from the understanding of the defence of the nation, which is requirement of the day. So to bridge these types of gap the subject helps civilians to understand the National security and other defence related issues. The understanding and support of informed citizens is the basis of public confidence in the armed forces. Such confidence is essential to the effective performance of their military mission to preserve peace and repel aggression.

The public has the right to complete information about the plans and progress of armed forces, subject only to limitations of essential security. A knowledgeable and resolute citizen is as important as a highly motivated military force in meeting an aggression. Public understanding of the ever changing military situation is dependent upon truthful and current status of their defence force. The desirability of a military service as a carrier is not appreciated by many young men and women. These reasons further accentuate the importance of understanding of defence studies and its role in keeping the public informed of the contribution of the services to the peace and prosperity of the nation. There is a deep divide between the armed forces and an average civilian. Defence studies here plays a the role of a moderator thereby bridging the gap between the two and creating a better understanding of the defence services in the minds of people.

As the 21st century is in progress the need for more serious thinking about the theoretical and practical aspects of security and developmental programmes have become self-evident. In realizing the goals of security and development as two faces of a single coin the subject finds a special role-rather a duty to play. Academic strategists, like their professional counterparts, have the opportunity to think in long term perspective and take hold of problems of national and international life, which very few policy makers have a chance to think about. It covers all strategic and domestic issues that affect the security and defence of the nation, and helps a student gain adequate military education – mainly the historical and geographical aspects.

By gaining awareness on war and its associated problems, one can help the government in strategic policy development. Defence Studies expose the individuals to an in-depth analysis of contemporary events and issues in this multilateral, unpredictable world. This provides the broad field within which Nations of States and non-state factors interact. An attempt is made to provide for both of theoretical understanding of how and why Nations behave as they do and also a historical survey of the Major Trends in World Affairs. It also includes an understanding of Indian Military History, The Defense Organisation of India, India’s National Security, Civil Military relations, Indian Military Psychology and Sociological analyses, and the Economics of Defense budgeting and expenditure. Indian Armed Forces have facing problem of shortage of more than 25000 officers, the youth having a basic understanding and aptitude for security matters can contribute in a better way by joining the Indian Armed Forces.

What are the career options for students after doing DSS/ NSS Course?

Today’s youngsters may be attracted to the armed forces, but few know that defence studies also offers career opportunities in a world in which the line between traditional and upcoming careers has become blurred. Defence studies have established itself as a subject to be reckoned with as most universities have introduced it at the graduate or postgraduate levels in the country. The multi-disciplinary approach of the course ensures that it is helpful not only in making a career but also in preparing for competitive examinations. It is also being chosen as an optional subject in the state/central services. The candidates who have passed bachelor’s / master’s degree in this subject, can start career as lecturers and go for research fields like international relations, geostrategic, geopolitical socio-economic and tactical aspect of war. One can get jobs at Lecturer / Professor in Universities or Colleges, Indian Army, Navy, Air Force, Education corps, Para Military, Defence journalism, Research, Policy Making, Defence Analysts, Security Advisors, Military Psychologists Military Intelligence Specialist, and many more fields. Writing and publishing books with Government and UGC sponsored grants, articles and blogs is also a considerable option for young students.

There are a number of research institutes as well as universities ready to enroll postgraduates for research on defence-related subjects. The premier among these is the Institute of Defence Studies and Analysis, New Delhi. Students of Defence studies can also join Institute for Defence Studies and Analysis (IDSA), New Delhi as Research Associate / Research Fellow, Research Officer. The greatest contribution of India’s universities has been in generating mass-scale general consciousness, interests and expertise in security matters, while much of focus in India’s think tanks remains on the policy debates. This policy research in India has happened mostly in various think tanks led by Ministry of Defence supported Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA) and United Services Institution of India (USI), lately joined by Centre for Land Warfare Studies (CLAWS), National Maritime Foundation (NMF) and Centre for Air Power Studies (CAPS) all in New Delhi. Similarly, Indian Council of World Affairs (ICWA) functioning under the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) and Institute for Conflict Management (ICM) associated with Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) are also premiere research centres that the scholars can be employed.

There are also several private think tanks that provides internship and job positions namely, the Observer Research Foundation (ORF), Institute for Peace and Conflict Studies (IPCS), Centre for Policy Research (CPR), India Foundation (IF), Ananta Aspen Centre (AAC), South Asia Analysis Group (SAAG) and Vivekananda International Foundation (VIF) in New Delhi, Gateway House in Mumbai and Global India Foundation (GIF) in Kolkata. In fact, India’s top security brasses have the background of these premiere think tanks. The current NSA Ajit Dhoval (IPS, Retd) and his deputy Arbind Gupta (IFS, Retd) were the heads of VIF and IDSA respectively just before they occupied the powerful positions in the NSCS. Interested aspirants can also work with renowned international bodies such as United Nation Department of Safety and Security (UNDSS) and United Nation Department of Political Affairs (UNDPA). Separately the Hills and Associates, and Control Risks are also important foreign private risk assessment or strategic analyses companies that have offices in India where intellectuals from security studies background are recruited with high payment. The International College for Security Studies (ICSS) or the Orion School of Security & Intelligence Managements, both based in New Delhi, offer training and Security Education for all levels of personnel in every facet of the subject whether it be on land, sea or air. Their major advantages include their recent origins, their having multiple branches as also affiliations and partnerships with various reputed international agencies of similar kind. You enter as a research associate or political/defence analyst, drawing a salary of Rs. 20,000 per month. And as you rise up as senior researcher with PhD in hand, you can expect Rs. 40,000 to Rs. 60,000 per month. Of course, the salary levels and perks vary drastically, if you are interested to join politics or become a diplomat/Ambassador through foreign services. Being a diplomat gives you a lot of responsibilities which are closely related to domestic and international happenings. However, the field of strategic analysis gives a lot of satisfaction to professionals in this field.

There are many scholarships for research positions in foreign think tanks, research institutions and universities as Research Associates/Research Fellow/ Research Officer/Intern. Some of the institutes offering research opportunities are: French Institute of International Relations, Institute for International and Strategic Relations (France); Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies (Israel); Japan Institute of International Affairs, National Institute for Defense Studies (Tokyo Japan); Kazakhstan Institute for Strategic Studies; Institute for Strategic Studies; Stockholm International Peace Research Institute; Emirates Centre for Strategic Studies and Research, Chatham House; the Brookings Institution (USA); Center for Strategic and International Studies (USA); Council on Foreign Relations (USA); Foreign Policy Research Institute USA; Institute for National Strategic Studies (USA); Kings College London; and The RAND Corporation.

New avenues

The concept of security has changed now. The military protects the country. But who protects the Corporates, Malls, Senstive installations and big Hotels? This is where a degree in Defence and Strategic Studies with Diploma in Security and safety management helps, where you get trained in civil defence, comes in handy. But there is a certain mindset at work, “Strangely, security is not considered a proper occupation for an educated person. But, if you realise that this mindset is not correct, then there are a wide range of opportunities available.”

In the corporate sector, many opportunities are opening up nowadays. With security forming a huge concern for all, trained professionals are very much in demand. The remuneration is also good. Write the next episode of the Terminator franchise or be the Tom Clancy of 2020. As someone with a depth of knowledge in the area of warfare and defence, it would make you an ideal candidate to write and publish fictional books / screen plays on this matter. The general public has a good appetite for war fiction (as attested to by the innumerable Hollywood films on war). If you manage to squeeze in future warfare and technology into the equation, postulating a war or a future that has yet to occur. The defence experts should act as a bridge between the academic community and policymaking functionaries. More importantly, they should provide independent, credible and candid analysis to the public for informed debate of national security issues.

Who can study this course?

• Candidates who have passed 10+2 examination in any discipline are eligible to pursue this course at UG level in BSc/BA (Minimum required marks may be differing in regions/universities/colleges).
• Candidates who have passed Bachelor’s degree in Military / Defence Studies can pursue MA/MSc degree in DSS/ NSS Course in various Indian universities.
• After MA/MSc degree they can do PG Diplomas/MPhil/PhD/DLitt and JRF in DSS/ NSS Course in various Indian universities. The courses offered in this field are BA (as a subject), MA, M. Phil., Certificate Courses, PG diplomas and Ph.D. Defence and Strategic Studies is an interdisciplinary subject which includes, among other topics, the study of National security, Military history, International relations, Military geography, Science and technology, Modern strategic thought, Military psychology, Military sociology, Area studies (South Asia-China-Pakistan), Research Methodology, International law, Theory and practice of war, Disaster management, Indian Ocean, Conflict resolution & peace studies, Map reading, Water security, Environment protection, Energy security, Security management and Defence economics etc. Students from different disciplines opt for this course and wide arrays of opportunities are available once you complete it.

Top Universities in India offering Defence and StrategicStudies/ National Security studies

1. Allahabad University-# Senate Hall, Allahabad-211002, Uttar Pradesh, Department of Defence and Strategic Studies, Courses offered-BA/BSc, M.A, Ph.D, www.allduniv.ac.in
2. Central University of Gujarat- # Gandhinagar – 382030, Centre for Security Studies (CSS) at the School of International Studies, Courses offered- integrated M.Phil / Ph.D programme, www.cug.ac.in
3. Central University of Jammu- # Jammu- 180011, Department of National Security Studies, Courses offered- integrated M.Phil / Ph.D programme, www.cujammu.ac.in
4. Central University of Kerala recently opened a Centre for Defence and Strategic Studies www.cukerala.ac.in
5. Deen Dayal Upadhyay Gorakhpur University-# Gorakhpur-273009, Uttar Pradesh,  Department of Defence and Strategic Studies, Courses offered- B.A, M.A, PhD, PGDDNSM (Post Graduate Diploma in Disaster and National Security Management) www.ddugorakhpuruniversity.in
6. Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University- # Garhwal University, Srinagar Garhwal-246174, Defence and Strategic Studies Department, Courses offered- B.A/B.Sc, M.A/M.Sc, PhD, PGDMSD (Post Graduate Diploma in Military Studies & Defence Management Only for Gentlemen Cadets of Indian Military Academy, Dehradun, P.G Diploma in Defence Studies and Boarder Management- Only for Gentlemen Cadets of I.T.B.P.Academy Musoorie. Uttarakhand) www.hnbgu.ac.in
7. Kurukshetra University- #Kurukshetra 136119,Haryana, Department of Politica Science and Defence and Strategic Studies, Courses offered- B.A in affiliated colleges, M.A www.kuk.ac.in
8. Maharshi Dayanand University-# Rohtak-124001, Haryana, Department of Defence and Strategic Studies, Courses offered- M.A, Ph.D,    www.mdurohtak.ac.in
9. Meerut College -#Meerut- 250003,Uttar Pradesh, Affiliated to Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut, Department of Defence and Strategic Studies, Courses offered- BA/M.A, Ph.D, www.meerutcollege.org
10. University of Madras-# Chepauk Campus. Triplicane, P.O- Chennai-600005, Tamilnadu, Department of Defence and Strategic Studies, Courses offered- M.A, M.Phil, Ph.D, www.unom. ac.in.
11. Savitribai Phule Pune University # Pune-411007, Maharashtra, Department of Defence and Strategic Studies, Courses offered- M.A/M.Sc, M.Phil, Ph.D, also have Yashwantrao Chavan National Centre of International Security and Defence Analysis (YCNISDA) www.unipune.ac.in
12. Panjab University-# Chandigarh-160014, Department of Defence and National Security Studies, Courses offered- M.A, Ph.D, Postgraduate Diploma Course and Three-months Executive Certificate Course in Disaster Management & Security incl., One year Postgraduate Diploma Course in Homeland Security which is only of its kind in the country served by this department. www.puchd.ac.in
13. Punjabi University-# Patiala- 147002, Punjab, Department of Defence and Strategic Studies, Courses offered- B.A in affiliated colleges, M.A, M.Phil, Ph.D,   www.punjabiuniversity.ac.in
14. Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University-Kalyanpur-208024, Kanpur UttarPradesh, Courses offered through affiliated colleges – B.A/B.Sc, M.A/M.Sc, PhD,     www.kanpuruniversity.org.
15. University of Calcutta- # Senate House 87/1, College Street, Calcutta-700073, West Bengal, Military Studies; Courses offered-B.A (for NCC Candidates as option) www.caluni.ac.in.
16. M.J.P. Rohilkhand University- #Dori Lal Agarwal Marg,  University Campus. Bareilly-243001, UttarPradesh,   Military Studies & Military Science, Courses offered- B.A/B.Sc, M.A/M.Sc, PhD, The course is running under its Affiliated Colleges     www.mjpru.ac.in.
17. Manipur University- # Canchipur, Imphal-795003, Manipur, Defence Studies, Courses offered in affiliated colleges-B.A/B.Sc,  www.manipuruniv.ac.in
18. North Maharashtra University-# PO Box No.80, Umavinagar, Jalgaon-425002, Maharashtra, Defence and Strategic Studies, Courses offered-B.A/B.Sc, M.A/M.Sc, PhD,    www.nmu.ac.in.
19. Tripura University- #PO.-Agartala College, Tripura West, Suryamani Nagar, Agartala-799004, Defence Studies, Courses offered in affiliated colleges – B.A/B.Sc, www.tripurauniv.in
20. Osmania University, Hyderabad in its Affiliated College of Defence Management, Secunderabad. offered course in Higher Defence Management Course (HDMC), Senior Defence Management Course (SDMC), Defence Management Course (DMC). www. osmania.ac.in.
21. University of Lucknow- # Lucknow 226 007, Department of Defence Studies, Courses offered-BA/MA. www.lkouniv.ac.in
22. Jai Narain Vyas University-# Central Office, Residency Road, Jodhpur 342011 Rajasthan, Courses offered- MA. www.jnvu.edu.in
23. Jawaharlal Nehru University- #New Delhi-110067, School of International Studies, Course Offered- MPhil/PhD, www.jnu.ac.in.

For 75 years, Bayview Park, in a Pensacola, Florida neighborhood, has been home to a large cross. The 1941 wooden cross, erected by a New Deal agency, was replaced by a civic group in 1969 with a 34-foot concrete “Latin cross.” No one complained until recently. On June 19, a federal judge ordered it to be taken down.

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson was sympathetic to the Christians who wanted the cross to stay, but felt he had no choice but to rule against them.

“Thousands upon thousands,” he noted, made their way each year to attend Easter services and to commemorate Veteran’s Day and Memorial Day. But this mattered not a whit to the militant atheists at the Freedom From Religion Foundation and the American Humanist Association: they filed suit claiming the cross violated the First Amendment.

The claims made by the atheists are transparently dishonest, and the ruling by Judge Vinson is proof positive that the U.S. Supreme Court has created mass confusion on this issue.

Plaintiff Amanda Kondrat’yev said she first encountered the cross while walking through Bayview Park with a friend in 2008 or 2009. Here is what the lawsuit said:

“She was immediately affronted by the government’s enormous Christian cross display and expressed feelings of shock to her friend as soon as they saw the imposing Christian symbol. She has had unwelcome contact with the Bayview Cross approximately thirty times since….The giant cross in Bayview Park significantly impedes [her] use and enjoyment of the local park. Due to the presence of the Bayview Cross, and its enormous size, [she] finds it difficult, if not impossible, to fully enjoy the park.”

This account strains credulity. How in the world did she know that the Bayview Cross wasn’t erected on government leased land and was paid for by private sources? More important, would it have made any difference if it were privately owned and on leased land? After all, the “shock” at seeing an “enormous,” “imposing,” and “giant” cross would surely be enough to “significantly impede”—if not make it “impossible”—for her to enjoy the park.

It is obvious that militant atheists hate the sight of the cross. Nor can it be doubted that some vomit upon seeing it. They need help, but not the kind granted by the federal courts.

Judge Vinson knows the history of the First Amendment’s religious liberty provision well. Indeed, he cites Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story’s observation, made in his classic treatise on the Constitution in 1851, that the Founders believed that “Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State,” and that attempts to “level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.”

This is why Judge Vinson maintains that “the historical record indicates that the Founding Fathers did not intend for the Establishment Clause to ban crosses and religious symbols from public property.” Nonetheless, he feels constrained by more recent Supreme Court decisions. The problem here, as he readily acknowledges, is the lack of clarity coming from the high court.

Judge Vinson cites one important case, Lemon v. Kurtzman, as crafting a three-prong test to decide the constitutionality of religious liberty cases. He correctly notes that this 1971 decision has “not [been] consistently used.” In fact, he says the lower court rulings have been a “hodgepodge,” leading to much “confusion.” But because Lemon is still law, he says, “I am not free to ignore it.” He comes to this conclusion even after acknowledging, in a footnote, that Lemon “has occasionally been bypassed or ignored by the Supreme Court.”

Judge Vinson ends with a plea to the Supreme Court to “revisit and reconsider its Establishment Clause jurisprudence.” If it doesn’t, we will continue to see more phony cases brought by atheist Christian-hating activists feigning “shock” at seeing crosses in parks.

Thirty percent of Russians now identify as Muslims, according to a new survey by the ZoomMarket marketing agency, just 12 percent fewer than the 42 percent who say they are Orthodox Christians. Some 18 percent say they are atheists, with all other denominations in the single digits.

Thus, three percent of Russians say they are Roman Catholics, two percent say they are Protestants or Old Believers, and one percent each identify as Buddhists, Jews, Greek Catholics or Slavic pagans (mazm.ru/article/a-2013.html and znak.com/2017-06-20/42_rossiyan_schitayut_sebya_pravoslavnymi).

The most Orthodox places were Samara, where 57 percent said they were Orthodox Christians, Nizhny Novgorod and Perm (53 percent), Novosibirsk (49 percent), St. Petersburg and Krasnoyarsk (43 percent), Voronezh (41 percent).

The most Muslim places were Kazan (72 percent), Krasnodar (43 percent), Voronezh (31 percent), Yekaterinburg (29 percent), Krasnoyarsk (28 percent), and Moscow (26 percent). And the most “atheist” were St. Petersburg (26 percent), Voronezh and Yekaterinburg (23 percent), Krasnoyarsk (22 percent), Moscow (21 percent), and Novosibirsk (18 percent).

These figures are important for at least three reasons. First, they show just how rapidly Islam is gaining ground in Russia. Second, they cast doubt on the claims of the Kremlin and the Moscow Patriarchate about how “Orthodox” Russia in fact now is. And third, they set the stage for even more changes ahead.

One indication of that: a third of all those queried said that they would vote for a religious party if one were available to them.

Climate change has triggered and aggravated human displacement resulting in 50 million refugees globally. The current appraisals are bound to be proliferated in years ahead as famines, water scarcities and natural disasters are made gradually more brutal by global warming.

Many experts have stated that there will be around 200 million climate change-induced displaced people by 2050. Ethically, all the stakeholders, governments and UN agencies have admitted the issue of climate change-made forced migration (CMFM) but, unfortunately, the issue does not figure in their major concerns.

Nevertheless, EU government observe CMFM as a humanitarian concern, but encapsulated with national security repercussions. Consequently, CMFM has created a new class of climate change-made displaced people called climate refugees. But they have also been labeled as environmentally displaced people, environmental refugees, climate migrants etc. However, global governance has failed to address the plight of the fight of the new refugees.

The international law, unfortunately, has failed to protect the climate refugees’ particularly an international refugee protection framework and its acquiescence apparatus. While environmental factors are profoundly interwoven with political factors, therefore, climate change cannot be the only cause of forced migration. Therefore, the term “climate refugee” has become contentious and convoluted. Even modern development models have also exacted hazards and harms of life-threatening magnitudes on earth destroying its natural protection shield. Hence, the awareness of the international community to identify refugee protection and solution for refugees commenced only with League of Nations and Dr. Fridtjof Nansen’s election as the first High Commissioner for Russian refugees in 1921, who issued the Nansen Passport as a substitute of passport for migrants and stateless persons that was agreed upon in an Inter-governmental Conference in 1922 in Geneva. Subsequently, other refugees from Armenia in 1924 and from Assyria, Assyro-Chaldea and Turkey in 1928 were also put under the Nansen Mandate.

The League of Nations and UNO had established and dissolved many organizations until 1950, including the IRO created especially for European refugees that was replaced by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) that has adopted the 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (UNCSR) also known as international refugee law (IRL) for a preliminary period of three years. But soon it was realized that refugee problem was not limited to Europe , therefore, a new Additional Protocol was adopted in 1967 to remove the geo-political limitations in applying the UNCSR to all refugees of the world. Subsequently, the UN adopted two more conventions on Statelessness and Reduction of Statelessness in 1954 and 1961, respectively but, unfortunately, the protection of climate refugees was not covered by them.

The UNCSR in Article 1(A) defines refugees only on five grounds such as : “any person owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race (1), religion (2), nationality (3), membership of a particular social group (4) or political opinion (5), is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.” It is clear from this definition that it does not cover climate refugees. However, a legal framework called the Principles on Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) takes into account the needs of CMFM people within the national borders and excludes the climate refugees crossing international boundaries.

Though, a process of Global Consultations was started in 2001 on the 50th Anniversary of the UNCSR. But these High Consultations discussed the unanimity on approaches to protection choices, to standard-determination, to the development of pragmatic actions to solve the refugee problem. But the question of CMFM did not appear in their priorities. Even UN Framework Convention on Climate Change does not address their problems. Therefore, the issue of climate change is confronted with two controversial archetypes of right to development and right not to be displaced in IRL and human rights discourse. Therefore, the time has come to reform the existing IRL by adopting an Additional Protocol on Climate Refugees to IRL that must address their rights within the normative framework of common humanity deviant to international power politics

*Nafees Ahmad, LL.M, Ph. D, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Legal Studies, South Asian University-New Delhi-India, drnafeesahmad@sau.ac.in

*Stellina Jolly, L.M, Ph. D, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Legal Studies, South Asian University-New Delhi-India, stellinajolly@sau.ac.in

In Matal v. Tam, the Supreme Court handed down an important First Amendment decision. This case dealt with a band’s application for federal trademark registration of the band’s name, “The Slants.”

The Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) denied the application based on 15 U.S.C. 1052(a), which prohibits the registration of trademarks that may “disparage . . . or bring . . . into contemp[t] or disrepute” any “persons, living or dead.”

The PTO denied the application because “Slants” is a derogatory term for persons of Asian descent. All the band members are Asian-Americans and believed that by taking that slur as the name of their group, they could “reclaim” the term.

The group draws inspiration for its lyrics from childhood slurs and mocking nursery rhymes and has given its albums names such as “The Yellow Album” and “Slanted Eyes, Slanted Hearts.”

The Court ruled for the Slants and held that the statute “offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend.”

Considering all the efforts underway on college campuses and elsewhere to silence offensive speech (i.e., speech with which the progressives disagree) Tam is much needed good news!

This article was published at The Beacon.

Obstruction of justice was among the articles of impeachment drafted against both Presidents Nixon and Clinton. The parallel between Nixon and Trump is almost exact. White House tapes revealed Nixon giving instructions to pressure the acting FBI director into halting the Watergate investigation.

Two weeks after Trump told Comey privately “I need loyalty. I expect loyalty,” he had another private meeting with Comey in the Oval Office. After shooing out his advisers – all of whom had top security clearance – Trump said to Comey, according to Comey’s memo written shortly after the meeting, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go.”

Then on May 9, Trump fired Comey. In a subsequent interview with NBC Trump said he planned to fire Comey “regardless of [the] recommendation” of the Attorney and Deputy Attorney General, partly because of “this Russia thing.” Trump also revealed in the interview that he had had several conversations with Comey about the Russia investigation, and had asked Comey if he was under investigation.

The federal crime of obstruction of justice applies to “[w]hoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law” in a proceeding or investigation by a government department or agency or Congress.

As in Nixon’s case, a decision to support an “inquiry of impeachment” resolution in the House—to start an impeachment investigation—doesn’t depend on sufficient evidence to convict a person of obstruction of justice, but simply probable cause to believe a president may have obstructed justice.

There’s already more than enough evidence of probable cause to begin that impeachment inquiry of Donald Trump.

In 2006 a book was published called Losing Our Democracy by civic leader, Mark Green. His 21^st book, it was the usual Mark Green brand of meticulous research with memorable examples. One would have thought such an important subject would have received wide coverage and circulation. In fact, it was almost completely ignored by reviewers and the media interviewers. In 2017, the danger of having the door shut on the practice of democracy by its citizens is more important than at any other time in recent history.

Republicans prefer to use the words “liberty” and “freedom,” not “democracy.” Why? Because democracy includes these rights but adds “justice,” which holds those in power accountable and brings them down to earth where people live, work and raise their families.

Look at some ways democracy’s doors are closing. Thirteen Republican senators (all men)  are now meeting secretly behind closed doors to further deny American families access to affordable, accessible healthcare. They arrogantly (or cynically) have refused to hold a single public hearing. In 2009-2010 the Senate held over 100 bipartisan public hearings and 25 days of floor debate before passing The Affordable Care Act, having accepted numerous Republican amendments.

Today, Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the dictator of the Senate, aims to jam this cruel and vicious legislation through the Senate by the end of June, a bill which would take away health insurance from 23 million people, many of whom will die or remain sick, and destroy many critical protections for vulnerable Americans. The legislation also gives a huge tax cut for the rich at the expense of America’s sick children and adults with disabilities.

This is just one example of Americans being denied access to justice in “the land of the free.”

Voting suppression and gerrymandered one-party districts exist in many states. More doors closing. Your right to your day in court against the perpetrators who caused your wrongful injuries has been rolled back in the House of Representatives and in many state legislatures, literally closing democracy’s door to your local courtrooms.

The US Supreme Court, with a 5 to 4 corporatist majority, thrives on closing doors on workers organizing through labor unions, consumers standing up for their rights and citizens demanding  environmental health and fair taxation for corporations.

Astonishingly, the Trump White House suggests that its federal agency heads do not have to respond to inquiries from members of Congress, while Congressional leaders are trying to hold back reporters’ access to legislators on Capitol Hill.

At the Federal Communications Commission, Chairman Ajit Pai is pushing to shut out or make more expensive the people’s access to the Internet and to their own public airwaves.  Of course, this will benefit big business.

The Securities and Exchange Commission, led by former Wall Street executive Jay Clayton, is moving to make it even more difficult for shareholders – the owners of publicly traded corporations – to exercise their rights of ownership.  Many shareholder rights have already been nearly stripped bare by previous corporatists. Closing doors to the owners in favor of corporate bosses in a touted capitalistic economy is what is partly meant by the corporate state – using government to further entrench the corporate supremacists.

The mass media is shutting out the works of citizen groups who are the  advocates for more  open doors for justice on behalf of consumers, families, marginalized groups, workers and the environment. See breakingthroughpower.org and ask why, over eight days last year, this historic gathering of civic leaders and justice builders was blocked out by the big print and electronic media.  In an age of narrow and sensationalized coverage, it is more difficult than ever for the civil society to participate in mainstream discourse via the media.

Doors are closing on small individual debtors. Fees for regular people to file court cases are going up and judicial procedures are reversing their historic purpose and closing doors on the powerless.

Many consumers are closing doors on themselves by not fighting for their existing rights or to create new rights  Buying from giant absentee companies like Amazon closes the doors on Main Street, with its community-binding small businesses that pay property taxes for schools and other public facilities.

What used to be heralded as our sacred right  to “freedom of contract” has been frozen by the fine print contracts that we either sign on the dotted line or click to accept.  These inscrutable contracts strip us of our consumer rights, block our right to go to court, including banding together in class actions, and often give the vendors the power to change the terms, unilaterally claiming terms buried in the fine print give them the ultimate power of control.

Third political parties that wish to give the voters more voices and choices are held down by the big two-party duopoly. Independent new parties know what closing democracy’s door is like from ballot access obstacles to exclusion from the candidate debates.

Citizens of America, the Fourth of July is coming up – the day in 1776 when American patriots rebelled against King George III’s closed doors and exclusion from  justice. Then and now, everyday people find themselves shut out by the powers that be.  Today, millions of shut out Americans face daily denial of healthcare, secretive companies repeatedly telling them to get lost and bureaucrats invoking government secrecy.

Raise your voices, Americans! Shake off the clever slogans and lies of the craven  politicians and the intricate chains enveloping your credit/debit economy. Challenge an educational system that avoids giving the next generation the citizen skills and experience necessary to open the doors of democracy and secure its many blessings.

Start with the Congress to whom you have delegated, but not surrendered, your Constitutional power. This Fourth of July, you can make your voices heard in front of your senators’ and representative’s local offices, and call on your friends and neighbors to do the same through social media. No one can stop you from opening that door, at least not yet. Visit breakingthroughpower.org for a Citizen Summons to your legislators that can start opening the doors.

By Steven Salisbury*

(FPRI) — On June 17, the eve of Father’s Day, an explosive device ripped through a women’s bathroom in Bogota’s upscale Centro Andino shopping mall, reportedly killing three women and wounding at least eight people. A young French woman who reportedly had helped a children’s school in a low-income Bogota neighborhood died in the blast, and her mother was injured, according to news reports.

US President Donald Trump spoke Wednesday with Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia to congratulate him on his recent elevation.

The President and the Crown Prince committed to close cooperation to advance our shared goals of security, stability, and prosperity across the Middle East and beyond.

According to the White House, the two leaders discussed the priority of cutting off all support for terrorists and extremists, as well as how to resolve the ongoing dispute with Qatar.

Additionally, they discussed efforts to achieve a lasting peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and they discussed ways to further deepen economic cooperation between the United States and Saudi Arabia, the White House said.

By Marcus Tanner

London-based think tank says Moscow’s bid to establish bloc of four neutral or pro-Moscow Balkan states has experienced major setbacks in Macedonia and Montenegro.

Russia has been making a concerted bid to create four neutral or pro-Russian states in the Western Balkans – but the results have been mixed, according to the London-based think tank, the International Institute for Strategic Studies, IISS.

Dismissing claims made in the UK and Western media that “war is brewing again” in the Balkans, the think tank says the bigger danger is concerted Russian penetration, aimed at creating a bloc of four neutral or friendly states in Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Macedonia.

In pursuit of this goal, the IISS says, Moscow has set up a slew of pro-Russian media and other organisations in the region – 109 in Serbia alone and at least 30 in Macedonia – including media outlets and so-called “friendship” associations, as well as fomenting links with parties in Serbia, Macedonia’s former ruling VMRO DPMNE party and the opposition Democratic Front in Montenegro.

Russia’s “main tools of influence” in the Balkans, it adds, include “websites promoting Russia and glorifying Putin and Russian military prowess”, which echo the official line of RT and Sputnik and whose stories routinely “claim that the West and NATO are trembling before the might of Russia, that the EU is on the brink of collapse or that NATO or some other Western entity is behind an imminent Albanian military drive to start a new war and create a Greater Albania”.

However, IISS said Russia’s Balkan campaign had achieved only mixed results, starting with a major setback in Macedonia, where the Moscow-backed VMRO DPMNE party has been forced to cede power to the Social Democrats, and Montenegro’s accession to NATO, despite furious Kremlin opposition.

As a result of the latter, almost “the entire northern shore of the Mediterranean, from Gibraltar to the Syrian border, is now under NATO control, and the Russian navy will be unable to gain coveted access to Montenegrin port facilities,” IISS remarked.

Turning to other security dangers to the region, the IISS described Islamist radicalism as a real but “exaggerated” threat.

Some 780 people from the region went to Iraq and Syria between 2012 and the spring of 2016, it noted, including just over 300 from Kosovo and about 200 from Bosnia.

However, the IISS said frequent claims that Kosovo and Bosnia had exported more jihadists than any other European states were wrong, if the figures are calculated on a per-capita basis.

“A terrorism threat certainly does exist [in the Balkans] … but the problem is not as serious as it is in France, the UK or Belgium,” the IISS maintained.

The IISS also dismissed media claims that another war is likely to start in the region, noting: “Serbia and Croatia are not poised to start a new war.”

A bigger problem, it said, was the consistent erosion of democratic standards, the weakness of the free media, the susceptibility of justice systems to patronage and political influence and corruption.

“A new word has recently entered the lexicon for describing Western Balkan countries that are not true democracies but nevertheless are progressing towards EU accession – ‘stabilitocracies,’” it concluded.

By Joyce Karam

US President Donald Trump on Wednesday congratulated Saudi Arabia’s newly appointed Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, with whom he discussed the diplomatic row between Qatar and its Gulf neighbors, including Riyadh.

“The president and the crown prince committed to close cooperation to advance our shared goals of security, stability, and prosperity across the Middle East and beyond,” the White House said in a statement about their telephone talks.

“The two leaders discussed the priority of cutting off all support for terrorists and extremists, as well as how to resolve the ongoing dispute with Qatar,” the statement added.

Trump and the crown prince additionally “discussed efforts to achieve a lasting peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians and ways to further deepen economic cooperation between the United States and Saudi Arabia.”

Prince Mohammed bin Salman was the first Arab leader to officially meet with Trump at the White House in March and then also met him in Riyadh last month.

Earlier this month, Riyadh and several of its allies including Egypt, Bahrain and the UAE, cut ties with Qatar over accusations that Doha supports extremist groups, including some linked to Iran — a claim Tehran denies.

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said Saudi Arabia and its allies have drawn up a list of demands to be presented to Qatar.

“We hope the list of demands will soon be presented to Qatar and will be reasonable and actionable,” he said.

“We support the Kuwaiti mediation effort and look forward to this matter moving toward a resolution,” added Tillerson, who has been tasked by Trump to oversee an end to the standoff.

Iran’s growth of gross domestic product (GDP), including oil sector, hit 12.5 percent in the previous Iranian calendar year 1395 (ended on March 20, 2017), the Central Bank of Iran (CBI) reported.

Iran’s GDP stood at 6.691 quadrillion rials (about $178.5 billion) last year, based on the market prices in fiscal year 2011-12.

The increase in production and exports of oil in 1395 contributes to the main part of the registered 12.5 percent growth; however, excluding oil, the growth also recorded a positive trend. Accordingly, Iran’s economic growth, not including the oil sector, stood at 3.3 percent last year, up from -3.1 percent in year 1394.

The Statistical Center of Iran, the other Iranian official body that is in charge of releasing macroeconomic data, has put the country’s non-oil GDP growth at 6.3 percent during the past Iranian calendar year.

According to the SCI’s recent report, GDP growth, including the oil sector, touched 8.3 percent in the said period.

The International Monetary Fund has forecasted that Iran’s real GDP growth is expected to rebound to 6.6 percent in 2016-17.

Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen on Wednesday issued a harsh warning to the country’s political opposition, telling critics of his more than 30-year rule to “prepare your coffins” if they persist in accusing him of threatening civil war if his party is defeated in the polls.

Speaking at an event commemorating the 40th anniversary of his 1977 defection to Vietnam after serving as a junior officer in Cambodia’s murderous Khmer Rouge, Hun Sen said that only he and his family can defend social order and the country’s constitutional monarchy.

Analysts’ speculation that Hun Sen’s frequent warnings of chaos in Cambodia may reflect divisions in the country’s military are themselves a potential cause for war, Hun Sen said in his June 21 speech given in Anloung commune in the Memot district of Tbaung Khmum province.

“Your tongues themselves are a cause for war,” Hun Sen said in remarks aimed at Cambodian political analysts and others opposed to his rule. “If you persist in these insults, you should prepare your coffins.”

“Please don’t incite chaos!” Hun Sen added, saying that he and his family are solely responsible for the protection of the country, its constitution, and its accomplishments during his years in office.

To protect political and social stability in Cambodia, the country’s ruling Cambodian People’s Party (CPP) must be ready to “eliminate” as many as 100 or 200 of its opponents, Hun Sen added.

“[But] if you have no part in destroying the peace, you will not be a target for elimination,” he said.

Remarks unfair to others

Speaking to RFA, Phnom Penh-based analyst Lao Mong said Hun Sen’s remarks suppose that others in Cambodia care nothing for the country’s progress and well-being.

“Statements like these assume that others don’t hold these same views, meaning that they don’t love the monarchy or support the country’s achievements,” he said.

Hun Sen, who has ruled Cambodia for more than three decades, has warned repeatedly that electoral wins by the opposition Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP) in local elections on June 4 and in parliamentary polls in 2018 would bring instability and war to the country.

And in May, defense minister Tea Banh said that Cambodia’s party-controlled military would “smash the teeth” of anyone protesting a CPP win.

Slightly more than 7 million Cambodians, or 89.52 percent of registered voters, turned out for commune council polls on June 4, a record turnout in a test of public opinion ahead of 2018 general elections.

According to government-affiliated Fresh News, unofficial results showed the CPP won 22 provinces while the CNRP won two major cities, Phnom Penh and Siem Reap, as well as Kompong Cham province.

Reported by Sokheng Saut for RFA’s Khmer Service. Translated by Sovannarith Keo. Written in English by Richard Finney.

A dangerous cycle of reciprocal provocation between far-right and Islamist extremists has emerged in the United Kingdom in recent years. The latest terrorist attack in London may represent an escalation of this dynamic.

By Cameron Sumpter*

The suspected assailant in the van-ramming attack near Finsbury Park mosque in London on the night of 18 June 2017 was a 47-year-old Cardiff man who had allegedly been thrown out of a pub over the weekend for “cursing Muslims”. According to an eye witness, Darren Osbourne shouted “I want to kill all Muslims – I did my bit” after he ploughed his rental van into a crowd of people on the pavement.

If accurately recounted, this last statement implies the attacker believed he was contributing to a broader cause, which not only proves that his brutal onslaught was clearly an act of terrorism but may offer clues to aspects of his radicalisation within the current climate.

Mutual Instigation

The concept of reciprocal or “cumulative radicalisation” was coined in 2006 by Roger Eatwell, who described it as “the way in which one form of extremism can feed off and magnify other forms”.

Both grievance and revenge have been identified as key ingredients in the often complex mix of factors which contribute to an individual’s decision to commit an act of terrorism. Such sentiment can involve macro considerations such as structural inequality and opposition to military interventions abroad, or from a different perspective, perceived threats to national identity and outrage over immigration policy at home.

Anger may then develop more acutely on micro and meso levels – through the mutual reinforcement of peers and the incitement of ideologues reacting to a different strand of violent extremism.

Following the suicide bombing of a pop concert audience in Manchester in late May, controversial British broadcaster Katie Hopkins tweeted: “Western men. These are your wives. Your daughters. Your sons. Stand up. Rise up. Demand action. Do not carry on as normal. Cowed.”

And one week before the Finsbury Park attack, a bitter concoction of far-right groups descended on a park in central Manchester from where the 1200-1500 attendees protested against the recent terrorist attacks by spouting Islamophobic abuse. Former English Defence League (EDL) leader Stephen Lennon, alias Tommy Robinson, delivered a fiery speech through a megaphone, warning the government that “people have had enough and are no longer gonna sit by any longer”. The crowd responded by chanting: “Muslim peoples off our streets!”

A YouTube video circulating after Sunday’s attack showed Robinson exhorting that “the British public … will end up taking matters into their own hands … Inaction will only facilitate the creation of a disgruntled and angry population who will end up cleaning out this Islamic problem”. Robinson has since received numerous death threats via social media.

Reciprocity

The EDL was established in reaction to a group of Islamist protesters who triggered widespread scorn in 2009 for heckling a homecoming parade of British soldiers in the city of Luton. The far-right group’s demonstrations have at times involved alcohol-fuelled violent football-club rivalry, but predominantly feature unifying chants of “We all hate Muslims,” which have in turn agitated others into action.

Michael Adebolajo (who would go on to murder Fusilier Lee Rigby on a London street in 2013) spoke at an anti-EDL rally in September 2009, before travelling to Kenya the following year where he allegedly tried to join the Somalia-based extremist organisation, al-Shabaab. In 2012, six men received heavy prison sentences for a plot to attack an EDL demonstration. The group was armed with a bomb, knives and guns but were halted by a routine police traffic stop before reaching their target.

Complicating the picture is the rise of anti-fascist (Antifa) protest groups, which have existed for decades but found renewed energy in reaction to the increasing prominence of far-right groups in recent years. Antifa demonstrators typically dress head-to-toe in black, while covering their faces and antagonising adversaries through taunts and counter protests. Several showdowns in the United States last year descended into chaotic street violence.

Two weeks ago, EDL-linked protesters were “laughed out of Liverpool” by a much larger Antifa cohort, who played the comical Benny Hill theme song on a loudspeaker as police ushered the far-right supporters from the scene. Earlier protesters had sat on the pavement to block the EDL march while chanting “Nazi scum off our streets”.

Tit-for-Tat Terrorism

In the aftermath of the Finsbury Park attack, a 28-year-old London man told reporters at the scene that he thought the incident would “only fuel Muslim extremists to carry out more attacks”.

This all plays into the hands of Islamic State strategists, who have explicitly stated their desire to divide multicultural societies and provoke violent uprisings in Muslim communities the world over. A February 2015 article in Dabiq, the group’s English language magazine, titled The Extinction of the Grayzone argued that space for “hypocritical” moderate views was dwindling and that “Muslims in the crusader countries will find themselves driven to abandon their homes for a place to live in the Khilāfah (Islamic State) as the crusaders increase persecution against Muslims living in Western lands”.

The Syria-based organisation clearly aims to exacerbate discrimination and provoke hate speech toward Muslims through its proliferation of indiscriminate violence; an actual retaliatory terrorist attack must be seen as a gift.

Random Retaliation or Evidence of Escalation?

According to academic literature on violent radicalisation, individual pathways toward terrorism are varied and involve messy combinations of contributing factors – from global political and religious concerns to deeply personal emotional issues and lived experiences.

From what happened at Finsbury Park, it appears clear that Darren Osbourne’s decision to ram a van into Muslim people on the street was in large part influenced by similar attacks in London earlier this year. Whether it was simply a copycat reaction in a moment of intense anger or directly linked to broader reciprocal radicalisation in British society remains to be seen.

*Cameron Sumpter is an Associate Research Fellow at the Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS), a constituent unit of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore.

While Bitcoin, and recent Chinese and Korean momentum favorite, Litecoin, have been relatively stable for much of the day, Ethereum suffered dramatic losses on Wednesday, sliding from $360 to $260 before rebounding, in the process experiencing what may have been its first flash crash, when it plunged by 96% from $315 to $13 on massive volume, before rebounding.

As tends to happen without fail during volatile crypto-periods, the crash almost immediately took the Coinbase offline.

Over the past 24 hours, there were several warnings about “unstable operation” in the Ethereum Network, such as this one from the BTC-E exchange.

What catalyzed today’s crash?

According to one explanation posted on the Ethereum reddit, the reason was an ICO, or initial coin offering, gone very wrong. As user emansipater explained around noon, or shortly before the selling onslaught began, the catalyst for the selling was the “badly designed” Status ICO. Here are the detail:

I assume that (unlike all the price discussion here which is totally offtopic) you are referring to the transaction issues which have led several exchanges to pause ETH withdrawals. Here is what happened:

The badly designed Status ICO clogged up the network yesterday with a huge number of high gas fee transactions, most of which are failing but still filling up the blocks and preventing normal tx’s from getting in.

In addition, dwarfpool and perhaps others have set bad defaults on their client software that both actually cost themselves money and also prevent the network from automatically adapting to larger gas volumes the way it’s supposed to.

Furthermore, evidence is accumulating that f2pool was actively manipulating transactions bound for the Status ICO, which they participated in themselves, exacerbating the problem. Experts explained weeks ago that bad ICO designs are vulnerable to such attacks, but this appears to be the first time it was actually executed in the wild.

So now, even though the Status ICO is over, there are still a huge number of transactions clogging up the network and the only way to get transactions in is to pay huge fees (which most of the exchanges probably don’t want to do). Until it clears out, people are going to be missing ENS auctions, unable to withdraw from many wallets and exchanges, etc. etc. etc.

Or, as he summarized “badly designed ICOs, plus selfish and foolish miners = major delays and maybe even substantial losses for everyone else.” Judging by the ensuing flash crash, this was an accurate assessment.

The good news for ETH fans is that once the backlog of transactions clears up, the crypto should resume its previous ways.

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin met Wednesday at the Kremlin with Brazil’s PresidentMichel Temer, who is in Russia on an official visit.

The two presidents discussed the full range of Russian-Brazilian relations, according to the Kremlin, which noted the two leaders gave particular attention to developing and diversifying trade and economic ties, and strengthening cultural and humanitarian cooperation. They also exchanged views on key regional and international issues.

A number of bilateral documents were signed following the talks.

The documents signed include memorandums of understanding in economic and investment cooperation and on organizing information exchange on goods and vehicles moving between Russia and Brazil.

Also signed were a plan of political consultations between the two countries’ foreign ministers for 2018–2021, and a protocol on cooperation, information exchange and mutual assistance within the Eurasian Economic Union’s Common Tariff Preference System.

The Joint Statement between the Russian Federation and the Federative Republic of Brazil on Strategic Foreign Policy Dialogue was also signed.

By Riad Kahwaji*

The United States appears to be taking a more aggressive and direct approach in dealing with Iran in order to check its scheme of asserting its control over large parts of the Middle East and establishing a land corridor linking its western borders with the Mediterranean. However, after several years of free hand in the region without much efforts by President Barrak Obama Administration to stop Iran’s moves to spread its influence in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon as well as Yemen and other parts of the volatile Middle East region, Tehran today has a strong lead on the U.S. and is benefiting from its alliance with Russia to consolidate its regional gains. Thus, it will take more than simple U.S. efforts of containment to seriously affect Iran’s plans or intentions.

Most analysts and observers believe that the biggest beneficiary from the Obama Administration decision to pull out of Iraq was Iran because this enabled it to quickly fill the vacuum. Ever since the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, Iran tried to undermine America’s role in the country. It utilized its control over several Iraqi opposition parties that became main players in Baghdad’s political scene to entrench itself capitalizing on the sectarian divisions within the country. Between 2003 and 2011, pro-Iranian Iraqi militias engaged U.S. troops in a bloody insurgency in the country that also saw the appearance of Al-Qaeda affiliated groups sneaked in the country by the Iranian-allied Syrian regime. Some 6,000 American troops were killed in an 8-year-long insurgency that most analysts and officials (in region and US) knew very well it was largely orchestrated by Tehran.

The rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) provided Tehran with a golden opportunity to accelerate its military control over the country through the Shiite militias it helped organize into what has become to be known as the Popular Mobilization Force (PMF). The PMF swept through predominantly Sunni parts of central and western Iraq and even pushed north, sometime with the air cover provided by the U.S.-led International Alliance fighting ISIS. Now it has reached the borders with Syria and is waiting to link up with Iranian-backed militias from the other side.

In Syria, Iran has sent its Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) along with Hezbullah from Lebanon and thousands of Shiite militiamen from Pakistan and Afghanistan to help rescue the Syrian regime from collapse against Syrian opposition forces. Again, the rise of ISIS in Syria provided Tehran with the alibi to send in thousands of fighters to push back Syrian opposition forces under the air cover of Russian warplanes. The Obama Administration’s refusal to intervene against the Syrian regime after its use of chemical weapons and ignoring Iranian growing presence in the country enabled Tehran to become the main force in Syria sharing control there with the Russians who are also increasing their military footprint. Now, Iranian-backed militias and Syrian regime forces are trying to push through the Syrian desert to connect with their counterparts on the Iraqi side of the borders.

Iran’s use of proxy forces – usually Shiite militias – is a standard game successfully played on many occasions in parts of the region to spread Tehran’s influence across the Middle East. These militias have provided Iran with the element of deniability when needed and at the same time kept the theater of operations outside its national territory and within the scope of insurgency-like warfare between predominantly Shiite militias and the regular forces of the targeted state. So Iran helped Shiite communities (or offshoot Shiite groups like Zaidis in Yemen and Alawites in Syria) to create militias that took over the state itself. This method where a foreign power creates internal forces in another country to take over power is referred to by many theorists as the Fourth Generation Warfare. Iran was applying this ever since the revolution and the creation of the Islamic State in Iran in 1979. It tried to militarize Shiite communities in the region under the pretext of exporting the Islamic Revolution. However, this process took on a more aggressive approach after the U.S. invasion of Iraq that heightened Tehran’s threat perception of a possible American attack to topple the regime in Tehran.

Therefore, Iran has set its own rules of engaging the U.S. and its allies in the region. These rules of engagement are basically to subject the U.S. and its allies to wars of attrition through its proxy militias using hybrid warfare tactics on various fronts to exhaust its adversaries and compel them to recognize it as a regional super power and accept its hegemonic role in the region. The U.S. under the Obama Administration played according to the Iranian rules and gave in to Tehran on many fronts and on many issues including the controversial Iranian nuclear program and even ignored Iranian ballistic missile development.

However, America’s allies in the Arabian Gulf did not always play according to the Iranian’s rules of the game. The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) intervention in Bahrain to help quell a Shiite opposition movement there was aimed at preventing Iranian proxies from taking over power in Manama. Also in 2015, Saudi Arabia led an Arab and Islamic alliance in an operation against the Iranian-backed Houthi forces in Yemen to help restore power to the legitimate Yemeni government. Although the Yemen war is not yet over, however the Saudi-led alliance has made big gains and contained the Houthi move to capture power.

The United States under the new administration of Donald Trump announced from day one that will adopt a much tougher policy on Iran. It vowed to renegotiate the nuclear deal and has demanded Iran halts its ballistic missile program. Last week the U.S. Senate voted 98-2 to pass new Iran sanctions targeting Iran’s ballistic missile program and the IRGC. The Treasury Department had already been ramping up some measures against both entities. The Iranians say the new Senate sanctions against ballistic missiles violate the 2015 nuclear deal.

The Trump Administration finds itself facing a very tough situation today on various fronts in the Middle East. The common denominator between all these fronts is that almost all of the opposing forces (militias) on these front answer to Tehran. The question that presents itself is that: Shall the U.S. continue to play by Iranian rules or shall it as the much bigger power enforces its own rules of the game? The growing Russian military presence in Syria that is benefiting Iran will certainly further complicate the matter. It is true that the U.S. is now using its own proxy forces – the Kurds and moderate Syrian opposition forces – to capture and hold ISIS territory in Syria in order to prevent Iran and the Syrian regime forces from capturing them and controlling the area along the borders with Iraq. However, Iran has much bigger militias and is using more resources in Iraq and Syria.

Attempts by joint Syrian-Iranian forces to advance past the position of U.S. troops and their allied Syrian opposition forces at the Tanf crossing point with Iraq were intercepted by the Americans with force. Also an attempt by the Syrian regime forces to advance toward Raqqa was stopped by U.S. backed forces and a Syrian warplane was shot down in the process by American jetfighters.

However, Iran seems adamant on pursuing its policies and objectives in the region and even introduced new weapons to the Syrian-Iraqi theater. On June 17, the IRGC fired six Zolfaghar ballistic missiles from its western borders into eastern Syria. Iran said the missile strike was against a group it holds responsible for recent terrorist attacks in Tehran. The Iranians unveiled the Zolfaghar in September, with a banner saying Iran could destroy the Israeli cities of Tel Aviv and Haifa. Iranian officials say the missile can carry multiple warheads and has a range of 700km. That puts CENTCOM’s forward headquarters in the Middle East and Arab Coalition capitals in range.

Moreover, Iran seems set on achieving its objective in creating the land corridor across Iraq and Syria, and hence it will continue to challenge the U.S. on this point. If its attempts hit a snag in Syria it will try from Iraq’s side where PMF leaders already announced their intent to push into Syrian territories under the pretext of fighting ISIS. This presents the U.S. with another question related to the future of the PMF in Iraq. How will the U.S. deal with them the day after ISIS is defeated and uprooted from Iraq? What will Washington do whenever Iran ups the game and directs its proxy militias to attack the U.S. personnel directly in Iraq and Syria?

Fighting a proxy war is not easy. For democracies these wars take too long and cost too much, while for authoritarian regimes proxy wars are cheap and buy them needed time to build their own conventional and non-conventional capabilities. For example, the U.S. retaliates against an attack by an Iranian proxy force by sending an F-15 or F-18 to bomb missile launchers or armored vehicles. The air raid – if only one smart bomb is used – will cost the U.S. at least half a million dollars while for Iran the vehicle or launcher costs less than ten thousand dollars and the militiamen can be easily be replaced for five thousand dollars. Moreover, loss of a U.S. soldier will generate public reaction at home while for Iran losing a militiaman and even an IRGC officer will have little impact on public opinion at home. Therefore, a prolonged proxy war with Iran, especially on many regional fronts, will be a losing game to the U.S. and its Western allies.

Too many questions face the current U.S. Administration, especially the new leadership at the Pentagon. How to deal with an empowered Iran that is well entrenched in the region and is now posing a threat to U.S. interests? Of course the political divisions in Washington after the recent presidential elections and the Russia investigations haunting the Trump Administration will only embolden Iran that will interpret the situation as a sign of American weakness. Whether in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, or the Arabian Gulf waters the U.S. faces Iran and its proxies, and weighs in its options on which approach to adopt. Continue to play according to Iranian game rules or up the stakes and apply new rules and play a whole different game? Early indications from the recent U.S.-Arab-Muslim summit in Riyadh and the encounters in Syria indicate that Washington is headed towards an escalation, which means the region will likely see new U.S. game-rules.

*Riad Kahwaji, is the founder and director of INEGMA with a 28 years of experience as a journalist and a Middle East security analyst.