By Ana Maria Touma.

Romania’s ruling Social Democrat Party, the PSD, is due to name a new Prime Minister by Monday after it voted the former Prime Minister out of office on Wednesday.

However, the party risks facing problems in securing a majority in parliament as questions arose over the loyalty of 14 MPs, including former Prime Minister Victor Ponta, and several members of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats, ALDE, who voted against the impeachment motion.

President Klaus Iohannis, who is representing Romania at the European Council until Friday, called for consultations with all parliamentary factions on Monday.

Social Democrat leader Liviu Dragnea said on Wednesday, after the vote in parliament, that he had four proposals for the PM’s post, but would choose one name following talks with allies in parliament and a Social Democrat leadership meeting in the weekend.

He excluded the possibility of a technocratic Prime Minister, saying that he or she “should be an honest, responsible person, not an adventurer, and should have the ability to implement the government program”.

“Romania is back to normal,” he maintained. The impeachment motion had been “a political move by the PSD and ALDE and we were aware of the risks. But we could not risk an ambitious government program being questioned,” he added.

Iohannis, who left Berlin for Brussels on Wednesday, said that he expected a valid proposal for the Prime Minister’s post to come from the Social Democrats. “I did not change my position on the integrity of the Prime Minister,” he said in Berlin.

In January, Iohannis warned that he would never appoint a Prime Minister who had been sentenced or investigated for graft.

The Prime Minister is usually the head of the party with the majority in parliament, but Dragnea has a two-year suspended jail sentence for trying to rig a referendum in 2012.

His own nomination would not have been approved by Iohannis and he eventually nominated Sorin Grindeanu, after the President rejected Dragnea’s first choice, former Development Minister Sevil Shhaideh.

Besides nominating a new Prime Minister and forming a new government, the PSD-ALDE coalition risks losing its majority in parliament and being forced to former another alliance with the main ethnic Hungarian party, the UDMR.

Only 241 MPs supported the impeachment motion, which would not have passed if several MPs representing minorities had not voted for it.

An alliance with the UDMR might be problematic, however, after the PSD on Tuesday blocked an emergency procedure to adopt three bills sought by the Hungarian minority.

The bill were withdrawn under pressure from PSD and opposition MPs who were worried about a bill requesting March 15 to be declared a national holiday – the date marks the anniversary of the 1848 Revolution in Budapest, which led to the annexation of Transylvania by Hungary in May 1848.

Liberal opposition leader Leonard Orban said he saw an opportunity in the situation after Wednesday’s vote in parliament, and said his party was ready to negotiate an alliance and form a new majority. The UDMR said it was open to negotiations with all sides.

Prime Minister Sorin Grindeanu and his government meanwhile remain in office until a new Prime Minister is appointed.

The NYT’s lead story recently featured a chilling story of the infamous Israeli cyber-security firm, NSO Group, whose Pegasus malware has been illegally utilized by Mexican intelligence agencies to spy on legitimate human rights and anti-corruption activists.  NSO negotiates lucrative contracts with foreign governments,  which purportedly use the malware to hack and control the cell phones of criminals and terrorists.  The FBI used a similar tool to break into the iPhone of Rizwan Farook, the San Bernardino Islamist who murdered 15 of his work colleagues at a Christmas party.

But there’s a wee problem: one person’s human rights advocate is another’s terrorist.  In other words, there are many governments in the world who don’t know the difference between the two, nor do they care.  Anyone who threatens the established order is a terrorist.  Bahrain used a UK malware developer to hack the phone of an exiled human rights activist.  Another activist, perhaps aware of the previous episode, suspected a similar phishing attempt and immediately sent his phone to the Citizen’s Lab at the University of Toronto.   It discovered yet another piece of malware which would’ve permitted the hacking of his phone had he clicked on the link.

Hacking Team is another such Italy-based company, which has sold its cyber-cracking malware to governments like Morocco and the UAE.   They were used to track the communications of human rights activists.

Last year, NSO entered the radar of white-hat cyber-security experts, who noted phishing attempts against Middle East Eye journalist, Rory Donaghy.  He had written articles heavily critical of the autocratic government of UAE.  Cyber-sleuths were able to trace the code and domains used in the attack to NSO.  The Israeli company had gone far beyond attacking a single journalist.  The white-hats discovered that its code was found on 67 different servers and had infiltrated 400 individual devices.  24 of these people were UAE citizens and three were arrested shortly after they inadvertently downloaded the suspect code.  A fourth was convicted in absentia of insulting the country’s ruler.

Then Ahmed Mansoor, another UAE dissident who’d previously been beaten and robbed by regime goons, sent the white-hat researcher a new phishing exploit. That permitted cyber-detectives to identify with certainty that NSO was directly responsible for the code and malware used in the would-be attack.  And it was far the most sophisticated such attack in the history of cyber-hacking: that was the world’s introduction to Pegasus.

Economists find that these companies are drilling for cyber-gold, with the market value for these services reaching $5-billion per year.  NSO charges a flat $500,000 fee plus $650,000 for each device hacked. That’s a lucrative business model!

All of these black-hat companies hide behind a veneer of respectability.  One claims that it only sells its products to NATO member countries (its code was used in exploits in Morocco and other Arab non-NATO countries).  NSO claims that it explicitly forbids its clients from using Pegasus against anything other than criminal and terrorist targets.  Then it coyly adds that it can’t be expected to know or police who its clients target once the malware is in the hands of the end-user.

This is akin to a gunmaker selling a man a weapon who’s used them in the past to kill people, then saying it can’t be responsible for how he uses it after they sell it to him. Or alternatively, it’s like pharmaceutical companies which manufacture opioids.  Though there are legitimate uses for these drugs, once the drugs leave the plant the companies look the other way as doctors and dealers distribute the product to addicts who shouldn’t have access to them.  Everyone makes money off this scam from Big Pharma to the prescribing doctors.  The fact that the drugs wreak havoc throughout homes and towns in America is collateral damage.

Given that NSO is selling code, rather than physical weapons or drugs, we can indeed expect it to be able to track how its products are used by clients.  The truth is that NSO doesn’t want the trouble of having to do so.  Nor does it want to know who and how it is used.  But the world must crack down on these practices.  It must criminalize this behavior.

Doing so will be difficult.  In Israel, for example, cyber-security is a huge export bonus to the economy.  The government is happy to authorize export licenses for NSO, despite the uses to which its products are put.  Israel doesn’t exercise oversight regarding the high-tech industry.  If necessary, it looks the other way.  It doesn’t even restrain arms dealers selling advanced Israeli weaponry containing U.S. components to our adversaries.  NSO is a perfect expression of the amorality of Israeli commerce.

But perhaps Israel isn’t just “looking the other way” in these cases .  Perhaps the NSOs of Israel are doing precisely what the government wishes them to.   Perhaps Israeli cyber hacking tools are instruments of state.   If you examine the company’s client list you will find many of the Arab states Israel is attempting to cultivate in its efforts to sabotage the Palestinian cause.   What getter way to peel off an authoritarian  state from such allegiance than by doing favors for its intelligence agencies; hoping the favor will be returned one day when Israel needs it.

Remember, as well that the Israeli defense ministry approves licenses for the export of all products which have a security component. Meaning the government has direct and complete control of the export process.

NSO’s engineers, the ones who developed the most sophisticated and powerful malware programs on the market, are veterans of the IDF’s Unit 8200.  They learn their trade on Palestinian victims, deemed the enemy of the Israeli state.  Sometimes the target might be a terrorist.  But sometimes he or she might be a legitimate political or community leader whom Israeli intelligence has deemed vulnerable to blackmail.  Perhaps they’re gay, or having an affair,  or have a child with cancer.   All are prime recruits as informers for Israel’s Shabak.  This is how Israel’s most elite hackers learn their craft.

There is no oversight, no ethical code governing such behavior.  For Israel, the code-word is “security uber-alles.” The same sordid ethos infects NSO operations in the world.  Go where the money is.   All the rest be damned.

The closeness between NSO and the Israeli state may be seen in one security consultant’s characterization of the Pegasus malware used to jailbreak iPhones:

“Apple had never seen anything like this—ever. This was an incredibly sophisticated nation-state attack, kind of breathtaking in its scope. This took a herculean effort on their part to patch it so fast. It was Katy-bar-the-door over there.”

It’s important to note that he called Pegasus a product of a “nation-state attack.”  Not a product of a private company.  In other words, a private company, no matter how large or sophisticated would simply not have the resources or skill-set to coordinate so many different elements of this jailbreak tool.  Only a huge military SIGINT outfit like Unit 8200 could accomplish such a monumental task.

And NSO was able to commercialize this military-intelligence tool for use by other intelligence agencies around the world.  In effect, Israel was exporting not just its products but its flagrant disregard for human or civil rights; and as in the case of other counter-terror strategies it’s pioneered like drone assassinations and targeted killing, it’s exported a blatant disregard for human life itself.

Let’s also not forget that Israel is the fifth largest arms exporter in the world and first in per capital population.   It didn’t get to this point by scrupulously investigating all the uses of the weapons it was selling, and the dirty pedigrees of many of the nations to whom it was selling.

This article was published at  Tikun Olam

Evolution takes eons, but it leaves marks on the genomes of organisms that can be detected with DNA sequencing and analysis.

As methods for studying and comparing genetic data improve, scientists are beginning to decode these marks to reconstruct the evolutionary history of species, as well as how variants of genes give rise to unique traits.

A research team at the University of Texas at Arlington led by assistant professor of biology Todd Castoe has been exploring the genomes of snakes and lizards to answer critical questions about these creatures’ evolutionary history. For instance, how did they develop venom? How do they regenerate their organs? And how do evolutionarily-derived variations in genes lead to variations in how organisms look and function?

“Some of the most basic questions drive our research. Yet trying to understand the genetic explanations of such questions is surprisingly difficult considering most vertebrate genomes, including our own, are made up of literally billions of DNA bases that can determine how an organism looks and functions,” said Castoe. “Understanding these links between differences in DNA and differences in form and function is central to understanding biology and disease, and investigating these critical links requires massive computing power.”

To uncover new insights that link variation in DNA with variation in vertebrate form and function, Castoe’s group uses supercomputing and data analysis resources at the Texas Advanced Computing Center or TACC, one of the world’s leading centers for computational discovery.

Recently, they used TACC’s supercomputers to understand the mechanisms by which Burmese pythons regenerate their organs — including their heart, liver, kidney, and small intestines — after feeding.

Burmese pythons (as well as other snakes) massively downregulate their metabolic and physiological functions during extended periods of fasting. During this time their organs atrophy, saving energy. However, upon feeding, the size and function of these organs, along with their ability to generate energy, dramatically increase to accommodate digestion.

Within 48 hours of feeding, Burmese pythons can undergo up to a 44-fold increase in metabolic rate and the mass of their major organs can increase by 40 to 100 percent.

Writing in BMC Genomics in May 2017, the researchers described their efforts to compare gene expression in pythons that were fasting, one day post-feeding and four days post-feeding. They sequenced pythons in these three states and identified 1,700 genes that were significantly different pre- and post-feeding. They then performed statistical analyses to identify the key drivers of organ regeneration across different types of tissues.

What they found was that a few sets of genes were influencing the wholesale change of pythons’ internal organ structure. Key proteins, produced and regulated by these important genes, activated a cascade of diverse, tissue-specific signals that led to regenerative organ growth.

Intriguingly, even mammalian cells have been shown to respond to serum produced by post-feeding pythons, suggesting that the signaling function is conserved across species and could one day be used to improve human health.

“We’re interested in understanding the molecular basis of this phenomenon to see what genes are regulated related to the feeding response,” said Daren Card, a doctoral student in Castoe’s lab and one of the authors of the study. “Our hope is that we can leverage our understanding of how snakes accomplish organ regeneration to one day help treat human diseases.”

Making Evolutionary Sense of Secondary Contact

Castoe and his team used a similar genomic approach to understand gene flow in two closely related species of western rattlesnakes with an intertwined genetic history.

The two species live on opposite sides of the Continental Divide in Mexico and the U.S. They were separated for thousands of years and evolved in response to different climates and habitat. However, over time their geographic ranges came back together to the point that the rattlesnakes began to crossbreed, leading to hybrids, some of which live in a region between the two distinct climates.

The work was motivated by a desire to understand what forces generate and maintain distinct species, and how shifts in the ranges of species (for example, due to global change) may impact species and speciation.

The researchers compared thousands of genes in the rattlesnakes’ nuclear DNA to study genomic differentiation between the two lineages. Their comparisons revealed a relationship between genetic traits that are most important in evolution during isolation and those that are most important during secondary contact, with greater-than-expected overlap between genes in these two scenarios.

However, they also found regions of the rattlesnake genome that are important in only one of these two scenarios. For example, genes functioning in venom composition and in reproductive differences — distinct traits that are important for adaptation to the local habitat — likely diverged under selection when these species were isolated. They also found other sets of genes that were not originally important for diversification of form and function, that later became important in reducing the viability of hybrids. Overall, their results provide a genome-scale perspective on how speciation might work that can be tested and refined in studies of other species.

The team published their results in the April 2017 issue of Ecology and Evolution.

The Role of Supercomputing in Genomics Research

The studies performed by members of the Castoe lab rely on advanced computing for several aspects of the research. First, they use advanced computing to create genome assemblies — putting millions of small chunks of DNA in the correct order.

“Vertebrate genomes are typically on the larger side, so it takes a lot of computational power to assemble them,” said Card. “We use TACC a lot for that.”

Next, the researchers use advanced computing to compare the results among many different samples, from multiple lineages, to identify subtle differences and patterns that would not be distinguishable otherwise.

Castoe’s lab has their own in-house computers, but they fall short of what is needed to perform all of the studies the group is interested in working on.

“In terms of genome assemblies and the very intensive analyses we do, accessing larger resources from TACC is advantageous,” Card said. “Certain things benefit substantially from the general output from TACC machines, but they also allow us to run 500 jobs at the same time, which speeds up the research process considerably.”

A third computer-driven approach lets the team simulate the process of genetic evolution over millions of generations using synthetic biological data to deduce the rules of evolution, and to identify genes that may be important for adaptation.

For one such project, the team developed a new software tool called GppFst that allows researchers to differentiate genetic drift – a neutral process whereby genes and gene sequences naturally change due to random mating within a population – from genetic variations that are indicative of evolutionary changes caused by natural selection.

The tool uses simulations to statistically determine which changes are meaningful and can help biologists better understand the processes that underlie genetic variation. They described the tool in the May 2017 issue of Bioinformatics.

Lab members are able to access TACC resources through a unique initiative, called the University of Texas Research Cyberinfrastructure, which gives researchers from the state’s 14 public universities and health centers access to TACC’s systems and staff expertise.

“It’s been integral to our research,” said Richard Adams, another doctoral student in Castoe’s group and the developer of GppFst. “We simulate large numbers of different evolutionary scenarios. For each, we want to have hundreds of replicates, which are required to fully vet our conclusions. There’s no way to do that on our in-house systems. It would take 10 to 15 years to finish what we would need to do with our own machines — frankly, it would be impossible without the use of TACC systems.”

Though the roots of evolutionary biology can be found in field work and close observation, today, the field is deeply tied to computing, since the scale of genetic material — tiny but voluminous — cannot be viewed with the naked eye or put in order by an individual.

“The massive scale of genomes, together with rapid advances in gathering genome sequence information, has shifted the paradigm for many aspects of life science research,” said Castoe.

“The bottleneck for discovery is no longer the generation of data, but instead is the analysis of such massive datasets. Data that takes less than a few weeks to generate can easily take years to analyze, and flexible shared supercomputing resources like TACC have become more critical than ever for advancing discovery in our field, and broadly for the life sciences.”

Without multilateral cooperation, plans for China’s ambitious One Belt, One Road initiative risk opposition.

By Harsh V Pant*

China’s Belt and Road Forum, hosted with great fanfare, signals the priority of this flagship connectivity initiative while also underlining its credentials as the new “shaper” of global trends and norms. Exhorting all countries to participate, Chinese President Xi Jinping suggested that “what we hope to create is a big family of harmonious co-existence.”

But India, an emerging economy that shares a contested border with China, worries about containment and new pathways for aggression from Pakistan. Other nations wonder if hegemonistic designs are hidden behind the rationality of connectivity and trade. The policy initiative aims to enhance China’s centrality in the global economic unilateral approach in how the project is conceived and implemented so far belies the rhetoric of multilateralism emanating from Beijing.

Taking inspiration from the ancient Silk Road trading route, China’s One Belt One Road initiative, or OBOR, hopes to link more than 65 countries, encompassing up to 40 percent of global GDP. Xi’s signature foreign paradigm – linking China to Asia, Europe and Africa via an ambitious network of ports, roads, rail and other infrastructure projects. Beginning in China’s Fujian province, the projected Maritime Silk Route passes through the Malacca Strait to the Indian Ocean, moving along the Red Sea and the Mediterranean, ending in Venice.

By Emad Mekay

The image could have passed for a Harry Potter cover; three powerful leaders with hands on a creepy, lit miniature globe in a darkened room – US President Donald Trump was posing for a photo with two authoritarian Middle East rulers: King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi.

On a May 20-21 visit to Saudi Arabia, the US president had just vowed to improve ties with Egypt and Saudi Arabia as the three leaders pledged an energised battle under US sponsorship of what they termed “extremist ideology”.

The message from the room was that the head of the world’s most powerful nation is now firmly behind notoriously harsh regimes in measures they take in the name of fighting extremism, a crusade that often turned into a justification for cracking down on opposition and broad abuse of human rights.

Immediately after Trump left the Middle East, the fruits of his visit started to bloom.

Cairo issued a new law regulating non-governmental organisations (NGOs), of which Human Rights Watch (HRW) said: “the law ushers in unprecedented levels of repression and will criminalise the work of many NGOs, making it impossible for them to function independently.”

A few days later, the el-Sisi government blocked access to 21 news websites for allegedly supporting terrorism, including Al-Jazeera and opposition sites like Al-Sharq. Independent news outlets like Mada Masr and Huffington Post Arabic were also targeted.

Saudi Arabia formed a new Middle East coalition and joined another US-backed regime in the UAE to launch a siege on Qatar, a country that has shown some opposition to Saudi hegemony in the region and urged a more conciliatory tone towards Riyadh’s arch-rival, Iran – positions that Washington under Trump has no stomach for.

“It seems that Qatar’s real crime is resisting the regional consensus forged with the United States under Donald J. Trump,” wrote Steven Cook of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in New York. Cook said the move “pits American allies against American allies”.

The Qatar siege closed the borders with Saudi Arabia, the only land access for the small country and the main route for its food and medical supplies.

Ironically, Qatar is the seat of the Al-Udaid US military base, the main springboard for US military operations in the region. Operations from the Qatari base are behind the deaths of thousands of people, including civilians, around the Middle East. Yet, the Saudis had just made Trump a deal he could not refuse that made him willing to disregard Qatar’s services. Trump immediately backed the siege in his tweets and public statements.

The US president had just announced a lucrative 110 billion dollar arms transfer to Saudi Arabia – possibly as much as 350 billion dollars overall. The deal includes over 100,000 air-to-ground munitions, seven THAAD missile defence batteries and billions of dollars’ worth of new aircraft.

There was no public discussion of the impact this sale would have on people in Yemen, in its second year of a Saudi-led war, or on human rights issues.

Yemen, the poorest country in the Middle East, is on the brink of downright famine mostly as a result of the war. With 22 million people, Yemen is also a venue for thousands of refugees, including 255,000 Somalis, whose conditions have deteriorated as a result of devastated infrastructure and life under war.

Trump’s sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia will likely replenish the stockpiles of weapons the kingdom is using in its war in Yemen.

HRW has said that Saudi Arabia has repeatedly used US weapons in attacks that likely constitute war crimes. Last October, for example the Saudi Arabia-led coalition bombed a funeral hall in Yemen’s capital, Sanaa, killing and wounding hundreds of people. Saudi officials deny the charges.

At home, with widespread and frequent violent crackdowns on dissent, Saudi Arabia is one of the most frequent users of state executions alongside China and Iran, according to the human rights group, Reprieve.

The Trump arms deals is part of a broader strategy to create a US-sponsored “Arab NATO”, a long-sought after military alliance designed to delegate some military operations from the US to Arab rulers and possibly help stand up to Iran’s regional over-reach.

Ever since King Salman came to office and appointed his favourite son, Mohammed, to run the defence department, Riyadh has upped its military involvement in the region in Yemen and Syria and increased backing for military governments around the Middle East.

With its vast oil wealth, the new US-backed Saudi posture has led to major instability in the region and the United Nations has said that instability in the region is the cause of the worst refugees crisis the world has witnessed since the Second World War.

Experts say the “Arab NATO” idea will further undermine the region, leading to even more hostile postures, not only by Saudi Arabia but also by its allies in the region such as Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt.

They also say the new Trump-sponsored coalition wants no less than a regime change not only in Syria – locked in a civil war since 2011 – but also in Qatar, a country that was a Saudi ally until a few days ago.

The moves since Trump’s visits have been so destabilizing that Turkey, which had long stayed clear of military involvement in the region, decided to speed up sending troops to Qatar. Iran offered airspace for besieged Qatar.

Analysts who monitor the Middle East say the United States should not be part of the Saudi plans to extend its hegemony over the Middle East.

“It would behove the US to avoid sides in this complex struggle that has mainly been provoked by Saudi Arabia’s new muscle-flexing,” according to Graham E. Fuller, former senior CIA official and author of numerous books on the Muslim World.

“Washington should also not allow Qatar to be subdued. Crushing Qatar is an exceedingly poor and retrogressive instrument by which to pursue the dubious game of intimidating Iran.”

The common strategic interest between the US and India will last a lot longer than the Trump administration, and New Delhi needs to take a longer-term view.

By Rajesh Rajagopalan

The consensus among Indian foreign policy analysts appear to be that Prime Minister Modi cannot achieve much in his forthcoming visit to Washington. President Donald Trump is without question the most difficult American leader that any Indian leader has had to deal with, his unpredictability making it hard to even consider how India should proceed with the pressing strategic challenges it faces or what role New Delhi can be confident the US will play in meeting such challenges. And this comes at a particularly unfortunate time, just as China’s leadership seems to be getting comfortable using its immense and still growing power to push its neighbours around and assert its dominance over the region. Trump’s zig-zagging approach to China, from fierce criticism and threats to seeking China’s help to deal with North Korea, highlights the problem that India faces.

But the Trump problem should not blind us to one central reality: the disparity in power between India and China is not only vast but still growing, and it will continue to grow over the medium term. Thus, the challenge that China represents is not just a short-term one but also a medium-term one, and even possibly a long-term one. On the other hand, the Trump problem, serious as it is, is a relatively short-term one. In dealing with Trump, New Delhi must recognise that as yet, Trump is an aberration and he does not represent the strategic consensus in Washington that sees a much larger role for the US in the Indo Pacific. Indeed, going by the views expressed by even his senior officials such as Secretary of Defense James Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson,

This suggests some outlines for India’s strategy in the next few years in dealing with the US.

The first part of it is to wait out the Trump administration. Even if President Trump refuses to recognise it, the US does have an interest in ensuring that the Indo Pacific region is not completely under Beijing’s thumb. This is an objective that Washington shares with many countries in the region who are not keen to live under China’s regional hegemony either, which makes the US a natural partner for these countries. This common strategic interest would eventually return, if not in the Trump administration itself, then in the next one. The common strategic interest between the US and India will last a lot longer than the Trump administration, and New Delhi needs to take a longer-term view.

The second part of India’s strategy should be to focus more on Washington’s permanent establishment than the White House. The clear commitment from President Trump’s senior officials to the region should be integrated into India’s strategy. For almost two decades, New Delhi has depended on the White House to push US-India ties against American foreign policy and security bureaucracies that appeared less driven by the strategic vision at the top.

The bureaucracies are also likely to provide greater steadiness and continuity to US policy than the White House. In a strange twist of strategic fate, India will now have to depend on the US bureaucracy to steady the relationship and hopefully, even carry it forward to a limited degree. This is harder, but for now at least, both the Indian political leadership and the defence and foreign policy establishments need to build deeper relationships with the US permanent establishment than depend on the unsteady Trump White House.

But India must also double-down on other aspects of its strategy. For one, it must pay greater attention to building up its own military and diplomatic capacities. There has to be greater resolve in both building up India’s border infrastructure and Indian military strength. This would have been unavoidable in any case, but the uncertainties about the Trump administration will hopefully inject a greater urgency into India’s efforts. At the same time, there needs to be more determined political direction to this effort, instead of leaving military power development and plans just to the military.

On the other hand, while building up its own capability is an important aspect, New Delhi must also recognise that this by itself simply will not suffice. It needs to be supplemented with other regional partnerships. It is the clear recognition of this strategic reality that is behind India’s dramatic improvement in ties with regional partners such as Japan and Australia. These were countries with which India had (at best) correct but cool ties for decades, but now need each other’s support. India should not let unnecessary old baggage come in the way of building these ties. It again falls to the political leadership to direct these relations, instead of letting it be dictated by bureaucratic whims and fancies.

Ultimately, the US partnership has to be an essential component of India’s strategy, because neither indigenous effort nor regional partnerships will suffice in dealing with the China challenge. Obviously, this is possible only if Washington is willing and able. What is at question is the willingness, not the ability (at least not yet). But strategic logic suggests that this is bound to change. India and the rest of Asia may have little choice but to wait out and survive the Trump problem.

By Bhaskar Roy*

The Prime Minister Modi-President Donald Trump summit meeting is finally happening on June 26, in Washington, D.C.

Some Indian commentators opined that this meeting should have happened earlier. On the other hand, time has given Mr. Modi and his team a chance to study Mr. Trump’s views and agenda, if any, before taking this step forward. The Indian External Affairs ministry was wise to counsel that it will be a “no frills” meeting, cautioning against high expectations. This says a lot. There are serious questions over Mr. Trump’s evolving policies, not only on India, but the region as a whole and New Delhi’s core interest, and the distance that India-US travelled in constructing a refurbished relationship between the world’s oldest democracy and the world’s largest democracy. Much rides on this summit meeting. But no one, including Mr. Trump’s highest cabinet members like Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson know the direction their president will take in his early morning tweets the next day.

In President Trump, Mr. Modi will not meet a politician or a statesman. He will meet a businessman of a kind who is known for his real estate, deal-making where profit is the only motive. Mr. Trump jumped on the Saudi Arabian bandwagon with the Saudis agreeing to purchase $ three billion worth of arms and equipment and on a common platform cornering Iran. He is out to favour his big business friends at the cost of common Americans.

Another lurking problem is that Donald Trump is bent upon rolling back as much as possible his predecessor, President Barack Obama’s policies and work. In this endeavour most of his focus is on the domestic front and some policies suffered serious setbacks, especially on health care and tax reforms.

On the foreign policy front, Trump promptly withdrew from the Trans Pacific Partnership (TTP), pulled back from the climatic change front, calling it a “hoax”, “spoilt” its relations with the European Union and NATO and is threatening to unravel the nuclear agreement with Iran which Mr. Obama so assiduously crafted. The Obama administrations’ Cuba policy has been derailed to a significant extent. Mr. Trump has also buckled down to China and his campaign promise to punish Beijing vanished into thin air. President Obama’s Asia Pivot also appears to be in question, though the Pentagon will fight tooth and nail to preserve it.

Except for the campaign period when he was wooing Indian Americans for votes and contributions, Mr. Trump has done precious little in India’s direction. He bad-mouthed India, saying New Delhi had received “billions and billions of dollars” to remain in the Paris Climate Accord. Indian External Affairs Minister, Sushma Swaraj rejected the charge, a little too politely some would say. Of course, she did not want to queer the pitch before Prime Minister Modi’s visit.

Since the end of the cold war successive Indian governments slowly rearranged the US relationship despite the hiccup over India’s 1998 nuclear tests. President Bill Clinton realised India’s importance and potential and soon repaired the relationship. President George W, Bush took the relationship further with the 123 nuclear deal and President Obama continued on the road. There is still a bipartisan support for India relations in the US. How will Donald Trump drive the relationship?

Mr. Modi would expectedly probe the American President’s mind. There is a lot riding on this relationship and any withdrawal will upset the balance of power in Asia and the Indian Ocean region. Curtailing of visas for Indian information Technology workers may hurt a little as will reducing business processing overseas. This is Mr. Trump’s mantra and campaign promise of bringing jobs back to America. This may work for sometime but not for very long. Businessmen are clever people and they would ultimately do what worked best for them. Mr. Modi must remind Mr. Trump that Indian companies like TCS, Wipro, Infosys and others are creating jobs in America and hiring Americans. Mr. Trump may be told that the globalized world is here to stay and an isolationist policy would ultimately hurt the US. Basically, his ego needs to be fanned a little. If he wants to build a Trump Tower in Mumbai- most welcome!

Defence relationship in all its aspects has to be reviewed very carefully. Defence Sales to India would be welcomed by Mr. Trump as it will bring in money and create jobs. But India wants technology transfer which the Americans have hedged for long. Such deals have to be tied up with the “Make in India” mission and there will be some hard bargaining to be done.

There are other politico-military issues such as India’s membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) which China has been blocking. Can and will Mr. Trump increase pressure on China to stand away and more importantly, does he have the wherewithal to do it? Unlikely. India will still remain in limbo unless Pakistan is given the same privilege. And if Pakistan is cleared, the world can say good bye to non proliferation!

There are a host of topics and issues that can come up in the summit and delegation level meetings. Apart from a number of bilateral topics on cooperation in different areas from trade to defence cooperation and security, clarity is also required on regional and international issues. Mr. Trump is focussed on fighting terrorism which can see both India and America on the same page. But his approach to this is American policy-centric and suggestive of a partial approach. Pakistan is accepted as the fountainhead of terrorism in the region, the main targets being India and Afghanistan. There is bipartisan agreement in the US Congress on slamming Pakistan, yet the administration has done very little to effectively clamp down on Pakistan, especially its military-intelligence complex. Certainly, the US has geo political interest in Pakistan and believes that too much pressure will only push Pakistan more firmly into China’s lap and reduce Washington’s influence. Whatever the arguments, Mr. Modi must frankly present this threat to Mr. Trump. And Mr. Modi is quite capable of doing that.

If the issue of Iran comes up, it can be tricky for India. Mr. Trump has demonstrated a visceral dislike for Iran, revealing the extent of Sunni-Shia divide in the Middle East. India expectedly will stick to its time-tested policy of keeping Iran out of the India-US equation.

President Trump is somewhat distracted at the moment, especially with charges of Trump team-Russia collusion. His moves to destabilise the FBI, dismissing FBI Director James Comey and administration leaks suggesting Mr. Trump may be contemplating dismissing Special Counsel Robert Mueller appointed to investigate the Russian collusion case, has harmed him politically. Mr. Mueller a former Director of FBI enjoys high repute and attacking him will cause Mr. Trump to lose more support.

Reports in the US media suggest that President Trump may face a Richard Nixon’s Watergate-like investigation for obstruction of justice. Mr. Trump, however, is not backing down. He, his Vice President Mike Pence and son-in-law Jared Kushner have hired a battery of lawyers suggesting that they are bracing for a tough fight. India, of course has nothing to do with this. At the same time, fore knowledge is very important for points of emphasis in bilateral interactions.

A point of note is that Mr. Trump trusts only his family. Mr. Kushner, who has no foreign policy experience is the White House pointsman for foreign policy. He may clash with Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson. For the moment, however, Mr. Kushner calls the shots from behind the curtains.

What India has to do now is to engage intensively with various American departments and agencies, as well as with the US Congress. Indian diplomats in Washington have to engage with Congressional aides and think tanks which is part of their job.

Prime Minister Modi would have to get reiteration from the wide US administration trend that the relationship built in nearly two decades is not retracted.

* The writer is a New Delhi based strategic analyst. He can be reached at e mail grouchoart@yahoo.com

The United National Antiwar Coalition (UNAC) recently convened its fourth national conference in Richmond, Virginia. The organizations that comprise this coalition are unwavering in their determination to fight for peace and justice. Opposing the wars at home and abroad is their standard for action.

Virginia is an ironic location for a group whose goal was to unite anti-war, anti-imperialist, anti-neoliberalism and anti-racist forces. If the United States is the belly of the beast, Virginia must be the inner lining. It is the place where the settler colonial project began. Romanticized tales of Pocahantas hide an ugly story of genocide committed against the indigenous population. Virginia was the place where the first enslaved Africans arrived in 1619. In time it became known as the slave breeding state and Richmond was the capital of the confederacy. Yet in 2017 three hundred people gathered there to fight against this legacy that brings so much suffering to humanity.

Black Agenda Report is a UNAC member organization and this columnist is an Administrative Committee member. The connection between the two groups is a natural one. While other so-called peace groups are tied to the Democrats and ebb and flow with that party’s fortunes, UNAC is independent of the duopoly. It does not change its organizing principles based on who controls Congress or who sits in the White House Oval Office. Those distinctions are artificial and the system is no less rapacious if there is a change in Republican or Democratic party control.

The nature of the American capitalist system requires that every country become either a vassal or an enemy. It gives us the rule of billionaires. The U.S created a mass incarceration system for the sole purpose of crushing the black liberation movement while also creating a profit center in the process.

All of the oppressions are intertwined. Millions of Americans toil under wage slavery or prison slavery and make fortunes for other people. But the contradictions of capitalism are growing more acute, and imperialist war is the outcome of a system trying to maintain itself. The fight for a living minimum wage and the fight against interventions abroad must therefore be addressed together because they are in fact part of a whole.

The UNAC conference also presented an opportunity to renew the African American-centered peace movement. The newly formed Black Alliance for Peace was very much present with leadership such as Black Agenda Report editor Ajamu Baraka playing key roles. Charo Mina-Rojas spoke about the struggle waged by black Colombians in the Buenaventura region of that country. Lawrence Hamm of the People’s Organization for Progress linked the history of mass rebellion with the fight against police violence.

Barack Obama’s presidency created a rupture in the black American radical tradition. The end of his administration creates an opportunity to rekindle that proud legacy, and to reject the politics of intervention and mass death that emanates from every American presidential administration.

UNAC organizations know that the imperialist project is bipartisan. Barack Obama began the war for regime change in Syria and Donald Trump, despite making claims to the contrary, continues it. The need to expose the American effort to dominate the world continued even as UNAC members met. While speakers pointed to the dangers that America inflicts upon the world, the United States government shot down a Syrian jet and increased the risk of conflict with Russia.

Attendees came from 29 states and from Hungary, Colombia, Ukraine, the Philippines, Serbia, Syria, Palestine and Canada. Every region of the world has been impacted by the drive for American hegemony. The fight against aggression must therefore be waged internationally. Foreign policy is not some rarified realm that can only be addressed by the self-appointed experts who have brought the world to the brink. The people who fight for a living wage or against police murder in this country must also speak to this government’s assaults on human rights and sovereignty around the world.

The unity of all these struggles was made clear on the last morning of the conference. Ana Edwards led a march to Shockoe Bottom, the location of a cemetery for enslaved people and the site of one of the largest slave markets in the country. She and other activists from the Virginia Defenders for Peace, Justice and Equality have struggled to preserve the site as a memorial park and protect it from commercial so-called development.

The trip to Shockoe Bottom brought the conference full circle. Racism, supremacist war and predatory capitalism were perfected in Virginia and the people who want to change it paid homage to the first victims. We say, “Power to the people” but if we mean it we must say clearly who our enemies are and confront them at every opportunity.

The time is ripe for change. Some of that change will be forced upon us, but some of it must be created. That is why UNAC is so important. It is committed to creating the conditions which may make the beast and its belly a thing of the past.

With no previous diplomatic experience, Jared Kushner has been talking peace in the Middle East. US President Donald Trump’s special adviser, who also happens to be his son-in-law, met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a friend of his father, in Jerusalem.

“This is an opportunity to pursue our common goals of security, prosperity and peace,” the Israeli Prime Minister said. “Jared, I welcome you here in that spirit. I know of your efforts, the president’s efforts, and I look forward to working with you to achieve these common goals.”

In a visit lasting just 20 hours, the 36-year-old real-estate developer also met with Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, in Ramallah on the West Bank. This meeting took place after the day’s breaking of the Ramadan fast. Sources from the Palestinian Authority say they had been asked for a list of 12 bullet point demands ahead of the meeting.

Amidst criticism that the Trump administration was oversimplifying a very complex set of issues, the Palestinian Authority is said to have found the bullet points helpful in focusing negotiations on key issues.

Peace a priority for the Trump administration

President Trump has said that peace between Israelies and Palestinians would be the “ultimate deal”, but he’s seeking something that has proved intractable for 70 years. Any solution would require the resolution of thorny issues such as Israeli settlement-building, Palestinian rhetoric. refugees, borders, security, and water resources.

Original source

By Ashok Sajjanhar*

The Persian Gulf region was shaken by a massive political earthquake on June 5, 2017 when four Arab countries – Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain and Egypt – announced that they were severing all political, economic and diplomatic links with Qatar, a member of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). The four countries were soon joined by Libya, Yemen and even Maldives. However, Kuwait and Oman, the remaining two members of the GCC, refused to follow the lead of Saudi Arabia in this regard.

Saudi Arabia said that it took the decision because of Qatar’s “embrace of various terrorist and sectarian groups aimed at destabilising the region”, including the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and groups supported by Iran. Qatar vehemently denied that it supports terrorism, arguing that it has assisted the United States in the War on Terror and in the ongoing military intervention against ISIS.

While the immediate causes of the drastic action are not clear, problems between Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been brewing for some time. Tensions between Qatar and its Arab neighbours have grown in recent years as part of a tussle for regional leadership. Qatar, buoyed by its huge earnings from the production and export of gas, has been trying to carve out a comparatively independent foreign policy that is at variance with the approach of Saudi Arabia and other major Arab nations. Qatar’s influential television channel Al Jazeera, which is extensively viewed in the region, often adopts positions that are critical of Saudi Arabia. In April 2017, Qatar was involved in a deal with militants in Iraq and Syria to secure the return of 26 Qatari hostages, including royals. What apparently outraged Saudi Arabia and UAE was the large amount of about USD one billion paid by Qatar to secure the deal. Subsequently, on May 27, Qatar’s Emir called up Iranian president Hasan Rouhani to congratulate him on his re-election. The call was seen as a clear, public, defiance of Saudi Arabia’s efforts to create a united front against Iran, which latter it perceives as an implacable foe.

Russia, Turkey, Iran, France and Germany have all supported an early and peaceful resolution of the dispute. The US position appears to be confused and somewhat unhelpful. It seems quite plausible that King Salman of Saudi Arabia was emboldened to take this step on account of the strong support he received from President Donald Trump during the latter’s visit to Riyadh on May 20, 2017.

It is unlikely that Qatar will agree to make its regional and international policies subservient to those of Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries. It is likely that the influence and clout of Iran and Turkey will increase in the region. It also seems probable that the US will engage itself pro-actively to obtain closure on the issue. It is in the US interest to see a quick end to the confrontation, as Qatar hosts the Al Udeid air base, which houses 100 aircraft and 100,000 military personnel belonging to the US Central Command.

The Qatar Crisis and India

These developments are likely to have significant implications for India, given that its citizens make up the largest expatriate group in the region. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government has strengthened India’s ties with Saudi Arabia, Iran, UAE, Qatar and Israel. This demonstrates a more self-assured approach by India in handling the growing opportunities and challenges in the region.

There are around seven million people of Indian origin working in the Middle East. Security and stability in the region is hence of paramount importance for India. Further, the Indian diaspora in the region remits around USD 40 billion a year. These funds are immensely valuable as they help India manage its current account deficit. Energy is another critical area of engagement. A fifth of India’s oil, and about 65 per cent of gas imports, comes from countries of the Middle East including Iran, Qatar, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and others.

External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj, speaking on June 5, 2017 even as the above mentioned developments in the Gulf were unfolding, asserted that this is an intra-GCC affair and will not have a significant impact on India or on Indians resident in that country or in the region. This appears to be a somewhat simplistic reading of the situation. Or possibly, the full dimensions of the issue were not understood at the beginning of the crisis.

It is true that travel for Indians to Qatar is unlikely to be affected as flights from India take the Persian Gulf route to Doha. The limits placed on air space access by the Saudi-led grouping will therefore not have any significant impact over the Persian Gulf. Difficulties will, however, be experienced by Indians resident in Qatar and wishing to travel to other Gulf countries or those resident in other Gulf nations wanting to visit Qatar.

India is the third largest export destination for gas from Qatar (behind Japan and South Korea). Qatar is the largest supplier of LNG to India, accounting for over 65 per cent of India’s global import and 15 per cent of Qatar’s export of LNG. Petronet LNG has declared that it does not expect any impact on gas supplies from Qatar. It is India’s biggest gas importer and buys 8.5 million tonnes a year of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from Qatar under a long-term contract. In addition, it also buys additional volumes from Qatar under spot deals. If tensions were to rise in the Persian Gulf, shipments of LNG could become risky. And in case the crisis gets prolonged, prices of food items and essential commodities in Qatar could increase and affect the lives of 650-to-700,000 Indians. This could also affect remittances. A prolonged crisis could result in increased insecurity, reduced economic activity and stress on the 50 per cent or so of the total inward remittances that India receives from the Gulf.

Any confrontation or uncertainty in Qatar or the wider Gulf region can have serious adverse implications for India. Beyond a point, India cannot stay aloof. Given the range, expanse and depth of India’s interests and its rapidly expanding political, economic and strategic profile, sooner or later India will have to get more vigorously engaged in dealing with developments in this crucial region. In the coming years, India will have to adopt a more hands on policy in any security crisis or economic upheaval that may strike the region because its own security, economic well-being, and energy needs are all closely interlinked with this region. India enjoys good relations with all countries of the region. That should facilitate India playing a more agile and vigorous role in the region.

*Ashok Sajjanhar is President, Institute of Global Studies, and a former Ambassador of India to Kazakhstan, Sweden and Latvia.

Originally published by Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (www.idsa.in) at http://idsa.in/idsacomments/crisis-in-the-gulf-implications-for-india_asajjanhar_220617

Views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IDSA or of the Government of India.

American Airlines Group Inc said on Thursday, June 22 that Qatar Airways, the Gulf country’s state-owned airline, had expressed interest in buying a 10 percent stake worth at least $808 million in the number one U.S. airline, Reuters says.

Shares of American Airlines rose 5.5 percent to $51.08 in premarket trading.

The news comes just weeks after Qatar was engulfed in a diplomatic row with neighbor Saudi Arabia, which led other nations including Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain in cutting ties with Doha.

Qatar Airways indicated that it would buy the stake on the open market, American Airlines said in a regulatory filing.

American said its certificate of incorporation prohibits anyone from acquiring 4.75 percent or more of the company’s outstanding stock without advance approval from the board following a written request.

The company’s board did not receive any written request from Qatar Airways, American added.

American Airlines also noted that foreign ownership laws limited the total percentage of foreign voting interest in a U.S. company to 24.9 percent.

By Louis Rouanet*

Unsurprisingly, central banks are reluctant to claim credit for inflation. In their latest bulletin, the European Central Bank (ECB) published the graph below explaining what causes inflation.

See the problem? Neither the money supply nor the ECB are mentioned. While there are many factors that influence the purchasing power of money, inflation is still inherently a monetary phenomenon and the role central banks play simply can’t be ignored.

Instead, the ECB prefers to do what all central banks did just before the 2009 great recession: blame inflation on rising food and energy prices. But large central banks like the ECB have a strong and disproportionate effect on energy prices, as predicted by Austrian business cycle theory.

The rise in oil prices in 2007, for example, was triggered by the end of the euphoric monetary boom initiated by the Fed and the ECB in the years prior. As investment in energy production was fueled, in part, by credit expansion instead of real savings.

The quantity of producer’s goods — or at least of some of them — revealed themselves to be insufficient to complete the plans of entrepreneurs, thus generating a sharp increase in their prices.

Therefore the ECB has some responsibility in the so-called external drivers of inflation.

Another problem worth noting is that the ECB seems eager to revive the old myth of cost push inflation. The author of the ECB bulletin writes that: “Domestic price pressures result mainly from wage and price-setting behaviour, which is closely linked to the domestic business cycle.”

But it is the values of the first order goods which are imputed back to productive factors, rather than the other way around. As Henry Hazlitt puts it:

The other rival theory is that inflation and the rise of prices are caused by higher wage demands — by a “cost push.” But this theory reverses cause and effect. “Costs” are prices. An increase in wages above marginal productivity, if it were not preceded, accompanied, or quickly followed by an increase in the supply of money, would not cause inflation; it would merely cause unemployment. It is not true, as so often assumed, that a wage increase in a given firm or industry can be simply “added on to the price.” Without an increased money supply, prices cannot be raised without reducing demand and sales, and hence production and employment. We can stop the “cost push” if we halt the increase in the money supply and repeal the labor laws that confer irresponsible private powers on union leaders.

With a constant demand for money, it is possible for some prices to go up but it is impossible for all prices to go up. For all prices to go up, a central bank must exist and pump more money into the economy. If, in a free market, the cost for oil increases for whatever reason, other prices, ceteris paribus, must fall.

Of course, the ECB is right to argue that global commodity prices affect the domestic price level. Nonetheless, the bulletin deliberately understates the impact the ECB has on the movement of prices. To simply chalk it up to international pressure will, for sure, become a handy justification for the ECB if they fail to maintain inflation under 2%.

But don’t be fooled, central banks, not oil, are responsible for the debasement of the currency.

About the author:
*Louis Rouanet is currently a student at the Paris Institute for Political Studies.

Source:
This article was published by the MISES Institute

India is believed to have fastest growing missile program of the world. It is estimated that India possess enough fissile material to produce 90 to 110 nuclear warheads and its fissile material production is increasing rapidly.

India’s exiting missiles that have direct implications for Pakistan are Prithvi I and Prithvi II with the range of 150/350 km, whereas second family of ballistic missile Agni- series has also direct implications for Pakistan, and on the other hand it is designed to reach china as well. So India’s missile program has not only triggered Pakistan’s concerns, but the other regional states like China that considers the Agni-V as a threat to their security and regional stability. Currently, India possesses ballistic missiles, nuclear-capable aircraft and longer-range ballistic missiles. Though, India claims that it has kept its warheads separate from launchers but higher level of readiness is matter of great concern of regional powers.

India’s Missile Defence System has potential to upset the strategic stability of region. India aims to acquire sophisticated Missile capabilities and Ballistic Missile Defence System to achieve two main objectives: First, to deter regional powers, China and Pakistan; Second, to emerge as regional power to establish its hegemony in region. To achieve these objectives India is building the huge stockpiles of fissile material. Such factors are posing more drastic security challenges to the South Asia.

India has large number of operational missiles in its inventory. India’s expanding missile capabilities with the significant improvement in range, accuracy, Payload and reliability, is not only forcing the regional states to enhance their capabilities to ensure their security, but also have the potential to instigate the arms race in region. India initiated its missile program in 1980s (much earlier than Pakistan) and brought greater insecurity, instability and tension and forced the regional states, such as traditional rival Pakistan to build up its nuclear capabilities to ensure its security and maintain stability in region.

Indian missile developments have serious implications on regional as well as global level. On regional level, it has enforced the traditional rival Pakistan to enhance it missile as well as nuclear capabilities. Secondly, various kinds of missiles increase with large inventory has enhanced the tension in region and increased the chances of escalation between Pakistan and India on one side, and between India and China on other side. Whereas at global level, the sophisticated missile developments with improved ranges and payload have serious implications on the non-proliferation regime, as it is encouraging the other regional states to pursue their nuclear and missile programs to counter Indian offense.

Consequently, the recent developments in the Indian Missile program are a matter of great concern for the competing regional states, especially for Pakistan. Developments in its missile as well as Ballistic Missile Defence System (BMD) and upcoming collaboration of India with US, Russia and Israel has added new dimensions to the regional stability and security equation. Especially, introduction of BMD system have posed negative implications on both Pakistan and China and possess the ability to give rise to arms race in region due to existence of action-reaction spiral between China, India and Pakistan.

Here the question arises that what are the options for regional states especially Pakistan? In response to Indian missile program, Pakistan has also developed its missile program since early 1980s. Pakistan has several types of nuclear capable ballistic missiles with shorter and longer ranges including nuclear capable aircraft, ballistic missiles and cruise missiles. In 2017, Pakistan test-fired Babur III and surface-to-surface ballistic missile Ababeel, these latest developments are considered as landmark contributions in the defence arrangements of Pakistan. These developments will not facilitate Pakistan to sustain the credibility of its deterrence strategy against the Indian missile program but also allow the Pakistan to neutralize the Indian BMD system.

India’s Missile development has challenge the security and strategic stability of the region, influenced the nuclear postures of regional states Pakistan and China, and posed the negative implications to non-proliferation efforts. Trends have revealed that combination of India’s massive capabilities: especially test of Agni V, Submarine Launch ballistic Missile (SLBM), motives to acquire Theater Missile Defence (TMD) and membership of Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) is worrisome. Through membership of the missile club, India has got access to sophisticated missile technology and under the umbrella of MTCR India will be able to export its space and missile technology to countries that adhere to the principles of missile group.

To conclude, if these trends of Indian missile program are not handled carefully, they could endanger the security of region and enhance the lethal arms race as well as will be a setback to global non-proliferation arrangements.

*Asma Khalid, Research Associate, at Strategic Vision Institute, a think tank based in Islamabad.

By Phil Harris

Global opium production increased by one-third in 2016 compared with the previous year, primarily due to higher opium poppy yields in Afghanistan, and coca bush cultivation increased by 30 percent mainly as a result of increased cultivation in Colombia.

Following a period of decline, there are also signs that cocaine use is increasing in the two largest markets, North America and Europe.

These are among the findings reported by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) in this year’s World Drug Report, released on June 22.

In a statement at the launch of the report, UNODC Executive Director Yury Fedotov stressed that while the outcome document of the 2016 landmark UN General Assembly special session on the world drug problem contains more than 100 concrete recommendations to reduce demand and supply, this is not enough.

“There is much work to be done to confront the many harms inflicted by drugs to health, development, peace and security, in all regions of the world,” said Fedotov.

Of the quarter of a billion people who used drugs in 2015, about 29.5 million – or 0.6 percent of the global adult population – were said to be engaged in “problematic use” and suffered from drug use disorders, including dependence, while opioids were the most harmful type of drug type and accounted for 70 percent of the negative health impact associated with drug use disorders worldwide.

According to the report, the harm caused by opioids is particularly evident in the United States where misuse of pharmaceutical opioids, coupled with an increase in heroin and fentanyl use, has resulted in a combined and interrelated epidemic, as well as an increase in morbidity and mortality related to opioids.

The United States accounts for approximately one-quarter of the estimated number of drug-related deaths worldwide, including overdose deaths, which continue to rise. Mostly driven by opioids, overdose deaths in the United States more than tripled during the period 1999-2015, from 16,849 to 52,404 annually, and increased by 11.4 percent in 2016 alone, to reach the highest level ever recorded.

“Indeed,” says the report, “far more people die from the misuse of opioids in the United States each year than from road traffic accidents or violence.”

Besides highlighting the increase in opium production and the thriving cocaine market, the report also points to scientific evidence for hepatitis C causing greatest harm among people who use drugs; and spotlights further diversification of the booming drug market, as well as changing business models for drug trafficking and organised crime.

Disorders related to the use of amphetamines also account for a considerable share of the global burden of disease. And while the market for new psychoactive substances (NPS) is still relatively small, users are unaware of the content and dosage of psychoactive substances in some NPS, potentially exposing users to additional serious health risks.

The report finds that hepatitis C is causing the greatest harm among the estimated 12 million people who inject drugs worldwide. About 1.6 million people are living with HIV and 6.1 million are living with hepatitis C, while around 1.3 million are suffering from both hepatitis C and HIV. Overall, three times more people who use drugs die from hepatitis C (222,000) than from HIV (60,000).

However, notes the report, despite recent advances in the treatment of hepatitis C, access remains poor because treatment remains very expensive in most countries.

The spectrum of substances available on the drug market is also reported to have widened considerably, with the persistence of traditional drugs and the emergence of NPS every year. A characteristic of drug use patterns for many years, polydrug use – the combination of different drugs – is not a new phenomenon; however, it now poses an even greater risk because of the sheer number of substances on the market and the potential combinations that can be used.

The opioid market is also becoming more diversified, as illustrated by the United States, where the opioid market comprises a combination of internationally controlled substances, particularly heroin, and prescription medicines that are either diverted from the legal market or produced as counterfeit medicines on a large scale.

These counterfeit medicines are made to look like pharmaceutical products while actually containing fentanyl and fentanyl analogues, as well as non-opioid substances such as derivatives of benzodiazepine and methylphenidate.

Meanwhile, transnational organised crime groups across the globe were estimated to have generated between one-fifth and one-third of their revenues in 2014 from drug sales. According to the UNODC report, mobile communications offer new opportunities to traffickers, while the ‘darknet’ allows users to anonymously buy drugs with a crypto-currency, such as bitcoin.

Although drug trafficking over the ‘darknet’ remains small, there has been an increase in drug transactions, of some 50 percent annually between September 2013 and January 2016, with typical buyers being recreational users of cannabis, “ecstasy”, cocaine, hallucinogens and NPS.

By Jeremy Dexter B. Mirasol

The word kafala has two distinct meanings in classical Arabic: to guarantee and to take care of. The kafala system is a time-honored tradition of hospitality, which lays down obligations in the treatment and protection of foreign guests. The customary grant of protection of guests originated from the Bedouins. It is a noble principle, but contemporary practice has been marred by criticisms over the years.

The kafala system in the Gulf states commenced in the 1950s when these countries began to import labor to accelerate development due to the discovery of oil.  It was one way to ensure that hired foreign workers were only given temporary residency in the receiving countries. It was also meant to address potential security concerns resulting from migrants outnumbering citizens.

In migration governance, the kafala system produced a condition in which the oversight of migrants is delegated to the employer by the state. A prospective migrant worker must be sponsored by the kafeel (employer) to enter the country and work, making the worker’s status legally bound to his or her sponsor. A migrant worker cannot enter the country, stay, transfer employment, or leave the country for any reason without first obtaining explicit permission from the kafeel. 

There are cases of kafeels taking advantage of the kafala system – cases of underpayment, non-payment, excessive workload, forced confinement, and severe psychological, physical and sexual abuse. There are also kafeels who confiscate their workers’ passports and work permits, and effectively curtail the worker’s fundamental right to labor mobility.  Because of these practices, migrant workers usually end up absconding from their employers to seek refuge elsewhere.  In the Gulf states, absconding is considered a criminal charge which leads to indefinite detention and deportation. 

Reforming the kafala system: the case of Qatar

Recently, Qatar has come under greater scrutiny for allegations concerning non-payment of wages, occupational health and safety and other labor issues in connection with its preparations for the hosting of the FIFA World Cup in 2022. Human and labor rights groups alike have expressed their concerns on the labor situation in Qatar, singling out the kafala system in particular.

Qatar is heavily dependent on foreign labor and has the highest proportion of migrants to citizens in the world. According to the data from Qatar’s Ministry of Development Planning and Statistics (MDPS), 91.6% of the total workforce of the country are migrant workers. The Philippines is one of the top sources of these migrants with around 135,000 OFWs according to the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA).

The International Labor Organization (ILO) notes that Qatar fails to maintain a legal framework consistent with international law that stipulates protection of the rights of migrant workers. A resolution from the European Parliament expressed its concern on the situation of migrant workers in Qatar, calling on the Qatari authorities to effectively implement existing legislation, including the enforcement of the ban on passport confiscation. It also urged authorities to stop detaining workers for abscondment. Moreover, it reiterated its call on Qatar to ratify ILO conventions, including those related to the protection of migrant workers.

Likewise, in a UN report on Qatar’s kafala system presented at a UN Human Rights Council meeting, the kafala system was described as a source of abuse and exploitation of migrants. The report verified cases of migrants often working without pay and living in substandard conditions. In its summary, the report stated that there was no valid justification for maintaining the system and went further recommending the abolition of the kafala system.

Cognizant of these criticisms, a new sponsorship law replacing the kafala system – The Law No.21 of 2015 – was introduced last December 2016. The Minister of Administrative Development, Labor & Social Affairs (MADLSA), Dr. Issa bin Saad Al-Jafali Al Nuaimi, said, “The new law is the latest step towards improving and protecting the rights of every expatriate worker in Qatar. It replaces the kafala system with a modernized, contract-based system that safeguards workers’ rights and increases job flexibility”.

Effectively repealing the Law No. 4 of 2009, the Law No. 21 of 2015 now regulates the entry and exit of expatriates in Qatar. Other changes under this law include a system to appeal refused exit permits; and expats finished with fixed-term contracts no longer require their sponsor’s approval to take another job. For some human rights organizations, the reform was short of expectations, but it is still considered a big improvement from the old system. It is the beginning of a series of wide- ranging reforms in the job market to guarantee workers’ rights and improve their standard of living and working conditions in Qatar.

Structural improvements

The demands for strategic and concrete actions to replace the sponsorship system (i.e. kafala system) of labor-receiving countries such as Qatar manifest the realpolitik of labor migration. As current cases of abuse and exploitation undermine the rule of law in the Gulf states and hamper their relations with countries of origin, it is in the interest of these labor-receiving countries to introduce incremental reforms in the labor sector. While there are already significant steps underway to replace the kafala system in Qatar, much remains to be done in the rest of the region to ensure full respect for human and labor rights.

There are several useful frameworks to manage migration while ensuring full respect for the rights of migrants. Among these are the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families; Optional Protection to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; ILO Convention No. 97 (Migrant for Employment); ILO Convention No. 143 (Migrations in Abusive Conditions and the Promotion of Equality of Opportunity and Treatment of Migrant Workers); and ILO Convention No. 189 (Decent Work for Domestic Workers). These international frameworks underscore the rights of every migrant worker and can guide Qatar and other Gulf states in properly forging and enforcing their labor laws.

Protection of OFWs

Recently, the Qatar government reported that it needs at least 77,000 Filipino workers, mostly in construction and highly-skilled and technical jobs. With a significant number of OFWs in Qatar and other Gulf states, the Philippine government must continue to push for favorable conditions for its nationals abroad. While the new sponsorship law in Qatar is a welcome development, the Philippine government must continually and vigilantly monitor working conditions, especially where cases of abuses remain.

Since their signing of the labor agreement formalizing procedures for migrant worker deployment in March 1997, the Philippines and Qatar have been discussing bilateral labor issues at the level of the Philippine-Qatar Joint Committee Meeting (JCM) on Labor Matters. Through JCM, the Philippine government is expected to further discuss and explore initiatives that would advance the welfare of OFWs in Qatar.

Greater bilateral cooperation is essential to develop and enforce sound migration policies protecting Filipino migrant workers, particularly in the Gulf states. Emerging initiatives that draw governments together to discuss migration have the potential to serve as important vehicles for addressing migrant domestic workers’ issues.

About the author:
*Jeremy Dexter B. Mirasol is a Foreign Affairs Research Specialist with the Center for International Relations and Strategic Studies of the Foreign Service Institute. Mr. Mirasol can be reached at jbmirasol@fsi.gov.ph

Source:
This article was published by FSI. CIRSS Commentaries is a regular short publication of the Center for International Relations and Strategic Studies (CIRSS) of the Foreign Service Institute (FSI) focusing on the latest regional and global developments and issues. The views expressed in this publication are of the authors alone and do not reflect the official position of the Foreign Service Institute, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Government of the Philippines.

A list of 13 conditions for lifting the Saudi-UAE led embargo of Qatar handed to the Gulf state this week by Kuwaiti mediators offers a first taste of newly-promoted Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s foreign policy approach that if endorsed by the international community would call into question fundamental principles governing international relations.

The demand, that if accepted by Qatar would turn the Gulf state into a Saudi vassal, were unlikely to facilitate a quick resolution of the three-week-old Gulf crisis. In fact, they may complicate a resolution that would allow all parties to claim victory and save face.

Saudi Arabia and the UAE have reportedly given Qatar ten days to comply with their demands, according to the list that was reviewed by The Associated Press and The Wall Street Journal. Gulf states have yet to comment on the list. It was also not clear what steps the two states might take if Qatar rejected the demands.

Qatar has insisted that it would not accept any demands that compromised its sovereignty or amounted to interference in its internal affairs. It has also denied various Saudi and UAE allegations against it. The Gulf state said further that it would only negotiate an end to the crisis once the embargo had been lifted.

The demands go far beyond the declared aim of Qatar’s protractors that it halts its support of jihadists and Islamists. Acceptance of the demands would not only compromise its political sovereignty but could also jeopardize its economic independence if Iran were to retaliate for Qatari compliance. Compliance would further create a dangerous precedent for freedom of the press and expression.

The Saudi-UAE demands appeared to fall far short of a call by the US State Department that the conditions for lifting the Saudi-UAE diplomatic and economic embargo of Qatar be “reasonable and actionable.”

The United States and other democracies would likely find it difficult to support shuttering of Qatari-funded media, including the Al Jazeera television network. Al Jazeera revolutionized the Arab media landscape by introducing more free-wheeling, critical news reporting and debate that has irked autocratic Arab leaders for more than two decades.

The network drew the ire of Saudi Arabia and the UAE for its support of the 2011 popular Arab revolts that brought Islamist forces, including the controversial Muslim Brotherhood, to the fore. Saudi Arabia and the UAE have gone to great length to roll back the fallout of the revolts.

Similarly, the two Gulf state’s demand that Qatar reduce the level of, if not break off, its diplomatic relations with Iran could endanger the Gulf state’s economy that is dependent on its oil and gas exports. Qatar shares with Iran ownership of the world’s largest gas field and cannot afford an open conflict with the Islamic republic.

Saudi Arabia and the UAE are demanding that Qatar shut down diplomatic posts in Iran, expel members of Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guard, and only conduct trade and commerce with Iran in compliance with US sanctions that are not internationally binding.

The demands put Qatar in a separate category from others in the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council, including the UAE, Kuwait and Oman, that maintain diplomatic relations with Iran. The UAE, which has a territorial dispute with Iran over three islands in the Gulf, is home to a large Iranian community and serves as an important economic hub for the Islamic republic.

Similarly, acceptance of a demand that Qatar close a military base of NATO member Turkey in the Gulf state would also undermine the Gulf state’s sovereignty. Turkish Defense Minister Fikri Isik said his country had no plan to close its base in Qatar.

Other NATO members have military bases in the Gulf, including the United States’ largest military facility in the Middle East in Qatar, and British and French bases in the UAE. Turkey, like Qatar, supported the 2011 revolts as well as the Brotherhood.

Saudi Arabia and the UAE are further demanding that Qatar cut ties to a host of organizations ranging from jihadists like Al Qaeda and the Islamic State to Lebanon’s Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood. Qatar has denied contacts with the jihadists but has been open about its relations with non-violent Islamists, including the Brotherhood and Palestinian group Hamas.

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson last week suggested that banning the Brotherhood was all but impossible. Speaking to the House Committee on Foreign Relations, Mr. Tillerson cautioned that designating the Brotherhood, with an estimated membership of 5 million, as a terrorist organization would “complicate matters” with America’s relations with foreign governments.

“There are elements of the Muslim Brotherhood that have become parts of governments. Those elements… have done so by renouncing violence and terrorism,” Mr. Tillerson said. He said groups affiliated with the Brotherhood that commit violence had already been added to the US terrorism list.

In a sign that compliance with the demands would not restore confidence among Gulf states, Saudi Arabia and the UAE together with Egypt and Bahrain insisted that Qatar expel their citizens, including those who had adopted Qatari nationality, and no longer offer their nationals citizenship as a way of ensuring that the Gulf state not meddle in their internal affairs. They also demand that Qatar be audited for a period of ten years.

In a bid to garner US support for their demands, Saudi Arabia and the UAE insisted that Qatar stop funding groups designated as terrorist by the United States, extradite people wanted by the kingdom, the Emirates, Bahrain and Egypt on charges of terrorism, and provide details of its funding of Saudi and other Arab dissidents.

Qatar’s distractors differ with the Gulf state as well as the United States on which groups and individuals classify as terrorists. Saudi Arabia and the UAE have declared the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, the United States has not. Bahrain’s Sunni minority government relies on support of members of the Brotherhood.

Things get even more complicated when it comes to Hamas, an offshoot of the Brotherhood that controls the Gaza Strip. Hamas has been designated a terrorist organization by the US, the EU and Israel but not the United Nations, the arbitrator of which designations are internationally binding.

Egypt, financially dependent on Saudi Arabia and the UAE, this week came to Hamas’ aid by supplying Gaza’s only power plant with fuel. The plant was shut in April because of a dispute between Hamas and the Palestine Authority (PA) on the West Bank headed by President Mahmoud Abbas. The Egyptian supply came as Israel reduced its supply of electricity to Gaza at the request of the PA.

The Egyptian move also came as a Hamas delegation visited Cairo not only for talks with authorities but also with Mohammed Dahlan, a Abu Dhabi-based, UAE backed former Palestinian security chief who has ambitions to succeed Mr. Abbas as the leader of the Palestinians. Mr. Dahlan advises UAE strongman Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed on issues of national security. A deal between Hamas and Mr. Dahlan, who is at odds with Mr. Abbas and cannot return to the West Bank, would offer him a way back into Palestine.

In sum, Saudi Arabia and the UAE’s demands constitute an effort to rewrite the rules of international relations that uphold the sovereignty of nations and their right to graft their own policies. They effectively would put Qatar under guardianship and undermine the principle of freedom of expression and the media.

The demands complicate efforts by the United States and others to resolve the Gulf crisis. They reopen an unresolved debate about the definition of terrorism and the ability of countries to adopt independent decisions on policies regarding media, citizenship, diplomatic relations, and economics. In short, at stake in the Gulf crisis is far more than the fate of a tiny Gulf state.

US President Donald Trump is reportedly considering abandoning Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations following a “tense” meeting between senior adviser Jared Kushner and Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah this week.

Together with Trump’s Middle East envoy Jason Greenblatt, Kushner met both Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanayhu this week in talks described by US officials as “productive.”

A report in London-based Arabic daily Al-Hayat, however, quoted a senior Palestinian official as saying talks between Kushner and Abbas were “tense”, with Abbas furious that US officials had demanded that the PA stop payments to the families of Palestinian attackers.

Abbas accused the US officials of taking Israel’s side, the report said, adding that Israel is using the payments issue as a pretext to avoid entering negotiations.

The US delegation also criticised Abbas after he refused to meet with the US ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, due to his pro-settlement stance.

“They sounded like Netanyahu’s advisers and not like fair arbiters,” a senior Palestinian official told Haaretz following the meeting.

Kushner will now submit a report to Trump, who will then decide if there is a chance for negotiations or whether it is “preferable to pull out of peace talks”, the senior Palestinian official told Al-Hayat.

A senior US administration official described the report as “nonsense”, according to the Jerusalem Post.

The report also claims that the Trump administration was upset that Abbas failed to denounce a stabbing attack in Jerusalem which killed an Israeli border policewoman.

Three Palestinians were shot dead following the attack.

A Palestinian delegation is expected to visit Washington next month to continue dialogue with the US, the report added.

In discussion with Greenblatt before Kushner’s visit, Palestinian sources said the phrase “two-state solution” had not been used, Reuters reported.

In February, Trump appeared to break with decades of US policy on the two-state solution, saying: “I’m looking at two-state and one-state, and I like the one that both parties like”.

By Terri Moon

Iraqi forces have made significant progress this past week in its fight to liberate western Mosul, Iraq, from Islamic State of Iraq and Syria control, said Army Col. Ryan Dillon, spokesman for Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve.

Speaking to Pentagon reporters from Baghdad via teleconference, the spokesman said the Iraqis have pushed their way into the old city sector and isolated Al-Jamhara Hospital, which severed the two remaining ISIS-held areas of western Mosul.

But, emblematic of its own impending destruction, Dillon said, on June 21 ISIS destroyed the historic Great Mosque of al-Nuri from which ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi proclaimed the caliphate in July 2014.

The nearly 800-year-old mosque and the famous leaning al-Hadba minaret stood as a symbol of faith and unity for the people of Mosul, he said, noting that ISIS attempted to undermine this by using “the mosque to publicly justify its criminal campaign of genocide, mass rape, slavery and murder.”

Mosque Destruction ‘Despicable’

“On Wednesday night, as Iraqi counterterrorism service members moved within 50 meters [nearly 55 yards] of the mosque, ISIS detonated it with explosives,” Dillon said. “Their destruction of the mosque … is another despicable act, another crime that is consistent with the hundreds of other ancient and historic artifacts ISIS has destroyed in their wake.”

But the time is near when Iraq will celebrate its long-fought victory over ISIS in Mosul, the spokesman said, adding, “There’s no question about that.”

And significant effort that will be required to stabilize western Mosul, Dillon said. “However, if there was any doubt in Iraqi resolve, in their ability to quickly rebound from adversity, all you need is to go to [eastern] Mosul,” he noted.

Eastern Mosul Flourishing

Since the Iraqis liberated eastern Mosul at the beginning of the year, 191,000 Moslawis have come back to their homes; 350,000 children have returned to school, where 320 out of 400 schools have reopened; and four of nine water treatment plants are providing water to nearly 1 million people with more than 3.5 million liters trucked in every day.

“The greater coalition will do all we can in working with Iraqi authorities to make sure that these trends continue, while mindful of the extraordinary, difficult nature of this battle and what lies ahead,” he said of western Mosul.

SDF Prevails Against Resistance

In Syria, Dillon said Syrian Democratic Forces are making progress in its offensive operations to liberate Raqqa from ISIS control.

The SDF have retaken 45 square kilometers of ground — about 17 square miles — from ISIS in and around Raqqa in the past week while fighting along three axes toward the city’s center despite strong ISIS resistance, he said.

The spokesman also noted that a U.S. F-18 Super Hornet shot down a regime SU-22 jet on June 18 in defense of coalition-partnered forces that were operating within an agreed-upon regime SDF de-confliction area.

And in southern Syria, a U.S. F-15 shot down an Iranian-made Shahed 129 armed drone as it approached our forces near al-Tanf, he said. The regime drone, advancing in a manner that was similar to a June 8 attack, was shot down as it approached its weapons employment zone.

“The coalition has made it clear to all parties, publicly and through [the] de-confliction line with Russia forces, that the demonstrated hostile intent and actions of pro-regime forces toward coalition and partnered forces will not be tolerated,” Dillon said. “The coalition re-emphasizes that we do not seek to fight Syrian regime or pro-regime forces. Partnered with them, our mission is to defeat ISIS in Iraq and Syria.”

US President Donald Trump has blamed his predecessor for not countering Russia’s alleged attempts to interfere in the 2016 presidential elections. Some of Trump’s critics allege the interference, which Russia denies ever happened, was meant to benefit him.

Trump made the remark during an interview with the Fox & Friends program aired on Sunday.

“The CIA gave him [Barack Obama] information on Russia a long time before the election. And I hardly see it [in the media],” Trump said. “If he had the information, why didn’t he do something about it?” he asked.

Trump was apparently referring to a Friday report in the Washington Post that detailed the Obama’s administration effort to deal with the election crisis.

The newspaper cited anonymous government officials as saying that, in August of 2016, the CIA had reported to Obama as a fact that Russia was trying to interfere in the upcoming election. According to the Washington Post article, the CIA claimed that it had intercepted “specific instructions” from Russian President Vladimir “on the operation’s audacious objectives — defeat or at least damage the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, and help elect her opponent, Donald Trump.”

Trump’s critical remark follows several tweets following the same narrative in the past few days.

Some high-ranking Democrats joined Trump in his criticism of the previous administration. Adam Schiff, the top-ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, told CNN that Obama’s inaction in the case of Russia’s alleged interference in the US elections was a “very serious mistake.”

“The American people needed to know. I didn’t think it was enough to tell them after the election… I think the administration needed to call out Russia earlier, needed to act to deter and punish Russia earlier and that was a very serious mistake,” he said.

His words were partly echoed by another Democrat, Ron Wyden, a member of the US Senate Intelligence Committee, who said he was “troubled, learning this new information that the Obama administration didn’t do more,” AFP reports.

The WaPo story describes the alleged election interference as the “crime of the century” in political terms, claiming that, in response, Obama had authorized the infection of Russia’s infrastructure so as to create the “digital equivalent of bombs that could be detonated if the United States found itself in an escalating exchange with Moscow.” However, that initiative was still being planned when Trump took office.

Russia denies the that it interfered in the US election and believes the dominating anti-Russian rhetoric surrounding Trump’s election is a sign of domestic division and party conflict in the US.

At the invitation of Afghanistan and Pakistan, Foreign Minister Wang Yi of China visited the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan from June 24th to 25th. During this visit, the three parties condemned the recent terrorist attacks occurred in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, and extended condolences to the deceased and sympathy to the affected people. The three parties had in-depth exchange of views on the Afghan issue, the relationship between Afghanistan and Pakistan and China-Afghanistan-Pakistan trilateral cooperation, and reached consensus on the following points:

1. The three parties are all committed to maintaining regional peace and stability, enhancing regional connectivity and economic cooperation and promoting shared security and development.

2. Both Afghanistan and Pakistan are willing to improve relations with each other, strengthen political mutual trust, enhance cooperation in various fields including counter-terrorism, and jointly meet security challenges. The Chinese side hopes Afghanistan and Pakistan could maintain stable and sound relations, and is willing to provide necessary assistance in this regard based on the needs of both sides.

3. Afghanistan and Pakistan agree to establish a crisis management mechanism, which will include prevention through timely and effective intelligence and information sharing and other mutually agreed measures. This would enable the two sides to maintain timely and effective communications in case of any emergencies, including terrorist attacks, with a view to seeking proper solution through dialogue and consultation and preventing deterioration of the situation which might have negative effect on the bilateral relationship. The Chinese side will support this mechanism.

4. The three parties agree to establish the China-Afghanistan-Pakistan Foreign Ministers’ dialogue mechanism to cooperate on issues of mutual interest, beginning with economic cooperation.

5. The three parties believe that peace and reconciliation is the fundamental solution to the Afghan issue, which could not be solved by violent means. The Chinese side and the Pakistani side support the “Afghan-led and Afghan-owned” reconciliation process, and stand ready to continue to play a constructive role in advancing this process. The three parties call on the Afghan Taliban to join the reconciliation process at an early date.

6. The three parties believe that the Quadrilateral Coordination Group should be revived to create an enabling environment for peace talks and for Taliban to join the peace talks.

7. The three parties support the Kabul process and hold the view that the Shanghai Cooperation Organization-Afghanistan Contact Group should be revived as early as possible to play a constructive role in moving forward the Afghan reconciliation process.