For the first time ever, astronomers at The University of New Mexico say they’ve been able to observe and measure the orbital motion between two supermassive black holes hundreds of millions of light years from Earth – a discovery more than a decade in the making.

UNM Department of Physics & Astronomy graduate student Karishma Bansal is the first-author on the paper, ‘Constraining the Orbit of the Supermassive Black Hole Binary 0402+379’, recently published in The Astrophysical Journal. She, along with UNM Professor Greg Taylor and colleagues at Stanford, the U.S. Naval Observatory and the Gemini Observatory, have been studying the interaction between these black holes for 12 years.

“For a long time, we’ve been looking into space to try and find a pair of these supermassive black holes orbiting as a result of two galaxies merging,” said Taylor. “Even though we’ve theorized that this should be happening, nobody had ever seen it until now.”

In early 2016, an international team of researchers, including a UNM alumnus, working on the LIGO project detected the existence of gravitational waves, confirming Albert Einstein’s 100-year-old prediction and astonishing the scientific community. These gravitational waves were the result two stellar mass black holes (~30 solar mass) colliding in space within the Hubble time. Now, thanks to this latest research, scientists will be able to start to understand what leads up to the merger of supermassive black holes that creates ripples in the fabric of space-time and begin to learn more about the evolution of galaxies and the role these black holes play in it.

Using the Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA), a system made up of 10 radio telescopes across the U.S. and operated in Socorro, N.M., researchers have been able to observe several frequencies of radio signals emitted by these supermassive black holes (SMBH). Over time, astronomers have essentially been able to plot their trajectory and confirm them as a visual binary system. In other words, they’ve observed these black holes in orbit with one another.

“When Dr. Taylor gave me this data I was at the very beginning of learning how to image and understand it,” said Bansal. “And, as I learned there was data going back to 2003, we plotted it and determined they are orbiting one another. It’s very exciting.”

For Taylor, the discovery is the result of more than 20 years of work and an incredible feat given the precision required to pull off these measurements. At roughly 750 million light years from Earth, the galaxy named 0402+379 and the supermassive black holes within it, are incredibly far away; but are also at the perfect distance from Earth and each other to be observed.

Bansal says these supermassive black holes have a combined mass of 15 billion times that of our sun, or 15 billion solar masses. The unbelievable size of these black holes means their orbital period is around 24,000 years, so while the team has been observing them for over a decade, they’ve yet to see even the slightest curvature in their orbit.

“If you imagine a snail on the recently-discovered Earth-like planet orbiting Proxima Centauri – 4.243 light years away – moving at 1 cm a second, that’s the angular motion we’re resolving here,” said Roger W. Romani, professor of physics at Stanford University and member of the research team.

“What we’ve been able to do is a true technical achievement over this 12-year period using the VLBA to achieve sufficient resolution and precision in the astrometry to actually see the orbit happening,” said Taylor. “It’s a bit of triumph in technology to have been able to do this.”

While the technical accomplishment of this discovery is truly amazing, Bansal and Taylor say the research could also teach us a lot about the universe, where galaxies come from and where they’re going.

“The orbits of binary stars provided tremendous insights about stars,” said Bob Zavala, an astronomer with the U.S. Naval Observatory. “Now we’ll be able to use similar techniques to understand super-massive black holes and the galaxies they reside within.”

Continuing to observe the orbit and interaction of these two supermassive black holes could also help us gain a better understanding of what the future of our own galaxy might look like. Right now, the Andromeda galaxy, which also has a SMBH at its center, is on a path to collide with our Milky Way, meaning the event Bansal and Taylor are currently observing, might occur in our galaxy in a few billion years.

“Supermassive black holes have a lot of influence on the stars around them and the growth and evolution of the galaxy,” explained Taylor. “So, understanding more about them and what happens when they merge with one another could be important for our understanding for the universe.”

Bansal says the research team will take another observation of this system in three or four years to confirm the motion and obtain a precise orbit. In the meantime, the team hopes that this discovery will encourage related work from astronomers around the world.

A Dutch appeals court found the Netherlands partially liable for the deaths of around 300 Bosniaks from Srebrenica who were killed after being expelled from a Dutch UN peacekeepers’ base in 1995.

The appeals court in The Hague on Tuesday ruled that the Dutch state was partly liable for the deaths of some 300 Bosniak men who were forced out of a Dutch UN peacekeepers’ base near Srebrenica in July 1995 and subsequently killed by Bosnian Serb forces.

The decision upheld a previous ruling in 2014 that the peacekeepers should have been aware that the Bosniaks would be killed if they had to leave the base where they had taken refuge.

Presiding judge Gepke Dulek-Schermers said that Dutch troops “knew or should have known” that the men “were in real danger of being subjected to torture or execution”, Reuters reported.

The court ruled that the Dutch state is liable for around 30 per cent of any damages awarded to the victims’ relatives, because it said it was not clear whether the men would have been killed anyway even if they were allowed to remain inside the base.

The ruling only applies to around 300 Bosniaks who had taken refuge at the base in Potocari, not to the rest of around 8,000 Bosniaks from Srebrenica who were killed by Bosnian Serb forces in July 1995 – a crime classified as genocide by international court decisions.

After Srebrenica was overrun by Serb forces, many Bosniak men and boys tried to escape through the nearby woods while others headed for the UN peacekeepers’ base at Potocari, where the Dutch battalion (known as ‘Dutchbat’) was stationed.

Several hundred men managed to get inside the Potocari base, but were told by the Dutch troops that they would be safe outside and handed over to the Serbs, who later killed them.

The Dutch peacekeepers, who were stationed in Srebrenica after it was declared a ‘safe area’ by the UN in 1993, had an obligation to protect the civilian population.

In a separate development on Monday, more than 200 former UN peacekeepers from the Netherlands are to sue the Dutch government for sending them to Srebrenica, AFP news agency reported.

The move comes after the Dutch defence minister Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert last year described the Srebrenica deployment as “an unrealistic mission, in impossible circumstances”.

“As from tomorrow [Tuesday], 206 of my clients are claiming compensation of 22,000 euros each,” the troops’ lawyer Michael Ruperti was quoted as saying by AFP.

“They are still experiencing damages in all aspects of their lives and believe that the defence ministry should be held responsible,” Ruperti said.

The hype and unsubstantiated hope behind the self-driving car movement continues unabated, distracting from addressing necessities of old “mobilities” such as inadequate public transit and upgrading highway and rail infrastructure.

At a conference on Driverless Cars sponsored by the George Washington University Law School earlier this month, the legal landscape of unresolved problems and unasked questions were deliberated for a full day:

What are the legal requirements that should be applied to the testing phase, the deployment phase, liability and insurance, impacts on displaced workers, cyber-security, privacy, and antitrust? A takeaway from this gathering was the number of mind-numbing unresolved systems awaiting this new, untested technology.

First, a little background – car ownership and car sales are expected to flatten or decline due to ride-sharing and a new generation of consumers that is less inclined to purchase motor vehicles. How is the industry to react? By adding high-priced value to motor vehicles, already described as computers on wheels. Voilà, the race for the driverless car! The mass media took the bait and over-reported each company’s sensationalized press releases, announcing breakthroughs without disclosing the underlying data. The arrogance of the algorithms, among many other variables, bypassed simple daily realties, such as bustling traffic in cities like New York.

In the shadows were the daily tribulations of Americans just trying to get to and from work, especially the poor and those who don’t own a vehicle.

Don’t expect driverless cars to be taking over anytime in the next few decades. Autonomous vehicles do not exist in the autonomous contexts of daily life. Start with how to fit these futuristic vehicles in a sea of over two hundred fifty million driven vehicles in the US. It’s easy to score driverless vehicles in well-orchestrated courses with minimum traffic over low mileage. Apply that controlled scenario to the scale and complexity of  actual roads with actual drivers in actual conditions and the difficulties multiply enormously.

The industry–from Silicon Valley to Detroit—argues safety. Robotic systems do not get drunk, fall asleep at the wheel or develop poor driving skills. But computers fail often; they are often susceptible to hacking—whether by the manufacturers, dealers or deadly actors. Hacking is a driverless car industry’s nightmare and American motorists can see why. They like to remain in control and not have their engine stop, accelerate or be turned in disastrous directions by remote interventions.

Already, Volkswagen and other companies have been caught by law enforcement manipulating software emission controls on a gigantic scale.

Until that distant dream by the technocrats when all vehicles are driverless is realized, there may be less safety because of the mix of autonomous and human-operated vehicles.

On top of all this is the emerging demand to rewrite the rules so that there is less mandatory regulations (to be replaced by mere guidelines), less tort liability, less clear contractual responsibility between the many inputting companies, less openness for the data, far less privacy protections, and little attention to the awesome public investment needed for preparing highways and other facilities.

Already, Level Three—an autonomous vehicle needing emergency replacement by the surrogate human driver—is being viewed as unworkable by specialists at MIT and elsewhere. The human driver, lulled and preoccupied, can’t take back control in time.

Modern mass transit has shown how drivers who choose to become passengers can relax and not have to drive. Why won’t we concentrate on what can be improved and expanded to get safer, efficient, less polluting mobility?

Over forty years ago Northwestern University transportation specialists developed a plan for “personalized public transit,” meaning, for example, connecting your car to a monorail system for daily commutes!

The driverless car is bursting forth without a legal, ethical and priorities framework. Already asking for public subsidies, companies can drain much-needed funds for available mass transit services and the industry’s own vehicle safety upgrades in favor of a technological will-o’-the-wisp.

For a clear, detailed look at the risks posed by driverless cars, read the new report, Self-Driving Vehicles: The Threat to Consumers, by Harvey Rosenfield of Consumer Watchdog.

Mitch McConnell is delaying a vote on the Senate Republican version of Trumpcare because he doesn’t yet have a majority.

Some Senate Republicans think the bill doesn’t go get rid of enough of the Affordable Care Act. Others worry that it goes too far – especially in light of the Congressional Budget Office’s finding that it would eliminate coverage for 22 million Americans.

What should be the Democrats’ response? Over the next weeks or months, Democrats must continue to defend the Affordable Care Act. It’s not perfect, but it’s a major step in the right direction. Over 20 million Americans have gained coverage because of it.

But Democrats also need to go further and offer Americans a positive vision of where the nation should be headed over the long term. That’s toward Medicare for all.

Some background: American spending on healthcare per person is more than twice the average in the world’s thirty-five advanced economies. Yet Americans are sicker, our lives are shorter, and we have more chronic illnesses than in any other advanced nation.

That’s because medical care is so expensive for the typical American that many put off seeing a doctor until their health has seriously deteriorated.

Why is healthcare so much cheaper in other nations? Partly because their governments negotiate lower rates with health providers. In France, the average cost of a magnetic resonance imagining exam is $363. In the United States, it’s $1,121. There, an appendectomy costs $4,463. Here, $13,851.

They can get lower rates because they cover everyone – which gives them lots of bargaining power.

Other nations also don’t have to pay the costs of private insurers shelling out billions of dollars a year on advertising and marketing – much of it intended to attract healthier and younger people and avoid the sicker and older.

Nor do other nations have to pay boatloads of money to the shareholders and executives of big for-profit insurance companies.

Finally, they don’t have to bear the high administrative costs of private insurers – requiring endless paperwork to keep track of every procedure by every provider.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, Medicare’s administrative costs are only about 2 percent of its operating expenses. That’s less than one-sixth the administrative costs of America’s private insurers

To make matters even worse for Americans, the nation’s private health insurers are merging like mad in order to suck in even more money from consumers and taxpayers by reducing competition.

At the same time, their focus on attracting healthy people and avoiding sick people is creating a vicious cycle. Insurers that take in sicker and costlier patients lose money, which forces them to raise premiums, co-payments, and deductibles. This, in turn, makes it harder for people most in need of health insurance to afford it.

This phenomenon has even plagued health exchanges under the Affordable Care Act.

Medicare for all would avoid all these problems, and get lower prices and better care.

It would be financed the same way Medicare and Social Security are financed, through the payroll tax. Wealthy Americans would pay a higher payroll tax rate and contribute more than lower-income people. But everyone would win because total healthcare costs would be far lower, and outcomes far better.

If Republicans succeed in gutting the Affordable Care Act or subverting it, the American public will be presented with a particularly stark choice: Expensive health care for the few, or affordable health care for the many.

This political reality is already playing out in Congress, as many Democrats move toward Medicare for All. Most House Democrats are co-sponsoring a Medicare for All bill there. Senator Bernie Sanders is preparing to introduce it in the Senate. New York and California are moving toward statewide versions.

A Gallup poll conducted in May found that a majority of Americans would support such a system. Another poll by the Pew Research Center shows that such support is growing, with 60 percent of Americans now saying government should be responsible for ensuring health care coverage for all Americans – up from 51 percent last year.

Democrats would be wise to seize the moment. They shouldn’t merely defend the Affordable Care Act. They should also go on the offensive – with Medicare for all.

Using five different scientific approaches, a team including University of Wyoming researchers has given considerable support to the idea that humans lived year-round in the Andean highlands of South America over 7,000 years ago.

Examining human remains and other archaeological evidence from a site at nearly 12,500 feet above sea level in Peru, the scientists show that intrepid hunter-gatherers — men, women and children — managed to survive at high elevation before the advent of agriculture, in spite of lack of oxygen, frigid temperatures and exposure to elements.

“This gives us a very strong baseline to help understand the rates of cultural and genetic change in the Andean highlands, a region known for the domestication of alpaca, potatoes and other plants; emergence of state-level political and economic complexity; and rapid human adaptation to high-elevation life,” said Randy Haas, a postdoctoral research associate in the University of Wyoming’s Department of Anthropology and the team’s leader.

The research appears in the July issue of Royal Society Open Science, a peer-reviewed, open-access scientific journal. Along with Haas, the second author is Ioana Stefenescu, graduate student in UW’s Department of Geology and Geophysics. Also contributing to the paper were Alexander Garcia-Putnam, doctoral student in the UW Department of Anthropology; Mark Clementz, associate professor in the Department of Geology and Geophysics; Melissa Murphy, associate professor in the Department of Anthropology; and researchers from the University of California-Davis, the University of California-Merced, the University of Arizona and Peruvian institutions.

Excavations led by Haas at the site in southern Peru produced the remains of 16 people, along with more than 80,000 artifacts, dating to as early as 8,000 years ago. Evidence from that site, as well as others, has led some researchers to estimate that hunter-gatherers began living in the Andes around 9,000 years ago, but debate has continued over whether that human presence was permanent or seasonal.

The research team led by Haas took five different approaches to test whether there was early permanent use of the region: studying the human bones for oxygen and carbon isotopes; the travel distances from the site to low-elevation zones; the demographic mixture of the human remains; and the types of tools and other materials found with them.

The scientists found low oxygen and high carbon isotope values in the bones, revealing the distinct signature of permanent high-elevation occupation; that travel distances to low-elevation zones were too long for seasonal human migration; that the presence of women and small children meant such migration was highly unlikely; and that almost all of the tools used by the hunter-gatherers were made with high-elevation stone material, not brought from elsewhere.

“These results constitute the strongest evidence to date that people were living year-round in the Andean highlands at least 7,000 years ago,” Haas said. “Such high-elevation environments were among the last frontiers of human colonization, and this knowledge holds implications for understanding rates of genetic, physiological and cultural adaption in the human species.”

By Kerri Lenartowick

More than 10 years ago, Joseph Prever found himself scouring the internet for anything that might help him: he was gay, Catholic, and confused. Resources were scarce for a man struggling with homosexuality and trying to remain faithful to the Church’s teaching.

In the intervening years, Catholics experiencing same-sex attraction have become a more vocal presence in the Church.

Google the words “gay Catholic” and one of the top sites to appear will be Prever’s own blog, a blog with the tagline: “Catholic, Gay, and Feeling Fine.” There, the 30-something writer considers his own experiences as a man struggling with same-sex attraction and trying to live out the virtue of chastity.

What follows is an edited version of a conversation about everything from homosexuality and Batman to poetry and football.

Can you introduce yourself and your blog?

I’m Joe Prever. I used to blog under the pseudonym Steve Gershom. I’ve been doing that for a few years now. The blog is about what it’s like to be a gay Catholic – a gay Catholic who is of course, celibate – and I say ‘of course’ because that seems to me like the only option if you’re going to be both gay and Catholic. On the blog I try to stay away from abstract discourse about spirituality and sexuality in general and more towards lived experience: that’s what I see as my niche.

Why did you start writing a blog?

I honestly don’t remember the thought process that led me to it, but I do remember wishing at one point that there was somebody blogging like that, and in fact these days there are just a whole lot of people in my situation who are blogging, and that’s really great. It seems liked it’s very much exploded in the last few years. My friends and I joke that there’s a gay Catholic renaissance on, or actually a gay Christian renaissance on, and we’re proud to be at the forefront of it – or at least we tell ourselves that we’re at the forefront.

Did those other people read your blog before they started theirs?

Some of them did, yes. In fact, a couple of them have said to me that I was someone who helped to inspire them to start, so I’m very proud of that.

This was a few years ago. Even at that time there were a fair amount of resources, in the sense that there were people who were writing about it, and you could find various testimonials online if you googled hard enough, but there were very few people who, on a day to day basis were like, ‘here’s what this is like, here’s how you deal with that,’ etc.

And so you decided you were going to be that resource?

Yes. Because at that time, I was sort of starting to feel for the first time that things were very much manageable, and I think back to this very specific moment in college when I was 18 or 19, and googling this kind of stuff, just to see if there was anybody out there who I could relate to and who would have some wisdom to share about it, and I did in fact find some stuff. It was remembering the feeling of how good it was to find that made me want to pass that along.

You blogged pseudonymously for years and then you ‘came out,’ so to speak, in the summer of 2014. Why did you decide to do that?

It was one of those decisions where by the time you make it, you realize that you’ve already made it, if you see what I mean. It was hard in the sense that I’d actually always said that people shouldn’t be public about being gay, because it was not anybody’s business and I felt that it would lend legitimacy to this idea that being gay is a sort of a single way to identify yourself: I actually still sort of hold that position – kind of. (Laughs).

It’s hard to describe: I don’t think that being gay is as essential of a way to identify yourself as say, being male is, or being Catholic, or being human. I guess my position right now is that if the cultural atmosphere were different from what it is, then I don’t know whether I would have gone public.

The real reason I did is because of the blog, and talking about these things in general, and the cultural conversation in general that’s happening right now – all of these things have become such a big part of my life… it wasn’t really a question of honesty. It’s just that when something is so much a part of your life, people ask you, ‘oh, so what’ve you got going on?’ or ‘what are you doing these days?’ and I felt really lame saying, ‘oh, you know, programming computers. Watching movies. Hanging out. Stuff.’

So honestly, it was largely a vanity thing. It’s like the scene in Batman Begins where Bruce Wayne is doing this, ‘I’m a rich celebrity playboy’ thing, and he’s bathing in fountains and buying hotels and so forth, and Katie Holmes’ (character) is upset with him for being such a wastrel. (Laughs) And I felt like I wanted to be publicly Batman: strictly for vanity-related reasons. I wanted everyone to know how awesome I am.

I’m trying not to laugh…

Well, it’s perfectly true. And I suppose there are other reasons, like I want to be a public witness and things like that, but I suspect that it’s mostly vanity.

What response did you get when you ‘came out’? When people began to associate you with this gay guy who writes a blog?

On the day that I made public the post where I came out, I received just piles and piles of comments and emails and text messages. Most were from people I didn’t know, except for the text messages, obviously, but a very large portion of them were from people who had known me for a long time and who just wanted to say how pleased they were that I had done this and how proud they were of me to have taken this stance, and how courageous they thought I was and how honored they were to be my friend, and all of this stuff. In other words, I can’t think of a single friend, family member, or acquaintance who did not greet this revelation with support.

I think I would have had a very, very different response were I not celibate. When I get negative feedback, which I occasionally do from people who disagree with what the Church teaches, they say that I am being made a poster boy and that I’m being used – which is to say, conservative Christians are super happy to have somebody to point to whom they can say, ‘well look, here’s one person who agrees with us.’

Do you think being accused of being a ‘poster boy’ means that people are people angered by your celibacy?

That’s an interesting question. I think some people are angered on my behalf for what they perceive to be a sort of ‘Stockholm syndrome,’ and I’ve actually heard that phrase thrown around more than once. People see me defending the Church’s teachings on marriage, and on sexuality, and what they see is somebody who’s been taught to suppress his own nature for so long that he’s actually come to believe the things he’s been told about himself – that’s what they see.

What’s really there?

I can’t sum myself up, but the point is that if any of the people who accuse me of being the poster boy or of having ‘Stockholm syndrome’ or anything like that were actually to read the things I’ve said, they would see that, number one, I don’t sort of unquestioningly accept whatever I’m told about sexuality, but I always bring it back to my own experience. And number two, I very much admit the difficulties inherent in the life I live and I don’t pretend that they don’t exist. And I don’t think I would do either of those things if I had ‘Stockholm syndrome.’

Your blog header is, ‘Catholic, Gay, and Feeling Fine,’ and you’ve been using the word ‘gay’ throughout our conversation so far. Do you have any thoughts on that word, as opposed to ‘same-sex attraction’ or other terms?

Absolutely. That is another hard question, and it’s a question about which my position has been continually shifting, so I don’t feel as though I’ve found solid ground yet.

I’ve always used the word. It used to be that I would use the word in writing, but sort of in my interior monologue and in private conversation I would say ‘same-sex attracted.’ I used to joke that the only reason I used the word ‘gay’ was so that I would tend to show up more on Google, which is only partially a joke, because you know if you’re going to use the tools of technology to evangelize, then you have to be savvy about what Google is going to find and what it isn’t.

But I guess the shift mainly happened as I began to approach being more public about it, because as I became more public I also came into contact more openly with people who identified as gay or who struggled with same-sex attraction, or whatever. And what I found was that a lot of them had a lot of resentment towards people who insisted on not using the word gay.

Why did they have resentment?

For a few reasons. It’s a really complicated topic, and I’m not sure how to distill what is offensive about it. One, is that it’s offensive to be told what you ought to be allowed to call yourself. And in fact, I rarely feel strongly about whether I should use the word gay or not, but the one time I do feel strongly about it is when somebody starts upbraiding me for it. Because it feels incredibly intrusive.

This is a topic that gets very political very fast. It’s the sort of thing where people feel, and I think rightly, that they have been constrained to keep silent for most of their lives – and a lot of people have, whether it’s constrained by actual explicit homophobia among the people that they love and/or are related to, or whether it’s just sort of a general culture understanding that you don’t talk about this sort of thing. So you have a set of people who have felt this way for most of their lives, and then you have people saying ‘oh, well it’s sort of cool now if you talk about that, but just be sure you talk about it in this or that way.’ This is frustrating and comes across as very patronizing because these are people who don’t have any insight into the experience of what it is to be gay telling you what it is or is not ok to talk about, and what it is and is not ok to call yourself.

Would you also apply that criticism to the Church who never uses the word ‘gay’ in her documents?

I understand why She (the Church) doesn’t. I don’t know if that will continue to be the case. I don’t have any bitterness towards the Church as a whole in that way.

This is reason that I haven’t yet come to a solid opinion on this question – because the problem is that secular people and Christian people mean two different things by the word ‘gay.’

Could you explain that a little more?

It’s really hard to distill. But you know what’s at the heart of it?

When I told my roommate I was gay, the first thing that he said to me was, ‘do you mean same-sex attracted?’ And that was actually the precisely wrong thing to say, and I don’t hold it against him. (Laughs) But the heart of it is that I was telling him this incredibly personal thing, and he was instructing me in the right way to feel about it, immediately, from the get-go.

Now I think that one reason Christians tend to dislike the word ‘gay’ is because if somebody says that they are gay, then they are usually implying that it is an unchangeable aspect of their personality. Whereas the sort of default position among a lot of Christians is that homosexuality is changeable. The unspoken implication is that if you identify yourself as ‘gay,’ then you’re probably not trying hard enough to be straight. And I believe that this why it is so offensive to be told that they shouldn’t use the word gay.

It might be true that some people can change to some extent, but it’s extremely offensive to assume that the only reason somebody hasn’t changed is because they haven’t tried. And even though very few people would have the chutzpah to make that explicit, I do believe that that’s the belief that’s behind it.

What do you think we should be doing as a Church, as a Christian community, to be helping people who struggle with homosexuality?

That’s a really good question! I’ll start first by saying that I’m extremely grateful for the organization People Can Change, which is an organization founded precisely on the idea that radical change with respect to homosexuality is possible. I’m grateful for them not because they ‘made me straight’ or something, but because they gave me a space in which to work out some of my issues, many of which turned out not to be related precisely to homosexuality in particular, but were just sort of emotional issues that needed dealing with.

I think a lot of gay men and women do have emotional issues that aren’t going to be dealt with if they’re told that everything is already ok. But on the other hand, this is dangerous because you have a lot of Christian people already assuming from the get-go that if somebody is homosexual, then they must have various and many emotional issues that need working on, and that’s not necessarily the case. (Laughs) So you see why this is difficult!

If the understanding in the Christian world is that homosexuality is a “disorder,” and homosexual activity is a sin, then logically it would seem like as Christians, we would want to help our fellow Christians who are “dis-ordered” to be “ordered.” Do you think there’s a problem with that logic?

I think there’s a problem with that phraseology. There’s a subtle but importance difference in saying that somebody has a disordered inclination and saying that somebody is disordered.

The Church has to be clear with respect to ‘what is the nature of homosexuality itself,’ but can’t make a pronouncement on whether it is a mental disorder, for example. Many people assume that when the Church says ‘homosexuality consists of a disordered inclination,’ they take that word ‘disorder’ and assume that She means ‘mental disorder.’ But I think the Catechism has purposely phrased it in such a way that you can’t actually conclude that if you’re reading carefully. But it takes careful reading.

The Church never changes her underlying principles, but when something new happens, it’s always a question of, ‘well, what do the underlying principles dictate in this particular situation?’ And a lot of the times it turns out that it doesn’t dictate what we thought it did but it takes a while to figure that out.

What do you think the underlying principles are that are dictating what the Church is saying about homosexuality?

That men are men, and women are women, and the two are not the same.

Do you want to expound on that at all?

Nooooo. (Laughs).

Well, what I think is that one, at the bottom of it, men and women are different. Number two, that eros is different from friendship, and number three, that physical acts have spiritual meanings.

I think those things are the fundamental axioms that we have to work with here. And I think those things are precisely the things that are being argued about. I don’t think the Church is arguing about them, and I don’t think She should, because as far as I’m concerned, those things are absolutely essential to what the Church believes about people. But those things are very much being debated in the broader culture.

I’ll tell you how I see myself and what I do, which is not only with respect to homosexuality but with how I try to live the Catholic faith in general. I try to live my life by those principles that make sense to me as a human being, and are consonant with what I know about human nature and with what the world at large has discovered about human nature. However, I also believe that if anything is true, it is Christian: that every truth is a Christian truth, and that there can be no truth about human nature which is not consonant with what the Church teaches about human nature.

The French government’s new counterterrorism bill would move some overly broad emergency powers into normal criminal and administrative law without adequate judicial safeguards Human Rights Watch said Tuesday.

The Draft Law to Strengthen Internal Security and the Fight Against Terrorism, presented to the Council of Ministers on June 22, 2017, would undermine the rule of law. The government, which has a majority in parliament, also wants to extend the state of emergency until November, when the new powers would take effect.

“Instead of truly ending France’s 19-month temporary state of emergency, the government is making some of its far-reaching powers permanent but with little effective court oversight,” said Kartik Raj, Western Europe researcher at Human Rights Watch. “If France’s new government is serious about defending core values while fighting terrorism, it should amend this law to restore the rule of law to counterterrorism efforts.”

France already has some of the continent’s most expansive laws to deal with terrorism, sweeping surveillance laws, and abusive counterterrorism practices, which Human Rights Watch has documented. The government’s own web page on the fight against terrorism noted in May that it had “completed its legal arsenal.”

The bill would grant increased powers to prefects, the interior minister’s local representatives, to designate public spaces as security zones, limiting who could enter and leave them; to limit the movement of people considered a national security threat; to close mosques and other places of worship; and to search private property.

The courts would have no role in approving the use of the first three powers, although there would be a limited right of appeal for orders limiting where a person has to live and for closing places of worship. A judge will have limited oversight of search powers. The lack of time limits and the bill’s vague definitions of terrorism and threats to national security exacerbates the concerns.

The Council of State, the governmental body that provides nonbinding legal advice to the executive about proposed laws to check their compliance with existing laws and obligations, issued its recommendations on the draft bill to the government on June 15. This advice sought to blunt the sharpest corners of the law, but in effect gave it a green light. Although the version presented to the Council of Ministers made some minor concessions and cosmetic changes, it ignored significant Council of State recommendations for time limits or for reducing the proposed time limits for the exercise of specific powers.

The powers as used in the state of emergency have drawn widespread criticism from members of parliament who oversee their use, UN experts, and the Defender of Rights – the national human rights oversight body, for leading to abuses while having limited impact on terrorism threats. Human Rights Watch and other groups have documented how assigned residence powers and the exercise of search powers have led to human rights abuses against ordinary people in France.

The draft bill also introduces changes to surveillance legislation, border controls, and processes for retaining the data of passengers arriving by sea or airplane.

The proposed law has received scathing criticism already from some of France’s leading constitutional law scholars and its Defender of Rights, who has characterized the replacement of exceptional measures with permanent ones as “a poisoned pill.”

The draft bill would grant a prefect the power to designate a zone as a “perimeter of protection” increasing police powers to conduct searches of people, bags, and vehicles, and to refuse entry. This power, envisioned for use where there is “a risk of an act of terrorism” to a public event or in a public space, is very vaguely worded, and lacks a requirement for judicial authorization. It also lacks any explicit requirement for the prefect to justify why the threat is imminent and severe enough to merit such a measure.

Given Human Rights Watch and others’ longstanding concerns about discrimination in identity checks and a significant reported spike in orders since July 2016 from prefects to carry out stop-and-search procedures, these new powers risk exacerbating ethnic profiling.

The law replaces the system of “assigned residence orders” in the current state of emergency with “individualized surveillance measures.” The law allows the executive to order a person to reside in a specific town (commune), report once a day to the police station, accept electronic surveillance using a bracelet, inform the authorities of any change of residence, and provide details of their electronic communications to law enforcement authorities. These are slightly less restrictive than assigned residence orders under the state of emergency which can, for example, require reporting to a police station up to three times a day and remaining at home for 10 to 12 hours overnight.

The orders could be issued “where there are serious reasons to believe that a person presents a risk to public order and security, given regular association with people or organizations that incite, facilitate or participate in acts of terrorism, or that support or follow theories that call for the commission of acts of terrorism in France or abroad, or that make apology for such acts.” Such orders would not require prior judicial authorization but a prefect would have to notify a prosecutor in advance.

Despite the Council of State’s recommendation for a six-month limit for the geographic restriction and to 12 months for all other measures, the government has proposed that the geographic restriction can be renewed indefinitely, every three months, based on a vague test of “new or additional information.” Violating the terms of such a measure could lead to up to three years in prison or a fine of €45,000. These restrictions on the right to liberty and freedom of movement also risk violating the rights to private and family life and freedom of association.

The draft law uses similarly vague language to repackage much-criticized powers of search without warrant during the state of emergency by relabelling searches of houses and business premises as “visits and seizures.” A prefect could also issue such an order, but, unlike the others, would need prior authorization of a liberty and detention judge, who would oversee its conduct and decide on what data and equipment could be seized.

Under the current wording, the government could conduct searches – except if the premises is covered by legal or journalistic privilege – where there are serious reasons for thinking that a person who presents a vaguely worded “threat to national security” frequents it. Human Rights Watch has previously expressed concerns about the extent to which a liberty and detention judge can provide the promised effective safeguard, especially in terrorism cases.

The bill also increases prefects’ authority to close places of worship with the specific aim of “preventing acts of terrorism,” on extremely broad grounds without requiring any direct link with the actual commission of an act of terror. Although the government has accepted the Council of State’s recommendation to narrow its initial definition, the reasoning still remains alarmingly vague. As the text stands, it could, for instance, be used arbitrarily to prohibit any meeting at which ideas or theological concepts associated with conservative interpretations of Islam, such as Salafism, are expressed regardless of whether there is any demonstrable connection to criminal activity.

The six-month closure would not require prior judicial authorization, although legal appeals would be possible. Violating such an order would carry a prison sentence of up to six months and a fine of up to €7,500.

The measures risk restricting the rights to freedom of belief and religion, to freedom of expression and freedom of association. If, as is expected, the powers are used primarily against Muslims with conservative interpretations of their faith, they may also be discriminatory. Poorly worded laws that are likely to lead to closing solely Muslim places of worship may also help feed anti-Muslim rhetoric and prejudice prevalent in wider society.

Human Rights Watch has called on the French government, in coalition with human rights organizations and other nongovernmental groups in France, to end the current state of emergency and to avoid normalizing emergency security measures.

“As a country that prides itself on a tradition of liberties and rights, France needs to find a way to end its state of emergency without normalizing abusive practices,” Raj said “As the law makes its way through the Assembly, representatives of all parties should ask tough questions about whether this law is necessary, and at what cost for liberty and the rule of law in France.”

By R. Upadhyay

The Indian Media on June 5 mentioned about a recorded message of Zakir Musa the former Hizbul Mujhahideen Commander of Kashmir that slammed the Indian Muslims for not joining Islamic jihad for ‘Gazwa-e-Hind’ (the final and last battle for the conquest of India). This provocative audio message included the following excerpts:

“They (Indian Muslims) are the most shameless Muslims in the world. They should be ashamed of calling themselves Muslims. Our sisters are getting abused and dishonoured and Indian Muslims keep screaming that ‘Islam is peace’.”

“They are the most ‘beghairat qaum’ (shameless community) who cannot speak up against oppression and injustice. Is this what our Prophet and his ‘salafs’ (followers) have taught us? They gave their blood during the wars and martyrdom for the honour of our sisters”.

“You still have a chance to stand up and join us. Come forward or it will be too late for you.”

It was not surprising that Zakir Musa used the term Gazwa-e-Hind but the surprise was that the Indian Mullahs, other leaders as well as politicians from the community did not condemn it in strongest terms.

The Islamic term ‘Gazwa-e-Hind’ reportedly had a reference in Hadees (sayings of Prophet Mohammad) with regard to final jihad with India that shall take place before the Qayamat (end of times). It was therefore, the strategy of the terror operative Zaqir Musa in Kashmir to entice, provoke and motivate the Indian Muslims with a call of this prophetic prophesy for joining this final jihad before the end of the world (Qayamat).

It all began with a prominent Pakistani Cleric Irfan-ul-Haq using this term in his lecture in 2011 when he said “Pakistan came about for the sole purpose of being the springboard of the end-of-times ‘Ghazwa-e-Hind’ when Pakistan’s military and people will swarm India and wipe out once and for all the practice of Hinduism from the face of the earth”. (http://tarekfatah.com/why-does-pakistan-seek-a-war-with-india-its-ghazwa… hind-stupid/)

Invoking the term Ghazwa-e-Hind has been a staple Islamist discourse earlier too and launched from time to time to call for jihad against India from the eighties of the last century. It is no surprise that all terrorist groups operating in Kashmir claim that their Jihad is a part of the prophesy of Prophet Mohammad.

Pakistani propagandist Zaid Hamid had also repeatedly invoked Ghazwa-e-Hind as a battle against Hindu India led from Muslim Pakistan. According to Hamid, “Allah has destined the people of Pakistan” with victory and “Allah is the aid and helper of Pakistan.” (www.hudson.org/research/11167-prophecy-the-jihad-in-the-indian-subcontinent)

Coming as it is from military-mullah establishment of Pakistan it was surprising that Indian Islamists didn’t challenge this campaign for this final Jihad with India. In fact, the Islamic clerics in India avoided a debate on the propagation of Ghazwa-e-Hind by Pakistan when Tarek Fateh, a Pakistan born Canadian citizen of Indian origin tried to drag them for discussion on this so called Hadees based Islamic doctrine that prophesied Islamic rule over India and total conversion of Hindus to Islam in his TV talk show in ZEE news. Is it to be understood that their silence on the issue or failure to condemn it was to be taken as one of approval?

In this context one should recall that in the past the collaborative politics of a group of Mullhas under the banner of Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind with the pro-Muslim Indian National Congress under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi during freedom fight against the British was their calculated strategy to defend and protect their Islamic expansionist agenda. For this, they were then even complimented by the Congress as nationalist Muslims despite the fact that they were pan-Islamists.

Although the long history of Jihadi poison in South Asian region has been changing its course with ups and downs for various reasons, those who have not lost their historical memory, may be aware that radical followers of Islam never gave up the ambition of re-establishment of Islamic rule in India.

“Many interpreters of Jihad in the Muslim world, and an equal number in the west, have explained Jihad with double meaning. It stands for Jihad bi al saif (holy war by means of sword) and for Jihad al nafs (literally, struggle for one’s soul against one’s own base instinct). Both interpretations are true, but Islamic militants have rejected the spiritual explanation as dangerous heresy…” (Walter Laquer, an American expert on terrorism -Pioneer dated October 2, 01)

Jihad was initially, a fight against the idol worshipers in Arabia, but subsequently it was used as a weapon to spread Islam in other parts of the world. The ongoing terrorist attacks in different parts of the world and similar attacks in Kashmir and its extension in other parts of India have by and large been understood or misunderstood as part of the Jihadi onslaught by Islam.

Emboldened with the successful history of jihadi impact on conversion of a large number of natives, the Indian Ulema/ Islamists considered non-Islamic governance in India as Darul Harab (land of war) and felt that it is the duty of Indian Muslims to turn it into Darul Islam (Land of Islamic rule) after complete liquidation of non-Muslims in the region which could be possible only after Ghazwa-e-Hind.

Osama bin Laden, the founder of Al Qaeda had once declared India as one of his target countries for jihad. For some Indian Islamists like Syed Ahmed Bukhari, Maulana Abdul Ahmed Nawani, Mohammad Shafi Moonis and Javed Habib and organisations like Jamiat Ulma-e-Hind and Jamat-e-Islami Osama bin Laden was their hero (Pioneer dated October 9,2001). Ahmed Bukhari in a press briefing strongly asserted that “no Muslim considers Osama bin Laden (as) an accused” and “we will give moral support to the call of Jihad given by the Islamic Government of Afghanistan” (Hindu dated October 10, 2001).

It is in this context that the audio message of Kashmiri Terrorist to re-ignite the minds of Muslim youths to accept it as a part of their holy duty to join the Ghazwa-e-Hind for the final conquest of India and Islamisation of all the non-Muslims of this region should be seen as a dangerous move destined to create and incite more violence not only in Kashmir but in other parts of India.

The Muslim clerics may have a valid reason to disassociate Islam from such audio messages, but their silence and failure to condemn it in strong terms may give the impression to the common people in the community that they are not against it. Since Muslim intellectuals are not ready to confront the challenge of Jihadi radicals like Zakir Musa and others, the Muslim masses are bound to follow the dictates of the self-serving Ulema/ Islamist Indians who by and large are found expressing the move of anti terrorism camp as a challenge to Islam. Looking the other way over the call from Pakistan trained terrorists for Ghazwa-e-Hind is certainly not the right approach. A general perception is therefore, gaining ground that terrorism and Jihad are the two sides of the same coin.

It is a testing time for the common people of the community and they should keep away from the propagation of Gazwa-e-Hind and the like and thus thwart the terrorists’ attempt to revive the medieval spirit of Jihad against India.

By Dr. S.Chandrasekharan

Sher Bahadur Deuba of the Nepali Congress took over as 40th Prime Minister on 6th June on the basis of an understanding with former PM Dahal who resigned after the first phase of the Local Body Elections.

Deuba has returned to power for the fourth time after 12 years when he was unceremoniously sacked by King Gyanendra for his “incompetence.” He now obtained 388 votes in an assembly of 593 members- close to 65 percent and quite close to the magic number of two thirds majority.

Deuba had in the past not proved himself as capable and some have commented in the past that he does not have the “prime ministerial material.” He has inherited many problems and has a deadline to conduct the remaining part of the local elections, the regional provincial elections and finally the national elections before 21 June 2018.

Wisely, Deuba has chosen a small cabinet with three from the Nepali Congress, three from the Maoist Centre and one from the Terai group of Madhesi People’s Rights Forum- Democratic.

The important post of Home Minister who has to oversee the three tier elections has gone to the veteran Maoist Krishna Bahadur Mahara who also holds the post of Deputy Prime Minister. What one notices is that the Nepali Congress and the Maoist Centre seem to get along well as we first saw in the first phase of local body elections.

After taking over, Deuba made the right “noise”that his priorities would be first to hold the second phase of local body elections and next to address the concerns of the Madhesi groups who continue to be adamant and finally elections to the provincial and national levels.

Deuba’s several meetings with the RJP ( a conglomerate of various Terai groups) did not yield results and while announcing that the elections to the second phase of local body elections would take place on 28th June- he declared that the elections to the 2nd province which is purely a Terain province ) will be postponed to September 18. The Election Commission was totally against any postponement of elections of any province.

In postponing the elections, Deuba made two mistakes. He assumed that it had the concurrence of the RJP which continued to demand constitutional amendments and increase in the number of units in the local bodies of 18 Terain districts before contesting in the local body elections. The result was that the Terain Group has restarted its protests from 14th June and Rajendra Mahatao has threatened that it will be the “final agitation.” One does not know what he meant as “final” but he is not likely to succeed as the people in Terai are in no mood to continue protests. As a first step what he should have done is to get all the criminal cases against the agitating Terains withdrawn and release those arrested.

The second mistake Deuba did was in not consulting his own party colleagues before postponing the elections in province 2, to September 18. He needs to realise that good performance of Nepali Congress in the next few months till the final national elections is very crucial and he has to take all the members on board or other wise the UML with its nationalistic platform is likely to steal a march over his party.

The RJP which has genuine and sincere leaders like Mahant Thakur, Rajendra Mahatao and Anil Jha should make an introspection on their future as also the future of Terai and its people in view of continued agitation that takes them no where except for more loss of lives.

One- The UML that holds the numbers to reach the magic number of two thirds approval for constitutional amendment continues to be adamant and would talk of amendments only after the elections to all the three tiers. Buoyed up by their performance in the first phase of local body elections, they are in no mood to relent and feel that any concession to the Terain would affect their vote bank adversely. The RJP made no real move either towards the UML to have a dialogue with them.

Two- The Supreme Court has stayed the order of the government to increase the number of local units in proportion to the population in the local body elections and the government’s appeal for revision of the order has also not been accepted. Therefore it is not that the government of either Dahal or Deuba have not tried but are unable to go ahead in view of adverse numbers and the intransigence of the UML.

Third- and most important the other two Terain Groups- the Madhesi People’s Rights Form- Democratic of Gacchadar and the Federal Social Forum of Nepal of Upendra Yadav have decided to move away from the RJP and contest the 2nd phase of the elections in provinces 1,5 and 7 and later of province no. 2 on September 18 this year. The Terain groups are split and this is not in the interest of the people of Terai who have suffered immense loss of lives and hardship.

It is hoped that good sense will prevail as other wise the party that genuinely works for the poor Terain people will become irrelevant soon.

By Alexia Rauen

Chile’s Return to Electoral Democracy

Chile has recently transitioned back to democracy after the military dictatorship of Agosto Pinochet, which began in 1973 and lasted until 1990. His regime was characterized by horrendous human rights abuses and disappearances of political opponents, primarily of the Chilean left. In 1988, under mounting international pressure, Pinochet held a referendum on whether to stage national elections or if his regime would remain in power. His government lost the popular referendum, propelling the country forward into electoral democracy.

Dual Coalitions Characterize Chile (For Now)

Two coalitions arose in the first election cycle after the demise of the Pinochet regime: one on the left and the other on the right. These coalitions have since evolved to include new parties, for example, Nueva Mayoría (New Majority established in 2013), the current leftist coalition, includes the Communist Party of Chile, which was not included in the earlier leftist coalition of Concertación.[i] On the right currently stands the coalition Chile Vamos (Let’s Go Chile, established in 2015). The Chilean left is historically associated with those who opposed Pinochet retaining power and on the right those who supported Pinochet, although, again, the new coalitions are not identical to their predecessors. One must note that each coalition is composed of several parties and consensus among coalition members is not guaranteed. This typifies the upcoming president elections.

July 2017 Primaries

Chile is currently entering primaries in July; the presidential election will be in November of 2017. Chileans are largely discontent with President Michelle Bachelet’s most recent term in office, and her approval rating now stands at 31 percent, compared to an approval of 47 percent in October of 2014.[ii],[iii] Bachelet belongs to the Nueva Mayoría coalition, which may bode poorly for its chances in the upcoming election (Bachelet is unable to run in this election since Chile’s electoral system does not allow for immediate reelection).

More problematically, Chile’s left coalition has been unable to agree on a candidate for the election. One of the coalition’s parties, the Christian Democrats, has decided it will not participate in the upcoming primaries, instead presenting its own candidate, Carolina Goic, directly in the presidential election.[iv] As things stand, Alejandro Guillier, a news anchor and senator of the Radical Social Democratic party, is likely to represent the rest of the Nueva Mayoría coalition.[v] His policies would likely build upon those of Bachelet, particularly on increased education spending, abortion rights, and protections for indigenous peoples.[vi] Guillier has also called for environmental reform, an issue that severely harmed Bachelet’s approval ratings, as much of the public felt her response to forest fires earlier this year was poorly handled.[vii]

Sebastián Piñera, Conservative Businessman Bidding for the Presidency

Since the country’s democratic transition, the Concertación coalition, and now Nueva Mayoría, has dominated the presidency with only one exception. From 2011 to 2014, Sebastian Piñera held the office, serving between terms of Bachelet. Piñera was elected as a member of the Renovación Nacional (National Renewal Party). Piñera is a prominent businessman in Chile, with a net worth of about $1 billion.[viii] He has declared that he would like to overturn many of Bachelet’s reforms including education, tax, and labor policies. His supporters believe he will be able to propel the economy forward, and he has proposed new infrastructure spending and modifications to Chile’s prominent copper industry.[ix]

During Piñera’s term, there were frequent protests by students demanding education reform.[x] Bachelet’s government implemented programs to make education more affordable for low-income families, benefiting 170,000 students in 2016.[xi] However, Chilean students insist that these measures do not solve the issues of high costs and high interest on student loans.[xii] Should Piñera win the presidency this November, there is little chance that these obstacles will be effectively addressed. Of course, these types of protests have not been uncommon during Bachelet’s term, but protests would likely increase were Piñera to overturn progress made under Bachelet. He may be of benefit to big business interests, but may also prove harmful to the public sector, particularly for education.

Social Issues Divide the Left

Many of the divisions on the left have arisen because some parties are more centrist while others are more progressive. Center-left parties in the coalition, such as Goic’s Christian Democrats, are typically more conservative on social issues. For example, Christian Democrats favor tight government regulation on abortion. Abortion has recently become a national issue in Chile with President Bachelet’s proposal to reform to abortion policy. At the moment, Chile is a nation with a complete ban on abortion. The reforms Bachelet has pushed for are still strict, allowing abortions only in cases of rape or a significant health threat to the mother in the first 12 weeks.[xiii] While the Catholic nature of the country has prevented decriminalization of abortion, there is some hope, as abortion was legal before the Pinochet regime, and it is the dictatorship that was so staunchly against providing the possibility of abortion.[xiv] Of course, while decriminalizing abortion is a significant advancement for women’s rights, this issue puts centrist political segments of the coalition at risk. Therefore, the left must decide if dividing itself and breaking apart from the coalition is necessary for progress. However, the structure of Chile’s electoral system up until now has not made truly plausible more than two coalitions.

Constraints in the Electoral System Perpetuate Two Coalitions

The structure of assigning legislative seats explainsy two coalitions have persisted for so long in the nation. Chile has a bicameral legislature composed of a 38-member Senate and a 120-member Chamber of Deputies. Chile has 19 regions for the election of senators and 60 regions for the election of deputies.[xv] Nueva Mayoría currently possesses the majority in the Senate[xvi] as well as the majority in the Chamber of Deputies.[xvii] While the right coalition does not hold a majority, it does have a greater influence than it might have under a different electoral system. As the Ace Project explains, “This electoral system is unique because in practice it favors the largest minority, not the majority.”[xviii] Coalitions have been necessary to gain a seat. In either legislature (as the number of elected legislators is two for a region), a list needs 33.4 percent of the vote for a seat, and to gain both seats, the list needs 66.7 percent.[xix] This enormous threshold means that often the left coalition will gain one seat and the right coalition the other. There are also instances of independents winning a seat, causing a distortion in Nueva Mayoría’s majority, but overall this system creates more seats for the right-wing Chile Vamos than might otherwise be elected.

Electoral Reform – Long-Lasting or Short-Term?

Bachelet’s government with legislative majorities in 2015 approved electoral reform that would allow smaller parties to potentially gain seats as well as change the number of seats that are possible, bringing the Chamber of Deputies to 155 members and the Senate to 50 members.[xx] In implementation, many argue this will benefit the parties of Nueva Mayoría, because it will alter the way in which the 33.4% and 66.7% thresholds allow Chile Vamos to obtain a greater number of seats than another system might allow. Therefore, this reform has been opposed by Chile Vamos, which has concerns it would hold fewer seats in the legislature and have less political significance. It is very possible that the right’s candidate, Piñera, would push to overturn the increase in legislative positions should he be elected.[xxi]

An Undecided Electorate

Many Chilean voters are still undecided. A May 2017 poll by Adimark found 25 percent would vote for Piñera, 21 percent would vote for Guillier, 3 percent would vote for Goic, and 26 percent would not know their choice among the candidates available.[xxii] If no candidate achieves an absolute majority (above 50 percent), then a runoff election will occur a month later.[xxiii] A runoff election could potentially bring the left back to power should it successfully unite to back a single candidate, but it would be a scramble, as there is only a month between voting rounds. The left needs to appeal to independent voters, emphasizing Piñera’s track record of private interests over the interests of the public. It should also stress how the left’s electoral reforms will create more opportunities for independents and smaller parties in the future. If the left holds onto the presidency, then it can further develop this electoral reform, benefiting individual parties and decreasing the prominence of the coalition structure. This structure inherently allows right wing interests a larger influence than would be indicated by a popular vote. Hopefully, Chile’s left can win the election and can build upon recent electoral reforms to create a more representative democracy.

*Alexia Rauen, Research Associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

Additional editorial support provided by James Baer, Senior Research Fellow at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, Jordan Bazak, Research Fellow at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, and Alex Rawley, Martina Guglielmone, Laura Schroeder, and Jack Pannell, Research Associates at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

[i] Tapia, Alejandro, “Partido Comunista de Chile debate si deja alianza con el Gobierno,” El Telégrafo, November 19, 2016, http://www.eltelegrafo.com.ec/noticias/mundo/9/partido-comunista-de-chile-debate-si-deja-alianza-con-el-gobierno.

[ii] “Encuesta Evalucaión de Gobierno Mayo 2017,” Admiark, Accessed June 27, 2017, https://www.adimark.cl/es/estudios/dinamica.asp?id=413.

[iii] Esposito, Anthony, “Approval Rating of Chile’s President Falls To New Low,” Business Insider, October 2, 2014, http://www.businessinsider.com/r-approval-rating-of-chiles-president-bachelet-falls-to-new-low-2014-10.

[iv] O’Brien, Rosalba, “Chile’s governing coalition splits ahead of November election,” Reuters, April 30, 2017, http://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFKBN17W02A.

[v] Watts, Jonathon, “Chile TV Star wants to shake up politics, but don’t call him Chile’s Trump,” Guardian, March 19, 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/19/chile-tv-star-alejandro-guillier-presidential-election-trump.

[vi] Ibid.

[vii] Ibid.

[viii] “Profile: Chile’s President Sebastian Pinera,” BBCNews, 16 October 2010, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-11558721

[ix] O’Brien, Rosalba, “Chilean Presidential Hopeful Pinera Pledges Infrastructure Spending,” May 5, 2017, https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2017-05-05/chilean-presidential-hopeful-pinera-pledges-infrastructure-spending.

[x] Navia, Patricio, “Why Piñera Is the Frontrunner to Return as Chile’s President,” Americas Quarterly, March 27, 2017, http://www.americasquarterly.org/content/why-pinera-frontrunner-return-chiles-president.

[xi] O’Boyle, Brendan, “Free College in Chile! So What Are Students So Mad About?” America’s Quarterly, January 28, 2016, http://www.americasquarterly.org/content/free-education-frustration-chiles-student-activists.

[xii] Ibid.

[xiii] Chakrabarti, Reeta, “Chile’s president defiant over abortion changes,” BBCNews, September 29, 2016, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-37336279.

[xiv] Ibid.

[xv] “Republica de Chile,” Political Database of the Americas, March 16, 2011, http://pdba.georgetown.edu/ElecSys/Chile/chile.html.

[xvi] “Senadores,” Repúblic de Chile Senado, Accessed June 7, 2017, http://www.senado.cl/appsenado/index.php?mo=senadores&ac=comites_senador.

[xvii] “Organización y Autoridades Parlamentarias periodo legislativo 2014-2018,” Camara de Diputados de Chile, Accessed June 7, 2017, https://www.camara.cl/camara/diputados.aspx#tab.

[xviii] “Chile: A System Frozen by Elite Interests,” Ace Project, accessed June 6, 2017, http://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/es/esy/esy_cl.

[xix] Ibid.

[xx] “Tie Breaker,” The Economist, February 12, 2015, http://www.economist.com/news/americas/21643216-new-voting-system-should-liven-up-politics-tie-breaker.

[xxi] Ibid.

[xxii] Quiroga, Javiera and Philip Sanders, “Chile’s Dictator-Toppling Coalition Splits as Elections Looms,” Bloomberg, June 5, 2017, https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-06-05/chile-s-dictator-toppling-coalition-splits-as-elections-loom.

[xxiii] Ibid.

By Erika Quinteros and Emma Pachon

On May 22, Rosalina Ushaina died from malnutrition. In her short nine months of life, the little Wayuu girl became a victim of the social and economic inequality she was born into.

This year alone, the Wayuu indigenous peoples’ leadership has reported 17 deaths from malnutrition. However, the numbers are not always accurate. “Here, babies are not registered at birth, they do not receive attention by public health institutions and when they die, they also die in anonymity,” commented Javier Rojas, a Wayuu leader.

The Wayuu people are the largest indigenous tribe in northern Colombia and northwest Venezuela. [i] In Colombia, they live in La Guajira department. Their home area is comprised of 20,000 km and is rich in salt and petroleum deposits. Families often earn a living from harvesting salt and extracting petroleum, but their main sources of income are cattle ranching and fishing, which makes them particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change. [ii]

Recently, in La Guajira region, there have been severe water shortages, which have been exacerbated by a lack of rain for three years. [iii] Over the past few years, this drought has caused over 20,000 of the region’s cattle to die. [iv] For water, many of the Wayuu communities rely on the Ranchería River, one of the longest rivers in La Guajira. Without this water, their struggle to survive becomes increasingly strained.

In addition to suffering from the effects of climate change, the Wayuu must compete for water with a powerful mining consortium. La Guajira is home to the continent’s largest open-pit coal mine. [v] El Cerrejón mine is co-owned by BHP Billiton, Anglo American, and Xstrata, which are among the largest mining companies in the world. This consortium is no stranger to the region, as it has been operating in it for more than 30 years, and its interests are well represented in the government. [vi]

The power differential between El Cerrejón and the Wayuu was apparent in the construction of the El Cercado dam. [vii] When construction of the dam started in 2006, the government promised that stopping the flow of the Ranchería River and creating a reservoir would provide nine communities with improved access to water. [viii] After the dam was completed, however, it became clear that while the reservoir would supply El Cerrejón, the Wayuu communities would be unable to access water from either the reservoir or the river, which would leave them worse off than they had originally been. [ix]

In Resolution 64/292, the United Nations recognizes that every human being has the right to clean water. [x] This right has been taken away from the Wayuu by El Cerrejón, which utilizes millions of liters of water every day for its extractive activities at the expense of the local residents who need it.[xi] Unfortunately, the diversion of the Ranchería River is not the only impact of this arrangement. In the past, the course of the Aguas Blancas creek was changed by El Cerrejón for its own benefit. Additionally, the company has received a license to do the same to Bruno Creek, located in the municipality of Albania, where other indigenous communities dwell. [xii]

In August 2016, the Supreme Court of Colombia ordered the opening of the Ranchería River and expressed its concern about the deaths of a number of children associated with the lack of water and malnutrition. [xiii] For years, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) has been warning Colombian authorities about the alarming situation of malnutrition in La Guajira. In March 2017, the IACHR issued measures to expand the list of beneficiaries, which would favor pregnant and nursing Wayuu women in the municipalities of Manaure, Riohacha and Uribia.[xiv] However, with the current under-representation in the political arena, there is little hope that the situation will change, at least in the short term. “Our kids are dying of hunger and thirst,” Mr. Rojas, the indigenous leader, stated with indignation.

Although the administration of President Juan Manuel Santos is sending food aid to La Guajira, these actions are insufficient for coping with the roots of the problem.[xv] The Wayuu people do not want to be sent food, but instead the basic conditions that would allow them to provide for their families.[xvi]

Climate Change

Between 2000 and 2013, approximately 613 extreme climate and hydro-meteorological events have occurred in the Latin American region; “these hydro-meteorological events include typhoons, hurricanes, hailstorms, tornados, blizzards, floods, drought, and heatwaves.”[xvii] For example, on March 31 of this year, hundreds of people died and disappeared in a flood that resulted in the torrential overflow of the Mocoa River.[xviii] This forced “walls of water, mud, uprooted trees and boulders the size of cars [to crash] through the town.”[xix] Deforestation played a vital role in causing such a tragedy, as cutting down too many trees often leads to severe erosion and sedimentation in the rivers which exacerbates landslides.[xx]

In addition, tropical storms from the Atlantic and the Pacific have affected Mexico, parts of Central America, and the Caribbean.[xxi] The Amazonia, northeastern Brazil, Central America, and the Caribbean are particularly susceptible to severe droughts.[xxii] There is also a definite rise in sea level; for example, the Caribbean Sea has increased 3.5 millimeters per year.[xxiii] These changes in global and regional patterns have especially affected people living in rural areas such as indigenous groups who depend on the earth’s resources and appropriate climatic conditions.

As previously stated, the droughts in La Guajira area have caused the Wayuu people to look for adjacent sources of fresh water, no matter how perilous. However, with the regression being witnessed with El Cerrejón’s repression and the foreign control of fresh water source, La Ranchería, the Wayuu are being prevented from accessing it. The community leaders are doing their best to help their people. For example, Rojas traveled all the way to Washington, D.C. to meet with members of the Washington Office on Latin America in order to participate in a panel discussing the Wayuu crisis. Many of the leaders have tried to raise awareness about their plight but, without much representation in the government, the progress that can be made is rather limited.

Conclusion

As the effects of climate change become more severe, indigenous people will be on the frontlines of suffering, both because their livelihoods are often more acutely vulnerable to environmental change and because their concerns are rarely heard or addressed by government.

The Wayuu are being denied their fundamental right to access fresh drinking water. Without such water supply, many more indigenous people will die. There is much that can be done to aid the Wayuu, such as opening up space for further indigenous peoples’ representation in the government. They must have the opportunity to adequately share their voice and deliver on their own agenda, which in the end can benefit the entire community, since climate change affects everyone at this stage. Santos must not turn a blind eye and deaf ears to the indigenous people in their cries for help.

*Erika Quinteros and Emma Pachon, Research Associates at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

Additional editorial support provided by Alexia Rauen, Laura Schroeder, Martina Guglielmone, and Madeline Asta, Research Associates at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, Emma Tyrou, Research Fellow at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs and Michelle Switzer, Senior Research Fellow at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs.

[i] “Indigenous Wayuu,” Off 2 Colombia, Accessed June 14, 2017, http://off2colombia.com/indigenous-wayuu.

[ii] “Pastoreo y ganaderia marcan economia y cosmogonia wayuu,” Universidad Nacional de Colombia, September 9, 2015, http://agenciadenoticias.unal.edu.co/detalle/article/pastoreo-y-ganaderia-marcan-economia-y-cosmogonia-wayuu.html.

[iii]Laura Dixon, “WITNESS: Colombia’s indigenous Wayuu suffer the effects of climate change,” The Ecologist, October 17, 2016, http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/Blogs/2988240/witness_colombias_indigenous_wayuu_suffer_the_effects_of_climate_change_drought_and_rising_food_prices.html.

[iv] Ibid.

[v] Oliver Balch, “Colombia’s Cerrejón mine: the social impact on surrounding communities,” The Guardian, July 25, 2013, https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/colombia-cerrejon-mine-social-impact-communities.

[vi] Ibid.

[vii]Nicolo Rosso, “Colombia’s abandoned Wayuu people,” Aljazeera, February 3, 2016, http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/inpictures/2016/02/colombia-abandoned-wayuu-people-160201070235052.html.

[viii] Ibid.

[ix] Ibid.

[x] “The human right to water and sanitation,” United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Accessed June 14, 2017, http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/human_right_to_water.shtml.

[xi]“Mina de carbón del Cerrejón usa diariamente 17 millones de litros de agua,” Contagio Radio, April 6, 2016, http://www.contagioradio.com/mina-de-carbon-del-cerrejon-usa-diariamente-17-millones-de-litros-de-agua-articulo-22354/.

[xii] Ibid.

[xiii] Estefania Fajardo, “Fallo ordena abrir la represa del río Ranchería,” El Heraldo, August 2, 2016, https://www.elheraldo.co/la-guajira/fallo-ordena-abrir-la-represa-del-rio-rancheria-275755.

[xiv] Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humano, Resolución 3/2017. Medida Cautelar No 51-15. “Ampliación de beneficiarios a favor de las mujeres gestantes y lactantes de la Comunidad Indígena Wayúu en los municipios de Manaure, Riohacha y Uribia respecto de Colombia.” Marzo, 2017.

[xv] “Recuperación Nutricional,” Bienestar Familiar, Accessed June 14, 2017, http://www.icbf.gov.co/portal/page/portal/PortalICBF/bienestar/nutricion/recuperacion.

[xvi] “Los Wayuu reciben ayudas del Gobierno, en Riohacha,” El Heraldo, July 30, 2014, https://www.elheraldo.co/la-guajira/los-wayuu-reciben-ayudas-del-gobierno-en-riohacha-161034.

[xvii] “Climate Change Impacts in Latin America,” World Wildlife Fund, Accessed June 14, 2017, https://www.worldwildlife.org/climatico/climate-change-impacts-in-latin-america.

[xviii] “Deadly Floods in Mocoa,” Wall Street Journal, April 1, 2017, http://www.wsj.com/video/deadly-floods-in-mocoa-colombia/EBE9E950-45C1-498C-87E8-EFC2BC463E3D.html.

[xix] John Otis, “Rescuers in Colombian Town of Mocoa Search for Flood Survivors,” NPR, April 3, 2017, http://www.npr.org/2017/04/03/522424614/rescuers-in-colombian-town-of-mocoa-search-for-flood-survivors.

[xx] Ibid.

[xxi] “Climate Change Impacts in Latin America,” World Wildlife Fund, Accessed June 14, 2017, https://www.worldwildlife.org/climatico/climate-change-impacts-in-latin-america.

[xxii] Ibid.

[xxiii] Felipe Rodríguez, “La Desviacion Del Rio Rancheria,” Extractivismo en Colombia, Accessed June 14, 2017, http://extractivismoencolombia.org/la-desviacion-del-rio-rancheria-un-crimen-de-lesa-humanidad/

Saudi Arabia said on Tuesday there will be no negotiations over the demands made to Qatar to stop supporting terror, Al-Ekhbariya TV reported.

Saudi Foreign Minister Adel Al-Jubeir was referring to a list of demands Qatar would need to fulfill to ease concerns of Arab states over the country’s role in terror funding.

Al-Jubeir reiterated Saudi Arabia’s demands as US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson held talks with the Qatari foreign minister on the Gulf states crisis.

Saudi Foreign Minister Adel Al-Jubeir, who was also in Washington, was unbudging amid attempts by US and Kuwaiti diplomats to mediate the row which has left Qatar isolated under a trade and diplomatic embargo set by its Gulf Arab neighbors.

“Our demands on Qatar are non-negotiable. It’s now up to Qatar to end its support for extremism and terrorism,” Jubeir said via Twitter.

Riyadh has laid down a list of 13 demands for Qatar, included the closure of Al-Jazeera, a downgrade of diplomatic ties with Iran and the shutdown of a Turkish military base in the emirate.

Shortly after Jubeir’s comments, Tillerson met with Qatar’s top diplomat Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani.

He was to meet later with Kuwait Foreign Minister Sheikh Sabah Khaled Al-Sabah, who has sought to work resolve the standoff.

State Department Spokeswoman Heather Nauert said talks would continue through the week.

Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Bahrain announced on June 5 they were suspending all ties with Qatar, accusing it of support for extremist groups — a claim Doha denies.

They have also closed their airspace to Qatari carriers and blocked the emirate’s only land border, a vital route for its food imports.

Qatar is home to the largest US base in the region, Al-Udeid. Bahrain is home to the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet.

The US and Saudi militaries work closely together as well.

Throughout our evolution, viruses have continually infected humans just as they do today. Some early viruses became integrated into our genome and are now known as human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs). Over millions of years, they became inert due to mutations or major deletions in their genetic code. Today, one of the most studied HERV families is the HERV-K family, which has been active since the evolutionary split of humans and chimpanzees with some members perhaps actively infecting humans within the past couple hundred thousand years.

HERVs have become a target for HIV researchers because studies have shown that T-cells produce an immune response against HERVs in those infected with HIV. It is now thought that HERV expression can be caused by HIV infection and that HIV would become an easier target by aiming at the HERV antigens rather than the ever-mutating HIV antigens. Following that idea, previous research from Kumamoto University in Japan revealed an apparent correlation between the coassembly of HIV-1 group specific antigen (Gag) and HERV-K Gag, and the reduced particle proliferation and infectivity of HIV-1. In their current study, the researchers sought to clarify how HERV-K Gag affects HIV-1 in this manner.

They reported that HERV-K Gag changes the size and morphology of progeny HIV-1 particles during the early stages of coassembly. This occurs because the HERV-K Gag capsid (CA), i.e. the virus protein shell, colocalizes (overlaps) partially with HIV-1 Gag at the plasma membrane. This also results in a reduced number of mature HIV-1 particles and lower HIV-1 release and infectivity.

“While we have found that release efficiency and infectivity of HIV-1 particles are hindered by HERV-K Gag,” said project leader, Dr. Kazuaki Monde, “they appear to be products of two separate mechanisms. HIV-1 particle release from cells that also express HERV-K Gag is reduced significantly but the specifics of how infectivity is also reduced still eludes us. Certainly, more research into HERV-K CA is needed to determine how it is able to reduce both particle release and infectivity of HIV-1.”

New digital media are fast becoming available to convey new technology and new knowledge to farmers. Agricultural technology (“agtech”) and new financing modalities (“fintech”) have great potential to meet the needs for increasing agricultural production globally. Knowledge intensive agriculture (KIA) is increasingly becoming the next big disruptive innovation.

By Paul Teng*

Modern farming depends on technology such as seed, fertiliser, pesticides, water, and machinery. These have formed the basis of the world’s food production systems for staples. However, it has become increasingly clear to scientists, policymakers and development agencies that physical inputs alone did not guarantee that farmers can make best use of these inputs. Knowledge is required to make farms productive, farming practices efficient, and farm productivity more targeted.

At the same time, information-communication technology (ICT) has also increasingly affected the farming community. ICT is increasingly recognised as the means to capture and share knowledge and in the process, improve the efficiency of using production inputs. For farming, a major challenge has been how to empower all farmers with the knowledge to use inputs effectively. Agricultural technology (agtech) together with new digital knowledge capture techniques and new financial technology (fintech) groups is fast changing farming by creating a new knowledge intensive agriculture.
Making Technology Knowledge Intensive

In recognition of this phenomenon, the Asian Development Bank in Manila, Philippines, convened a workshop on 15-16 June 2017 to enable exchange of experience and ideas on how to design and implement knowledge intensive agriculture among the more than 300 million small farmers in Asia. Smallholder farmers remain the foundation for Asia’s food security. These small farmers were responsible for using the first set of “disruptive innovations” in the 1960s, such as high yielding crop seeds, fertiliser and pesticides to significantly increase food supplies. However, the large, disparate smallholder population in Asia is geographically spread out and farmers work in diverse farming situations. Each farmer in effect practises farming in his/her own way based on knowledge either newly learnt or inherited.

The recent report on “The Future of Food and Agriculture” by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) highlighted the urgent task of assuring the world can meet the 50% increase in demand for food by 2050. So it is important not only to ensure smallholders have access to farming inputs, but also that they have the knowledge to use the inputs effectively.

Apart from the above, the new impetus for KIA is the increase in myriad tools to practise “data enabled agriculture” – environment sensors, mobile computing, satellites and imaging, drones, wireless communication and even genetics. The growth of knowledge in digital form, AND the increasing capacity of small farmers to access digital information provide opportunities not possible before to share timely information on farming environments and the required management knowledge.

With knowledge, physical inputs and technology, KIA democratises the sharing of knowledge. It also has the added attraction of luring millennials and other new entrants into agriculture at a time when almost all countries are faced with the twin problems of an ageing and declining farming population.

Agtech and Fintech as New Economic Sectors

Two new words, “agtech” and “fintech” have crept into the discourse on modern farming. But are these “old wine in new bottles” or are they truly “new wine in new bottles”? Admittedly the growth in KIA offers opportunities for new technologies, new physical inputs and new financial mechanisms to ensure these become socialized into the farming sector.

Agtech collectively means the individual technologies or a combination of technologies related to farm equipment, weather, seed optimisation, fertilizer and crop inputs, irrigation, remote sensing (including drones), farm management, and agricultural big data. Agtech has gained widespread attention and considerable investment, with one pioneering company, AgFunder estimating that in 2014 and 2015 alone, investments totalled US$7 billion.

Urban farming is one sub-sector that has seen some “new wine” in the form of indoor farms using fully integrated technology for growing vegetables in controlled environments of artificial light, temperature, carbon dioxide, water and fertilizer. In Singapore, PANASONIC has delivered such high tech vegetables to supermarkets. Korea and Japan together have over a hundred indoor high tech farms. South Korea even has a government agency to provide oversight and promote agtech.

Fintech includes companies that use new technology to provide financial services for innovations in farming. Fintech companies consist of both new as well as established financial companies. Industry monitoring gives estimates of billions of dollars of fintech investments, with Europe leading the way. But it is the synergy of agtech and fintech that is causing great excitement for KIA.

New fintech entities will either bypass or complement traditional financial and technology players such as development banks and multi-national companies as the main suppliers of physical technologies and knowledge to small farmers. Countries with active financial centres coupled with proper governance such as intellectual property protection for new technology, will find that the changed landscape provides many opportunities to create new avenues of economic growth. An example is Singapore.

Knowledge Intensive Agriculture as Disruptive Innovation

Historically, farming has seen many disruptive innovations, such as hybrid corn in the 1920s, biotech crops in 1996, and now digital agricultural technologies and genome edited crops and animals in the 2010s. And, as the ADB Workshop noted, KIA has potential to become the latest and most impactful game-changer because it “connects the dots” to link technology, knowledge, the farmer and the financier. The same FAO Report cited above also proposed that new investments and new technologies are needed to meet the 50% increase in food demand by 2050, and to do so will require $265 million per year in investment. It is unlikely that all this investment will be met by governments, pointing further to an important complementation role of fintech companies.

A further recognition of the important role that new technologies will play in the future is its inclusion as one of the four sessions in the upcoming World Agricultural Forum to be held in Singapore, on 6-7 July 2017. This event will see key industry players share their assessment of its role in agriculture, global food trade and security.

*Paul Teng is Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Centre for Non-Traditional Security (NTS) Studies, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University. He formerly held leadership positions at The WorldFish Centre, The International Rice Research Institute and Monsanto Company. This is the first in a series on the upcoming World Agricultural Forum (WAF) organised jointly with the S.Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

The European Commission on Tuesday fined Google €2.42 billion for breaching EU antitrust rules. According to the Commission, Google has abused its market dominance as a search engine by giving an illegal advantage to another Google product, its comparison shopping service.

The company must now end the conduct within 90 days or face penalty payments of up to 5% of the average daily worldwide turnover of Alphabet, Google’s parent company.

Commissioner Margrethe Vestager, in charge of competition policy, said, “Google has come up with many innovative products and services that have made a difference to our lives. That’s a good thing. But Google’s strategy for its comparison shopping service wasn’t just about attracting customers by making its product better than those of its rivals. Instead, Google abused its market dominance as a search engine by promoting its own comparison shopping service in its search results, and demoting those of competitors.

What Google has done is illegal under EU antitrust rules. It denied other companies the chance to compete on the merits and to innovate. And most importantly, it denied European consumers a genuine choice of services and the full benefits of innovation.”

Google’s strategy for its comparison shopping service

Google’s flagship product is the Google search engine, which provides search results to consumers, who pay for the service with their data. Almost 90% of Google’s revenues stem from adverts, such as those it shows consumers in response to a search query.

In 2004 Google entered the separate market of comparison shopping in Europe, with a product that was initially called “Froogle”, re-named “Google Product Search” in 2008 and since 2013 has been called “Google Shopping”. It allows consumers to compare products and prices online and find deals from online retailers of all types, including online shops of manufacturers, platforms (such as Amazon and eBay), and other re-sellers.

When Google entered comparison shopping markets with Froogle, there were already a number of established players. Contemporary evidence from Google shows that the company was aware that Froogle’s market performance was relatively poor (one internal document from 2006 stated “Froogle simply doesn’t work”).

Comparison shopping services rely to a large extent on traffic to be competitive. More traffic leads to more clicks and generates revenue. Furthermore, more traffic also attracts more retailers that want to list their products with a comparison shopping service. Given Google’s dominance in general internet search, its search engine is an important source of traffic for comparison shopping services.

From 2008, Google began to implement in European markets a fundamental change in strategy to push its comparison shopping service. This strategy relied on Google’s dominance in general internet search, instead of competition on the merits in comparison shopping markets:

Google has systematically given prominent placement to its own comparison shopping service: when a consumer enters a query into the Google search engine in relation to which Google’s comparison shopping service wants to show results, these are displayed at or near the top of the search results.

Google has demoted rival comparison shopping services in its search results: rival comparison shopping services appear in Google’s search results on the basis of Google’s generic search algorithms. Google has included a number of criteria in these algorithms, as a result of which rival comparison shopping services are demoted. Evidence shows that even the most highly ranked rival service appears on average only on page four of Google’s search results, and others appear even further down. Google’s own comparison shopping service is not subject to Google’s generic search algorithms, including such demotions.

As a result, Google’s comparison shopping service is much more visible to consumers in Google’s search results, whilst rival comparison shopping services are much less visible.

The evidence shows that consumers click far more often on results that are more visible, i.e. the results appearing higher up in Google’s search results. Even on a desktop, the ten highest-ranking generic search results on page 1 together generally receive approximately 95% of all clicks on generic search results (with the top result receiving about 35% of all the clicks). The first result on page 2 of Google’s generic search results receives only about 1% of all clicks. This cannot just be explained by the fact that the first result is more relevant, because evidence also shows that moving the first result to the third rank leads to a reduction in the number of clicks by about 50%. The effects on mobile devices are even more pronounced given the much smaller screen size.

This means that by giving prominent placement only to its own comparison shopping service and by demoting competitors, Google has given its own comparison shopping service a significant advantage compared to rivals.

Breach of EU antitrust rules

Google’s practices amount to an abuse of Google’s dominant position in general internet search by stifling competition in comparison shopping markets.

Market dominance is, as such, not illegal under EU antitrust rules. However, dominant companies have a special responsibility not to abuse their powerful market position by restricting competition, either in the market where they are dominant or in separate markets.

Tuesday’s decision concludes that Google is dominant in general internet search markets throughout the European Economic Area (EEA), i.e. in all 31 EEA countries. It found Google to have been dominant in general internet search markets in all EEA countries since 2008, except in the Czech Republic where the Decision has established dominance since 2011. This assessment is based on the fact that Google’s search engine has held very high market shares in all EEA countries, exceeding 90% in most. It has done so consistently since at least 2008, which is the period investigated by the Commission. There are also high barriers to entry in these markets, in part because of network effects: the more consumers use a search engine, the more attractive it becomes to advertisers. The profits generated can then be used to attract even more consumers. Similarly, the data a search engine gathers about consumers can in turn be used to improve results.

Google has abused this market dominance by giving its own comparison shopping service an illegal advantage. It gave prominent placement in its search results only to its own comparison shopping service, whilst demoting rival services. It stifled competition on the merits in comparison shopping markets.

Google introduced this practice in all 13 EEA countries where Google has rolled out its comparison shopping service, starting in January 2008 in Germany and the United Kingdom. It subsequently extended the practice to France in October 2010, Italy, the Netherlands, and Spain in May 2011, the Czech Republic in February 2013 and Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Poland and Sweden in November 2013.

The effect of Google’s illegal practices

Google’s illegal practices have had a significant impact on competition between Google’s own comparison shopping service and rival services. They allowed Google’s comparison shopping service to make significant gains in traffic at the expense of its rivals and to the detriment of European consumers.

Given Google’s dominance in general internet search, its search engine is an important source of traffic. As a result of Google’s illegal practices, traffic to Google’s comparison shopping service increased significantly, whilst rivals have suffered very substantial losses of traffic on a lasting basis.

Since the beginning of each abuse, Google’s comparison shopping service has increased its traffic 45-fold in the United Kingdom, 35-fold in Germany, 19-fold in France, 29-fold in the Netherlands, 17-fold in Spain and 14-fold in Italy.

Following the demotions applied by Google, traffic to rival comparison shopping services on the other hand dropped significantly. For example, the Commission found specific evidence of sudden drops of traffic to certain rival websites of 85% in the United Kingdom, up to 92% in Germany and 80% in France. These sudden drops could also not be explained by other factors. Some competitors have adapted and managed to recover some traffic but never in full.

In combination with the Commission’s other findings, this shows that Google’s practices have stifled competition on the merits in comparison shopping markets, depriving European consumers of genuine choice and innovation.

Evidence gathered

In reaching its Decision, the Commission has gathered and comprehensively analysed a broad range of evidence, including:

1) contemporary documents from both Google and other market players;

2) very significant quantities of real-world data including 5.2 Terabytes of actual search results from Google (around 1.7 billion search queries);

3) experiments and surveys, analysing in particular the impact of visibility in search results on consumer behaviour and click-through rates;

4) financial and traffic data which outline the commercial importance of visibility in Google’s search results and the impact of being demoted; and

5) an extensive market investigation of customers and competitors in the markets concerned (the Commission addressed questionnaires to several hundred companies).

Consequences of the Decision

The Commission’s fine of €2 424 495 000 takes account of the duration and gravity of the infringement. In accordance with the Commission’s 2006 Guidelines on fines (see press release and MEMO), the fine has been calculated on the basis of the value of Google’s revenue from its comparison shopping service in the 13 EEA countries concerned.

The Commission Decision requires Google to stop its illegal conduct within 90 days of the Decision and refrain from any measure that has the same or an equivalent object or effect. In particular, the Decision orders Google to comply with the simple principle of giving equal treatment to rival comparison shopping services and its own service:

Google has to apply the same processes and methods to position and display rival comparison shopping services in Google’s search results pages as it gives to its own comparison shopping service.

It is Google’s sole responsibility to ensure compliance and it is for Google to explain how it intends to do so. Regardless of which option Google chooses, the Commission will monitor Google’s compliance closely and Google is under an obligation to keep the Commission informed of its actions (initially within 60 days of the Decision, followed by periodic reports).

If Google fails to comply with the Commission’s Decision, it would be liable for non-compliance payments of up to 5% of the average daily worldwide turnover of Alphabet, Google’s parent company. The Commission would have to determine such non-compliance in a separate decision, with any payment backdated to when the non-compliance started.

Finally, Google is also liable to face civil actions for damages that can be brought before the courts of the Member States by any person or business affected by its anti-competitive behaviour. The new EU Antitrust Damages Directive makes it easier for victims of anti-competitive practices to obtain damages.

Other Google cases

The Commission has already come to the preliminary conclusion that Google has abused a dominant position in two other cases, which are still being investigated. These concern:

1) the Android operating system, where the Commission is concerned that Google has stifled choice and innovation in a range of mobile apps and services by pursuing an overall strategy on mobile devices to protect and expand its dominant position in general internet search; and

2) AdSense, where the Commission is concerned that Google has reduced choice by preventing third-party websites from sourcing search ads from Google’s competitors.

The Commission also continues to examine Google’s treatment in its search results of other specialised Google search services. Today’s Decision is a precedent which establishes the framework for the assessment of the legality of this type of conduct. At the same time, it does not replace the need for a case-specific analysis to account for the specific characteristics of each market.

(EurActiv) — The British government said on Tuesday (27 June) it would continue to fund a collaborative nuclear fusion project with the European Union to 2020 if the bloc extends Britain’s contract to host the facility beyond 2018.

The Joint European Torus (JET) project, located in southeast England at the Culham Centre for Fusion Energy, studies the potential of fusion power as a low-carbon energy source for future generations. It is seen as the ‘little brother’ to the larger-scale ITER project, based in France.

It is currently the only operational fusion experiment which is capable of producing fusion energy and is collectively used by more than 40 European laboratories.

Britain’s contract to maintain and run the JET project is managed by the UK Atomic Energy Authority and is due to end in December 2018.

Britain’s decision to leave Euratom, the EU’s framework for nuclear energy safety and development, when it leaves the bloc, has raised concerns about future funding of collaborative nuclear research projects.

The government said it was willing to underwrite its share of JET’s running costs until the end of 2020 if the EU extends Britain’s contract to host the facility.

“The UK’s commitment to continue funding the facility will apply should the EU approve extending the UK’s contract to host the facility until 2020,” the government said in a statement.

“A discussion will then take place on the appropriate funding split,” it added.

Under the current funding arrangements, the EU currently provides around €68 million a year, which is around 88% of JET’s running costs.

Modi’s remarks aimed to put across an India that was ready to synchronise itself with the Trump administration’s goals, but the US president made it clear he wanted India to commit to “free and fair trade”.

By Manoj Joshi

Only time will tell if chemistry did indeed develop between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and US President Donald Trump but both played well for their audience and said the right things to each other.

Modi’s slightly awkward embrace following the Rose Garden press meet told another story of energetic Indian attempts to woo Trump, and the latter playing along, at least for the moment. That no questions were permitted following the statements made by the two leaders was notable. As a convention, at least two questions each are posed to the leaders from the press from India and the US. Both leaders like one-way interactions with the media and though it was the Indian side which nixed the proposal for questions, it’s quite possible there was an easy meeting of minds between Modi and Trump on this.

We do not know the tone and tenor of what the two leaders said to each other in their meetings through the day. There are two ways of making an assessment. One is from the formal remarks made by Trump and Modi at the presser and the other is through the joint statement adopted following the meetings. The short remarks, though scripted, do reveal something of the personality and priorities of the leaders.

Take Trump’s remarks “that India would have a true friend in the White House”. It recalled an identical formulation made when he attended a fundraiser by the Republican Hindu Coalition headed by Shalabh Kumar, a major donor to his campaign, in the final phase of the presidential elections last year. In the Roae Garden on Monday, Trump was quite flattering on India – emphasising its “fastest growing economy” status and hyping its somewhat flawed GST experiment – and the meat in his statement was economic: How the US and India could partner growth, which, incidentally, echoed the subtitle of the joint statement ‘prosperity through growth’. But Trump said the goal was “to create a trading relationship that is fair and reciprocal,” making it clear that he expected India to remove trade barriers to the export of US goods to India and reduce the current trade deficit, which is around $30 billion against the US. His reference to the 100 Boeing aircraft ordered by SpiceJet and the ongoing negotiations for long-term LNG contracts brought to the surface what was otherwise in the subtext.

In contrast to two paragraphs on security issues, economic issues merited six. The lead issue was the commonly perceived threat of terrorism and the determination to destroy them and their “radical ideology”. Trump commended the trilateral Malabar exercises to be held in July and also thanked India for its role in Afghanistan. However, it was North Korea, and indirectly China, that was on the president’s mind when he thanked India for joining in the sanctions and noted that the issue had to be dealt with “and probably dealt with rapidly.”

Modi’s remarks were carefully structured and what was evident was his subtle flattery of Trump who was thanked repeatedly for interacting with him. Modi also referred to his “vast and successful experience in the business world”. His effort was to put across an India that was ready to synchronise itself with the Trump administration’s goals, be they economic or related to security.

He emphasised the mutuality of interests and trust between the two nations and noted that there was no contradiction between his ‘new vision’ of India and Trump’s efforts of ‘making America great again’, though there is an obvious issue in Trump wanting to bring manufacturing back to the US, and Modi’s desire to get India on to the manufacturing bandwagon. Whatever be the case, Modi said, “India’s development and its growing role at the international level are in the USA’s interest”.

If Trump emphasised the economic over the security aspects of the ties, Modi’s remarks tended to do the opposite. Terrorism, of course, was a major reference, though Modi carefully nuanced his usually harsh references to Pakistan. He spoke of fighting terrorism “by doing away with the safe shelters, sanctuaries and safe havens” and spoke of the common interest in stabilising Afghanistan and ensuring security there and strategic cooperation in the Indo-Pacific. He expressed his appreciation for the role the US had played in enhancing India’s defence capabilities.

On the other hand, the joint statement adopted by the two sides represents more of a consensual document, as well as one crafted by the officials of the two sides through negotiations. For this reason it is significant that for the first time the US has agreed to language which says “The leaders called on Pakistan to ensure that its territory is not used to launch terrorist attacks on other countries.”

Previous joint statements – 2016 or 2015 – had spoken of the need to bring the perpetrators of Mumbai and Pathankot to justice. The US probably indulged India a bit by declaring Syed Salahuddin, the leader of the Hizbul Mujahideen, a specially designated global terrorist. The 71-year-old leader meant something once upon a time, but today he is a has-been, important for his symbolic value as the leader of the Hizbul and the United Jihad Council.

Whatever happens in Pakistan in relation to Jammu and Kashmir and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir is run by the Pakistani intelligence services. Yet, we should not entirely discount the American decision that will have an effect on the morale of the Kashmiri militant movement. The US also took on board the Modi government’s pet scheme of pushing for an international convention on terrorism, even though it is unlikely to press too hard on the issue at the international level.

India also got its way in putting its critique of China’s One Belt One Road into the joint statement, though without referring to the project or China. The statement speaks of the need to promote connectivity “through the transparent development of infrastructure and the use of responsible debt financing practices, while ensuring respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity, the rule of law and environment and call on other nations in the region to adhere to these principles”. The Chinese are not likely to be amused.

Where the US got its payoff was on committing India to “increasing free and fair trade”. Earlier joint statements would have anodyne references “to bolstering economic ties” and so on, but the issue here has been bluntly put and it should not be doubted that it is India on the mat. So while being “engines of growth” building prosperity all around is one thing, the US is clear that it must be done “in a manner that advances the principles of free and fair trade” which require removal of non-tariff barriers (expediting regulatory processes), protecting intellectual property rights, market access for US agricultural products, manufactured goods and services.

This is a tall order and not easy to fulfill. But presumably the government knows what it is doing. In the Obama years, there was talk of a US-India global leadership on climate change, and cooperation in solar energy and clean energy finance. The current joint statement, on the other hand, does not shy away from seeking export of US hydrocarbon products albeit LNG and clean coal. The reference in the joint statement to a deal for six Westinghouse reactors means little in the light of the difficulties affecting the US company which is owned by the troubled Toshiba corporation.

The emphasis of the interaction was bilateral, a word mentioned several times by Modi in his press statement. So even though the two sides described themselves as “responsible stewards” of the Indo-Pacific region, committed to peace and stability there, there was no mention of the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS), though it does speak of tenets outlined in the UN Charter. They spoke of “respecting” freedom of navigation and overflight in the region. In the 2015 Joint Strategic Vision for the Asia Pacific and the Indian Ocean Region, the two sides were committed “to ensuring freedom of navigation and overflight throughout the region, especially in the South China Sea.” In the 2016 joint statement, upholding UNCLOS and freedom of navigation was there but the reference to South China Sea was dropped.

There is a Ray Charles lyric based on an old adage “Sticks and stones may break my bones but talk don’t bother me”. Joint statements and public remarks in press meetings do have value in the relations between nations. But just how much they have in Trump’s America is moot. The president has not hesitated to go back on something he says or alter an established policy on whim.

All Modi and his officials can say for now is “so far, so good”. They have done well by their own measure. Pakistan has been condemned, the trajectory of relations with the US is largely intact, though question marks remain on the question of China. But the Trump disruption is just beginning and it can still come back to bite us, whether it is in the issue of trade or US relations with Iran.

This article was originally published in thewire.in

By Derek Verbakel*

On 26 May, the Islamic State (IS) murdered 29 Coptic Christians on a bus in Minya, the latest targeting of Egypt’s largest minority community. Three church bombings since December, also claimed by IS, have killed over 70 Copts. The government of Egypt’s President Abdel-Fattah el-Sisi casts itself as the protector of Egyptian Copts, and violence against them appears to result straightforwardly from the ideological-strategic imperatives of IS. Yet such a shallow narrative is inadequate to understand recent outbreaks of violence affecting the Coptic community. Rather, these episodes must be placed in the broader context of violence against Copts in Egypt. Implicated is not only the role of IS, but also that of the Egyptian state and society in producing socio-political conditions amenable to violence.

Deadly attacks and less visible instances of violence against Copts have long occurred under successive authoritarian regimes in Egypt. An especially salient episode unfolded in October 2011, highlighting the imbricated roles of state and societal actors: 28 Copts were massacred for protesting government passivity toward assaults on churches by Muslim extremists. In discouraging broader civil disobedience, security services knew that targeting a marginalised group would provoke little public outcry.

El-Sisi has also instrumentalised the Copts’ suffering in the context of escalating violence since mid-2013, itself linked to tightening ties between Coptic Orthodox Church leaders and the state. The July overthrow of Egypt’s former President Mohammed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood was supported by Coptic Orthodox Church leaders but not all Copts. Still, many Morsi supporters viewed the wider Coptic community as complicit in the El-Sisi led coup. After military personnel killed nearly 1000 pro-Morsi demonstrators the subsequent month, several Copts were killed, and numerous churches and homes in Upper Egypt were destroyed by angry mobs. Prominent Muslim Brotherhood voices incited violence against Christians – an enduring phenomenon. El-Sisi then chastised foreign governments for their alleged apathy to the attacks while crudely characterising all Muslim Brotherhood members and sympathisers as sectarian terrorists.

But despite further symbolic posturing, such as attending the Coptic Christmas mass since 2015, El-Sisi has presided over continuous discrimination against Copts through state institutions. This has mutually reinforced societal expressions of intolerance and bigotry, evident, for instance, in the Copts and their properties regularly being attacked by local vigilantes under the pretext of illegal construction or renovation of churches. A long-awaited new law on church construction was passed in August 2016, but its many loopholes risk worsening pre-existing restrictions on establishment of houses of worship for non-Muslims. Where localised violence occurs, government officials oversee customary reconciliation processes led by Muslim leaders unsympathetic to the situation facing Copts. Aggressors are shielded and Copts pressured to settle.

A sense of impunity has also prevailed where due process is ostensibly followed. For instance, prosecutors recently failed to convict several men who stripped an elderly Coptic woman naked and paraded her in the street following a rumour that her son had a romantic relationship with a Muslim woman. Around the same time, four Coptic teenagers received a five-year prison sentence for blasphemy for recording a video ridiculing IS. When hate speech was then directed at their faith – also illegal under the Penal Code – double standards common in the application of the law were predictably ignored. Resulting widespread perceptions of Copts as lesser citizens with fewer rights lay the groundwork for those seeking to incite violence against them.

Such actors – the IS and likeminded groups – have grown stronger under el-Sisi’s rule. Repression of the political opposition, such as through mass imprisonment of Muslim Brotherhood members and other Islamists, has fueled the very radicalisation it seeks to curb. As the prospects of establishing an Islamist system of governance in Egypt have faded, more groups and individuals who would have previously distanced themselves from such ideology appear to be increasingly viewing jihadi violence as politically necessary.

Through the attacks since December, the IS has sought to present the state as illegitimate and unable to protect its citizens, particularly Copts, who the group wishes to eradicate from Egypt. However, Copts have quietly experienced growing internal displacement and emigration from Egypt since mid-2013. In recent years, many have justifiably condemned Church leaders for further politicising their identity through adopting political stances mirroring the regime’s. In February 2017, the IS vowed to escalate its campaign of deadly violence against Copts, several hundred families of whom fled north Sinai. Statements from the local Coptic Bishop resembled those of the government, downplaying the gravity of the situation.

After two church bombings took place on 9 April, the Church referred to them as “exported to Egypt from abroad,” aimed at “striking our national unity.” El-Sisi added, “I won’t say those who fell are Christian or Muslim…I will say that they’re Egyptian.” However, such statements deny the unique experiences of violence and discrimination facing Copts and occlude the socio-political conditions in Egypt through which these come about. Similarly obfuscatory logic was exercised after the May attack: El-Sisi sought to demonstrate strength by striking supposed IS fighters in the Libyan’s Derna city, who were in fact non-IS adversaries of his Libyan ally, Khalifa Haftar.

Interplay between state and societal forces in Egypt have produced a political order subjugating Copts and setting the stage for further episodes of violence against them, particularly as flagging IS fortunes elsewhere may energise the group’s activities in Egypt. Regrettably, the current regime’s failure to pursue substantive policies mitigating patterns of violence offers little hope the plight of Egypt’s Copts will abate.

* Derek Verbakel
Researcher, IReS, IPCS

There will be no weapons deals to Saudi Arabia or other countries attempting to blockade Qatar as long as the diplomatic spat continues, a US Senator has vowed.

The ongoing diplomatic crisis in the Gulf region undermines the fight against the Islamic State group, said Bob Corker, chairman of the influential Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.

“For these reasons, before we provide any further clearances during the informal review period on sales of lethal military equipment to the [Gulf Cooperation Council] states, we need a better understanding of the path to resolve the current dispute and reunify the GCC,” wrote the Republican from Tennessee in a letter to State Department chief Rex Tillerson.

The move follows President Trump’s visit to Saudi Arabia, where a huge weapons deal thought to be worth $110 billion was signed, but comes too late at least for the first part of that agreement – a $550 million sale of “precision-guided” missiles.

Saudi Arabia has been leading an attempted regional blockade of Qatar, but efforts to isolate the tiny gas-rich state appear largely to have backfired.

Riyadh and Abu Dhabi had claimed Doha was “supporting terrorism” – a charge vehemently denied by Qatari officials – but publication of 13 demands issued by the blockading countries revealed the effort had much more to do with bringing into alignment and subservience to Saudi Arabia’s hegemonic foreign policy.

The chairpersons of both the House and Senate Foreign Affairs Committees have advance approval powers over arms sales to foreign governments, before Congress is formally notified of the sale.

Corker’s bid to tie huge weapons deals to the resolution of the diplomatic crisis will likely provoke consternation both in the Oval Office and at the highest levels of Gulf administrations after taking a swipe at GCC officials in the letter.

“I could not have been more pleased with the President’s recent trip to Saudi Arabia,” wrote Corker.

“Unfortunately, the GCC did not take advantage of the summit and instead chose to devolve into conflict.”

Original source