(RFE/RL) — Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on June 30 said he was disappointed with Washington’s “silence” despite human right violations in the disputed Himalayan region of Kashmir, where scores of youths have been killed.

Sharif’s remarks came days after Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Washington and issued a joint statement with U.S. President Donald Trump calling on Pakistan to stop harboring terrorists on its territory.

Sharif decried “the complete silence in the U.S.-India joint statement on the atrocities being committed by the Indian forces against Kashmiris,” his office said.

While criticizing Washington, Sharif expressed satisfaction with Pakistan’s strategic ties with China and Russia, and praised China’s recent efforts to defuse tension between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

India accuses Pakistan of backing Kashmiri rebels, but Pakistan says it only provides moral and political support to Kashmiris.

Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry earlier this week criticized the joint U.S.-Indian statement as “singularly unhelpful in achieving the objective of strategic stability and durable peace” and asserted that “Pakistan has been the primary victim of terrorism in the region.”

The ministry said Pakistan is also “deeply concerned” about U.S sales of advanced military technologies to India, saying they “accentuate military imbalances…in South Asia.”

US President Donald Trump issued an Executive Order on Friday to revive the National Space Council.

President George H.W. Bush established the National Space Council in 1989. The Council was tasked with advising and assisting the President regarding national space policy and strategy. The Council ceased operation in 1993. This Executive Order revives the Council and will reinvigorate America’s role as a leader in space, strengthen America’s economy, and advance the security of the American people, according to the White House.

Vice President Mike Pence as the Chairman of the National Space Council will play an indispensable role in crafting America’s space policy, the White House said.

The Vice President said that he was honored and enthusiastic to act as Chairman of the Council. He stated that the Administration’s commitment to space exploration will “strengthen the American spirit” and inspire the American people to “blaze new trails into the unknown”.

NASA Administrator Robert Lightfoot noted that “the council has guided NASA from our earliest days and can help us achieve the many ambitious milestones we are striving for today.”

“The establishment of the council is another demonstration of the Trump Administration’s deep interest in our work, and a testament to the importance of space exploration to our economy, our nation, and the planet as a whole,” Lightfoot said.

The Belarusian Supreme Court has ruled to uphold the death sentence against Aliaksei Mikhalenia.

The decision has brought condemnation from the EU.

“The continued application of the death penalty runs counter to Belarus’ stated willingness to engage with the international community, including the European Union, on the matter,” the spokesperson for the European External Action Service said in a statement.

“The European Union reaffirms its strong opposition to capital punishment and urges Belarus, the only country in Europe still applying capital punishment, to commute the remaining death sentences and to introduce without delay a moratorium on the death penalty as a first step towards its abolition,” the statement concluded.

(EurActiv) — Germany’s parliament voted by a wide margin on Friday (30 June) to legalise same-sex marriage after Chancellor Angela Merkel did an about-face that freed members of her ruling conservative bloc to follow their personal conscience rather than the party line.

Merkel, who will seek a fourth term in a national election on 24 September told reporters after the landmark decision that she had voted against the measure because she believed that marriage as defined under German law was between a man and a woman.

But she said her decision was a personal one, adding that she had become convinced in recent years that same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt children.

“I hope that the vote today not only promotes respect between the different opinions but also brings more social cohesion and peace,” Merkel said.

The parliament voted by 393 votes in favour of same-sex marriage to 226 against.

Many other European countries, including France, Britain and Spain, have already legalised same-sex marriage.

Merkel’s announcement on Monday (26 June) that she would allow lawmakers to vote on same-sex marriage according to their individual conscience drew the ire of some in her traditionally Catholic conservative bloc.

But political analysts say the issue will likely have faded from voters’ minds by the time the September election comes around.

Friday’s vote marks a rare victory for Merkel’s Social Democrat (SPD) coalition partners, who are trailing the conservatives in opinion polls. They had seized on Merkel’s surprise comments on Monday to say they would push for an early vote before parliament’s summer recess.

Success in passing the so-called “marriage for all” amendment could provide a sorely needed boost for the centre-left SPD, which has seen a short-lived boost in the polls earlier this year evaporate in recent months.

The measure will likely be signed into law by the president some time after 7 July .

By Sinisa Jakov Marusic

Former Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski could spend up to 27 years in jail if found guilty in all five cases raised against him by the Special Prosecution.

The head of the right-wing VMRO DPMNE party and former Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski could face up to 27 years in jail if he is found guilty in all five cases for which he is indicted by the special prosecution, SJO.

Before the SJO’s July 1 deadline to press charges expires, it indicted Gruevski in five cases codenamed “TNT”, “Titanic”, “Traektorija” [trajectory] “Tank” and one dubbed “Shamari” [slapping].

In the first case, codenamed “TNT”, the SJO has indicted Gruevski for “misuse of office”, for which the maximum sentence is three years in jail.

In this case, he is suspected of ordering the demolition of a building that was being constructed by his former political ally, Fijat Canovski, as an act of political retaliation after Canovski’s small party, the Party for European Future, PEI, quit the former ruling coalition led by Gruevski.

The second case, codenamed “Titanic”, is far more complex and indicts Gruevski and other top-ranking VMRO DPMNE officials for allegedly masterminding electoral fraud in 2013.

In this case, Gruevski is charged on three accounts: criminal association, for which he is faces a jail sentence from one to five years; misuse of assets during an election campaign, for which the lowest sentence is five years; violation of the freedom of voters, for which the minimum jail sentence is three years.

In the third case, codenamed, “Traektorija”, Gruevski is indicted for receiving an award for unlawful influence for which the law envisages a jail sentence of one to three years.

In this case, the SJO has indicted Gruevski and several of his associates who are believed to have broken the Public Procurement Law by awarding a 570-million-euro contract to construct two highway stretches to a preferred Chinese construction company.

In the fourth case, “Tank”, Gruevski faces an identical indictment to that in “Traektorija”, which may add another one to three years of jail time, if he is found guilty.

This case centres on the purchase of a 575,000 euro luxury limousine that was allegedly obtained to satisfy Gruevski’s personal wishes.

In addition, Gruevski is already on trial in a fifth case dubbed “Shamari” where he is accused of ordering an attack on an opposition mayor and his municipality HQ in 2013. He is indicted of enticement of a criminal act against public order for which the sentence is from six months to five years in jail.

By adding the maximum jail sentences in all of these cases together, theoretically, could Gruevski face up to 27 years in jail.

He also remains the main suspect in at least one other large and complex investigation that the SJO launched in May 22 under the codename “Talir” [silver coin].

In this, Gruevski and ten other VMRO DPMNE members are suspected of illegally financing the former ruling party through money laundering.

Chief Special Prosecutor Katica Janeva on Thursday said the SJO would not be raising indictments in this case for now, but would continue to investigate it.

“A one-month period was simply too little to investigate all suspicions in relation to this case, which took place over an eight-year period,” Janeva said.

She expressed hope that, after the SJO deadline to raise indictments expires, the case would one way or another be eventually processed in court.

This could happen either through parliament extending the SJO’s deadline or by the regular prosecution, which has no deadlines for pressing indictments, taking the case over.

After Thursdays’ press conference at which the SJO launched charges against 94 people in relation to 17 cases, Gruevski – whose party was in power from 2006 until this May – countered that his party was under attack by anti-patriotic forces.

“This is a classic political and anti-Macedonian construction”, aimed at taking down some 100 people from the VMRO DPMNE leadership, he told a press conference.

“The historic responsibility of those who are now riding on a wave of euphoria and think this petty pleasure will last forever will soon be tested,” Gruevski added, saying that his party would also stop being a cooperative opposition.

(Civil.Ge) — US Vice President Mike Pence will travel to Georgia in late July, according to the White House reported.

In Tbilisi, the Vice President will meet with President Giorgi Margvelashvili and Prime Minister Giorgi Kvirikashvili, among others, and visit U.S. and Georgian troops participating in the Noble Partner exercise.

As part of his diplomatic tour in Europe, Pence will also visit Estonia and Montenegro.

Commenting the visit on June 30, Prime Minister Giorgi Kvirikashvili said the Vice President would travel to Georgia on July 31.

“This of course is a clear sign of the support of the United States to Georgia,” the Prime Minister stated, adding that he is “glad” that the Government has managed to establish contacts with new U.S. administration “from its very first days.”

“We are happy that the Vice President has chosen Georgia, along with Estonia and Montenegro, as [one of] the most important partners of the United States,” PM Kvirikashvili noted.

In cities and towns from New Delhi to New York the socio-political policies that led to the Grenfell Tower disaster in west London are being repeated; redevelopment and gentrification, the influx of corporate money and the expelling of the poor, including families that have lived in an area for generations. To this, add austerity, the privatization of public services and the annihilation of social housing and a cocktail of interconnected causes takes shape. Communities break up, independent businesses gradually close down, diversity disappears and another neighbourhood is absorbed within the expensive homogenized collective.

People living in developed industrialized countries suffer most acutely, but developed nations are also being subjected to the same violent methodology of division and injustice that led to the murder of probably hundreds of innocent people in Grenfell Tower.

The rabid spread of corporate globalization has allowed the poison of commercialization to be injected into the fabric of virtually every country in the world, including developing nations.

As neoliberal policies are exchanged for debt relief and so-called ‘investment’, which is little more than exploitation, the problems of the North infiltrate the South. Economic cultural colonization smiles and shakes hands, wears a suit and causes fewer deaths than the traditional method of control and pillaging, but it is just as pernicious and corrosive.

In the Neo-Liberal world of commercialization everything is regarded as a commodity. Whole countries are regarded as little more than marketplaces in which to sell an infinite amount of stuff, often poorly made, most of which is not needed. In this twenty-first century nightmare that is choking the life out of people everywhere, human beings are regarded not as individuals with particular outlooks fostered by differing traditions, backgrounds and cultures; with concerns and rights, potential and gifts and heartfelt aspirations, but consumers with differing degrees of worth based on the size of their bank account and their capacity to buy the corporate-made artifacts that litter the cathedrals of consumerism in cities north, south, east and west.

Those with empty pockets and scant prospects have no voice and, as Grenfell proves, are routinely ignored; choices and opportunities are few, and whilst human rights are declared to be universal, the essentials of living — shelter, food, education and health care — are often denied them. Within the land of money, such rights are dependent not on human need but one the ability to pay, and when these rights are offered to those living in poverty or virtual poverty, it is in the form of second and third rate housing, unhealthy food, poorly funded and under-staffed education and health services. After all, you get what you pay for; if you pay little don’t expect much, least of all respect.

The commercialization of all aspects of our lives is the inevitable, albeit extreme consequence of an economic model governed by profit, fed by consumption and maintained through the constant agitation of desire. Pleasure is sold as happiness, desire poured into the empty space where love and compassion should be, anxiety and depression ensured. But there’s a pill for that, sold by one or other of the major benefactors of the whole sordid pantomime, the pharmaceutical companies. Corporations, huge and getting bigger, are the faceless commercial monsters who own everything and want to own more; they want to own you and me, to determine how we think and what we do. These faceless corporate entities are given rights equivalent to nations and in some cases more; they have incalculable financial wealth and with it political power. They devour everything and everyone in their path to the Altar of Abundance, assimilate that which springs into life outside their field of control and consolidate any organization that threatens their dominance.

Commercialization is a headless monster devoid of human kindness and empathy, it sits within an unjust economic system that has created unprecedented levels of inequality, with colossal wealth concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer men (the zillionaires are all men), whilst half the world’s population attempts to survive on under $5 a day and the Earth cries out in agony: every river, sea and stream is polluted, deforestation is stripping huge areas of woodland, whole Eco-systems are being poisoned and the air we breathe is literally choking us to death. Apathy suffocates and comforts us, distractions seduce us and keep us drugged: “Staring at the screen so we don’t have to see the planet die. What we gonna do to wake up?” screams the wonderful British poet Kate Tempest in Tunnel Vision. “The myth of the individual has left us disconnected, lost, and pitiful.”

How bad must it get before we put an end to the insanity of it all? It has got to end; we can no longer continue to live in this fog. During a spellbinding performance of Europe is Lost at Glastonbury Festival, Tempest stood on the edge of the stage and called out, “We are Lost, We are Lost, We are Lost”. We are lost because a world has been created based on false values — “all that is meaningless rules” — because the systems that govern our lives are inherently unjust, because we have been made to believe that competition and division is natural, that we are simply the body and are separate from one another, because corporate financial interests are placed above the needs of human beings and the health of the planet. Excess is championed, sufficiency laughed at, ambition and greed encouraged, uncertainty and mystery pushed aside. The house is burning, as the great teacher Krishnamurti put it, Our House, Our World — within and without — both have been violated, ravaged, and both need to be allowed to heal, to be washed clean by the purifying waters of social justice, trust and sharing.

Systemic external change proceeds from an internal shift in thinking — a change in consciousness, and whilst such a shift may appear difficult, I suggest it is well underway within vast numbers of people to varying degrees. For change to be sustainable it needs to be gradual but fundamental, and have the support of the overwhelming majority of people — not a mere 51% of the population.

Kindness begets kindness, just as violence begets violence. Create structures that are just and see the flowering of tolerance and unity within society; Sharing is absolutely key. After Grenfell hundreds of local people shared what they had, food, clothes, bedding; they shopped for the victims, filling trolleys with baby food, nappies and toiletries. This happens all over the world when there is a tragedy — people love to share; giving and cooperating are part of who we are, while competition and selfishness run contrary to our inherent nature, resulting in sickness of one kind or another, individual and collective.

Sharing is the answer to a great many of our problems and needs to be placed at the heart of a new approach to socio-economic living, locally, nationally, and globally. It is a unifying principle encouraging cooperation, which, unlike competition, brings people together and builds community. The fear of ‘the other’, of institutions and officials dissipates in such an environment, allowing trust to naturally come into being, and where trust exists much can be achieved. In the face of worldwide inequality and injustice the idea of sharing as an economic principle is gradually gaining ground, but the billions living in destitution and economic insecurity cannot wait, action is needed urgently; inaction and complacency feed into the hands of those who would resist change, and allows the status quo to remain intact. “We sleep so deep, it don’t matter how they shake us. If we can’t face it, we can’t escape it. But tonight the storm’s come,” says Kate Tempest in Tunnel Vision. Indeed, we are in the very eye of the storm, “The winter of our discontent’s upon us” and release will not be found within the corrupt ways of the past, but in new forms built on ancie

“It is also a story of deceit and lies, of institutional defensiveness defeating truth and justice. It is evidence of a culture of denial within South Yorkshire Police.” -— Anne Burkett, BBC, Apr 27, 2016

It took 28 years for the tables to turn on the South Yorkshire police regarding the Hillsborough disaster that took the lives of 96 fans. The 1989 FA Cup semi-final between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest saw a sporting catastrophe that was portrayed as less a matter of institutional accountability as the consequence of loutish, irresponsible fans.

The finger pointing began instantly, with the police arguing that the bad behaviour of the fans, fuelled by alcohol consumption, was the primary cause. (This, notwithstanding the fact that some of the injured and dead were children.)

There were, in fact, no limits as to what the fans had done wrong. They supposedly arrived too late; they obstructed the police in accomplishing their tasks; they forced open a gate; many were supposedly ticketless. What mattered in the police narrative and technique was not safety but control.[1]

The ground was laid after the finding by inquest jurors in April 2016 that the fans in question had been unlawfully killed. It had been the longest jury case in British legal history, involving the families and supporters of the Hillsborough Family Support Group (HFSG) and Hillsborough Justice Campaign.

Interest naturally turned towards police conduct not merely on the day itself, but subsequently. The latter point was of particular interest to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which was charged with the task of investigating allegations of a cover-up.

On Wednesday, six people, including two former senior police officers, were charged for criminal offences linked to the disaster. Significant here was the alleged cover-up that ensued. Sue Hemming of the Crown Prosecution Service’s head of special crime and counter-terrorism, after reviewing the material, “decided that there is sufficient evidence to charge six individuals with criminal offences.”

Prominently featured is David Duckenfield, the South Yorkshire officer who oversaw policing at the semi-final, charged for the manslaughter of 95 people. (The 96th, Tony Bland, would only die four years after the incident, making a charge of manslaughter inapplicable.) He had eluded the clutches of a private prosecution in 1999 with a stay by the senior judicial officer. For a prosecution to take place, that stay will have to be lifted by application from the prosecutors.

Duckenfield, the grim star of a very grim show, received specific mention from Hemming. During proceedings, the CPS intends to show that Duckenfield’s conduct that day was “extraordinarily bad and contributed substantially to the deaths of each of those 96 people who so tragically and unnecessarily lost their lives.”[2]

The focus on Sir Norman Bettison, former chief constable of Merseyside and West Yorkshire police, an inspector in the South Yorkshire force during the disaster, was one of misconduct. He faces four counts of the offence in public office.

“Given his role as a senior police officer,” stated Hemming, “we will ask the jury to find that this was misconduct of such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder.”

Donald Denton and Alan Foster, both former police chiefs, were charged with perverting the course of justice in allegedly fiddling witness statements used during the original investigation and inquest into the deaths. Dozens of such statements were allegedly doctored to suggest a picture of police control rather than lethal chaos. The police lawyer, Peter Metcalf, was charged for allegedly assisting the enterprise.

Completing the institutional circle is Graham Mackrell, Sheffield Wednesday Football Club’s company secretary and safety officer that day. His charges are less grave, but no less significant: the alleged contravention of safety rules and failing to take appropriate reasonable care for the health and safety of those on the grounds.

This is the season for a reckoning. The charred ruins of Grenfell Tower have drawn necessary accusations about public safety across London. The cult of the cheap and expedient is being challenged; the wisdom of authorities questioned.

The Hillsborough families proved relentless in seeking accountability for the losses of 1989, showing that doing things by the book in calmly directed rage transformed the alleged responsibility of the victims to accountability of the authorities. It is with some historical irony, given the state of Brexit, that these efforts would been further hampered but for the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights via the Human Rights Act 1998.

Notes:
[1] http://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/the-hillsborough-96-and-the-struggle-for-truth-and-justice/

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/28/hillsborough-six-people-including-two-senior-police-officers-charged

As the climate change progresses, droughts are expected to become more and more common and more intense in Europe, as in many parts of the globe. However, many plants are not able to handle this kind of climate. This includes the Norway spruce, which is Germany’s most important commercial tree species and accounts for the majority of trees in the Black Forest.

Valentia Vitali and Prof. Dr. Jürgen Bauhus from the Chair of Silviculture at the University of Freiburg are thus studying other types of needle-leaved conifers to find alternatives. Conifers play a far greater role in commercial forestry and climate protection than broad-leaved trees. In their article “Silver Fir and Douglas Fir Are More Tolerant to Extreme Droughts than Norway Spruce in South-Western Germany” published in the journal Global Change Biology, the scientists concluded that the native silver fir and the Douglas fir, which was imported from the Americas, are suitable tree replacements for the Norway spruce in the long run.

Extreme droughts are believed to be one of the greatest challenges of climate change facing commercial forestry in the medium term, the researchers said. In their study of how forests in Central Europe might adjust to climate change, Vitali and Bauhus studied the past growth of more than 800 trees at different altitudes in the Black Forest.

They looked at annual tree rings before, during, and after the extreme summer droughts of 1976 and 2003 to determine which conifers best withstand droughts and which recover the quickest and fullest after dry spells.

They discovered that silver and Douglas firs are far less affected by drought than spruces. That the silver fir, which suffered severely from acid rain falls in the 1970s and 1980s and was considered endangered, is now an alternative native tree species for the future is both a positive and surprising finding, the scientists said. While the Douglas fir is the more productive replacement species for the Norway spruce, silver firs have a greater positive effect on biodiversity.

The scientists therefore recommend that spruce forests, which are at high risk of drought stress, be replaced with mixed-species forests silver and Douglas firs, with silver firs being the more suitable tree for higher altitudes in the Black Forest.

Dunhuang is a typical desert basin in western China, with the Qilian mountains to the south, Kumtag desert and Lop-Nur to the west, Beisai mountain to the north, and Sanwei mountain to the east. Besides, the famous Taklimakan and Tengger deserts are also located in the west and east of Dunhuang region, respectively. Dunhuang is also a world-famous scenic spot, encompassing Mogao Caves, Crescent Spring and Mingsha Mountain within its territory.

Through analyzing aerosol observational data for the year 2012 and comparing them with previous aerosol observations in 1999 and 2004-07, a study by Institute of Atmospheric Physics/Chinese Academy of Sciences, concludes that, due to the increasing contribution of human activities, air quality has become worse in the most recent decade over the Dunhuang area, and the main reason is a shift to a mixture of coarse and fine particles, having previously been due to dust aerosol alone.

The study also reveals significant seasonal characteristics for aerosol optical properties. The maximum aerosol optical depth (AOD) was found to occur in spring, while the remaining three seasons were similar. Frequent dust weather events made dust aerosols the dominant component during spring. The peak tourism season occurs in summer and fall and, due to the relatively more intense level of human activities during this period, fine urban aerosols were found to be the main mode of control in summer. In fall, the dust influences combined, and urban-dust aerosols occupied the maximum proportion. Numerous fine black carbon and sulfate aerosols were emitted by coal combustion in winter, mixed with relatively frequent dust aerosols, resulting in a mixed mode taking the principal control during this season.

Finally, this work, recently published in Advances in Atmospheric Sciences, found Dunhuang to be seriously affected by dust aerosols transported by high-frequency northwest air masses in spring, fall and winter, leading to the highest AOD values. Urban aerosols accounted for a considerable proportion in northwest (summer) and west (fall) air masses. Regional coal combustion produced a large amount of fine pollution aerosols during winter, and the different air masses exhibited similar diffusion behavior for the regional pollutants.

People with Alzheimer’s disease who experience psychosis–including delusions and hallucinations–are five times more likely to be misdiagnosed with dementia with Lewy bodies compared to patients who do not, new research suggests.

Alzheimer’s disease is a type of dementia characterized by protein deposits in the brain including twisted fibers found inside brain cells. Dementia with Lewy bodies is believed to be caused by the buildup of a different abnormal protein aggregate found in nerve cells in the brain. Effective treatments for these conditions are still under development, but will almost certainly be different, according to the authors.

Researchers also found that Alzheimer’s disease was misdiagnosed in 24 per cent of all cases, with false positive and false negative rates both being 12 per cent. Previous research suggested that the rate of misdiagnosis in Alzheimer’s disease ranged from 12-23 per cent.

The findings, published online today in Alzheimer’s & Dementia: Translational Research & Clinical Interventions, raise concern that there may be an under appreciation of how common psychotic symptoms are in Alzheimer’s disease, said Dr. Corinne Fischer, director of the Memory Disorders Clinic at St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto and lead author of the study.

“Psychosis can be a symptom of Alzheimer’s disease, but it is a defining clinical feature in other types of dementia, including Parkinson’s disease related dementia and dementia with Lewy bodies,” she said. “Consequently, clinicians are more reluctant to diagnose a patient with Alzheimer’s disease when they present with delusions or hallucinations.”

About 36 per cent of people with Alzheimer’s are thought to have delusions and 18 per cent have hallucinations. Psychotic symptoms are significant in Alzheimer’s patients because they have been shown to be associated with increased burden on caregivers, increased functional decline and more rapid progression of the disease.

Researchers examined 961 people using data from the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Centre database, collected from 29 Alzheimer’s disease centres in the United States between 2005 and 2012. They included participants who had been clinically diagnosed with Alzheimer’s while they were alive, as well as those whose autopsies showed they the signature physical signs of Alzheimer’s in their brains.

Patients who experienced psychosis had a higher rate of false negative diagnosis and a lower rate of false positive diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease compared to those who did not. Whether patients experienced delusions, hallucinations, or a combination of both did not affect the rate of misdiagnosis, according to the authors.

The Alzheimer’s Society of Canada estimates there are 564,000 people living with dementia in Canada, and that number is expected to almost double over the next 15 years, thus reinforcing the relevance of the study’s findings according to Winnie Qian, a Master’s student in the Neuroscience Research Program at St. Michael’s and an author on the study.

“An advantage of our study is that we used the final clinical diagnosis after years of follow-up, so the rate of misdiagnosis we described is the rate under ideal conditions,” she said.

“This means that it should be considered a minimum. If you extrapolate that and apply it to the general population, the magnitude of the problem could be much greater.”

Dr. Fischer said when patients do not present with psychosis, clinicians should be more careful when considering alternative diagnoses to Alzheimer’s disease.

“Many dementia patients never receive a definitive clinical diagnosis while they’re alive, so the hope is that by understanding what factors can lead to a misdiagnosis, we can be more accurate and provide patients with the best possible care,” she said.

CNN has every right to post the commentary of any author it chooses, but is it too much to ask that someone fact check the submissions?

The recent attacks on Cardinal George Pell, which I debunked on June 29, gave Heidi Schlumpf the opportunity to write “Why the Catholic Church Must Continue Soul-Searching.” It is more than tendentious, it is factually wrong. She writes for the National Catholic Reporter, a dissident publication that rejects the Church’s teachings on sexuality.

The title of her article accurately conveys her thesis: the abuse scandal is on-going. That is why she says that the charges against Cardinal Pell are “a reminder that the church’s sex abuse crisis is not over.” She adds that Pell’s case “shows that the decades long sex abuse crisis is not a ‘once and done’ thing.”

BishopAccountability is cited by Schlumpf as the source of her data. She says “credible accusations today [of clergy sexual abuse] are still significant, with 101 priests or religious accused in 2014-15.” Her data are wrong.

First of all, the latest report on this subject is found in the 2016 Annual Report on the Implementation of the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People. It covers the period from July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016. So why did Schlumpf cite the audit from the year before? Because she relied on BishopAccountability, a notoriously unreliable source, never bothering to independently verify the data.

Had Schlumpf cited the most recent report, she would have found that there were 25 new allegations made by minors during the 2015-2016 year against current clergy members. But only two were substantiated. That means of the 52,238 priests and deacons, .004 percent had a substantiated charge made against them.

As I wrote on June 6th, “we know of no other institution in the United States, secular or religious, which has a better record than the Catholic Church today when it comes to the sexual abuse of minors by adult employees.”

Moreover, the figure of 101 priests or religious cited by Schlumpf in 2014-2015 is wrong. The 2015 audit shows that 26 allegations were made during that year against current clergy members, seven of which were substantiated.

Schlumpf’s article is a splendid example of the way dissident Catholics think. It is they who pushed for a relaxation of sexual strictures in the seminaries—that happened in the 1970s—and it is therefore they who are mostly responsible for the homosexual scandal. Ever since, they have been blaming either “repressive” Catholic teachings or the bishops, taking no responsibility for their input.

Furthermore, dissident Catholics have a vested ideological interest in continuing the myth that the crisis continues. They do so as a way to convince the Church that it must further loosen Catholic sexual ethics, opening the door to such absurdities as gay marriage.

CNN needs to do a better job vetting its submissions.

Contact CNN Opinion editor Richard Galant: richard.galant@turner.com

After ignoring the issues of military pay and benefits for both serving and retiring personnel for five years, during the course of which pay and pensions stagnated and medical services were cut, Vladimir Putin last week said he wanted to boost pay and provide more benefits to uniformed personnel and retirees.

But budgetary stringencies seem certain to get in the way, making it difficult to raise pay or pensions significantly and especially to provide the housing and medical care that soldiers and sailors are promised both while in uniform and after they retire, according to Vladimir Mukhin (ng.ru/kartblansh/2017-06-30/3_7019_kartblansh.html).

Increasing the capacity of the military and special services has been a central goal for Putin, but he has focused more on equipment than on personnel. Last week, however, he indicated that improving the siloviki will require “the further improvement of the material and social stimuli” they receive.

“We will continue to be concerned about he strengthening of social guarantees for military personnel, officers of the law-enforcement organs and special services. We will further guarantee worthy pay, offer housing, and raise the quality of medical services for military personnel and members of their families,” the Kremlin leader said.

But since last making such declarations five years ago, Putin has done little in this sector. Military pay hasn’t been indexed to inflation even once, housing remains in critically short supply for officers, and having cut the military medical system to the bone, the government now wants to reduce spending on that function as well, the Nezavisimaya gazeta journalist says.

Putin has begun to focus on these issues not only because he is about to take part in another political campaign but also because he wants to shore up support for himself among the siloviki, Mukhin continues, convinced as he is that the United States is seeking to achieve “regime change” in the Russian Federation.

But the question arises: Can the Russian budget support such things given the continuing economic crisis? Neither the 2017 nor the 2018-2019 budgets call for raising pay of soldiers and officers of law enforcement agencies and special services. In fact, the budget calls for cutting back spending on defense overall.

To boost pay would require shifting funds from somewhere else, and there are too few places where that could happen, the journalist suggests. At the same time, the uniformed services have many social needs which aren’t now being met and which could be addressed only if more money were directed at them.

Duma deputies have already expressed concerns that the absence of pay increases and problems with benefits has led many in the uniformed services to leave their positions early, something that adds to training costs and makes it more difficult to maintain unit cohesion and readiness.

A major problem is medical care. As a result of cutbacks in recent years, there is not a single military medical facility in 47 of the country’s federal subjects “where live more than 350,000 military pensioners.” And the number of hospitals, polyclinics, and other treatment centers for serving military personnel has been cut dramatically.

The number of military clinics has been reduced from 173 to 41 and the number of military medical personnel has been cut from 13,000 to 2500 in recent years. Obviously something needs to be done, but the finance ministry maintains that spending on military medical needs is still too high.

“Vladimir Putin has promised ‘to raise the quality of medical services for military personnel and members of their families,’ Mukhin says. But how can he deal with military pensioners in this regard “who also have the right to be treated in military medical facilities?” The answer to that is “unknown.”

People on both the right and the left routinely commit the funding fallacy when they assess research and writing. This fallacy is a variant of the hoary rule, Follow the money. The idea is that if an institution or person funded an analyst’s work directly or indirectly, that analyst was ipso facto a hired gun who merely strove to do the funder’s bidding.

I have been around university and think-tank research and writing for half a century, and I can testify that this belief is, as a general rule, incorrect. Not that no specific instances occur; of course they do, especially in think tanks and related organizations, but sometimes in universities as well. Nevertheless, the more accurate general rule is that analysts do what they believe to be good work regardless of who funded the work or why.

In my own case, for example, the great bulk of my research and writing took place without any specifically related financial support other than my regular salary from a university or my fee for service (e.g., editing a journal, evaluating research proposals, or lecturing) from a think tank. Dedicated funding for a specific project more often comes from sources that wish to support a specific type of research or a specific researcher than it comes as a prepayment for the services of an intellectual prostitute.

The recent hullabaloo about Nancy MacLean’s book is illustrative. She argues that James Buchanan’s career amounted to carrying water for the Koch brothers in a quest to destroy democracy and establish plutocracy in the United States. Some of her critics turn around and argue that she received funding from the federal government and hence was simply waging another battle in the state’s ongoing war on free markets and their proponents. I am confident that both claims are wrong. Jim Buchanan did not do dirty work for pay; I knew him long enough and well enough to know that for sure. I do not know MacLean, yet I strongly suspect that in writing her book she was simply telling a tale that, inside her ideological bubble, seemed eminently sensible to her, however remote its claims might be from well-founded and documented historical reality.

For people who have not spent years inside universities or think tanks, the funding fallacy seems compelling. But the actual situation in these institutions is not so simple. If it were, controlling the quality of research and writing there would be much easier than it actually is. For fifty years, I waited for the cash in a plain brown wrapper to arrive on my doorstep. It never came, just as—I am sure—it has not come to most others in this line of work.

This article was published at The Beacon.

Qatar is currently going through one of the worst time in its history. The three strongest Arab countries — Saudi Arabia, Egypt and United Arab Emirates — along with Bahrain supported by many other Arab states in a unilateral move cut diplomatic, economic and travel ties with Qatar.

Diplomatic relations has fallen to its nadir. The Qatari Airlines is not allowed to use the Air Space of these countries as well as these countries have banned their flights from flying to Doha.

Qatar has been accused of supporting Iran (Iranian backed groups in Yemen and Hezbollah), the Muslim Brotherhood and also using its state run global TV network Aljazeera for propaganda purposes to undermine the security of other Gulf States. As a result, these countries have tried to bring Qatar to its knees by cutting off and isolating it from rest of the world. In responding to this diplomatic crisis the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Qatar, “expressed its deep regret and surprise at the decisions to close their borders and airspace, and sever diplomatic relations with the State of Qatar” and claimed that these measures are unjustified and based on false claims and assumptions.

Responding to the regional crisis the White house appealed to the GCC (Gulf cooperation Council) to remain united. Any kind of misunderstanding will undermine the commitment of GCC to fight against terrorism as single body. The US position in this crisis is confusing. Since Qatar hosts the largest US military base in Middle East.

In this whole period of uncertainty and disappointment Turkey reached out for the rescue of Qatar. The Turkish government assured that the supply of food and basic items will fill the gaps caused by the ban by GCC members. Turkish parliament also approved a legislation allowing its troops to be deployed to a Turkish military base in Qatar to ensure safety of Qatar.

The tension escalated further when American president Donald Trump hinted that Qatar has been funding terror groups. But after the telephonic conversation with Qatari Emir and in White House press release, Trump emphasized the importance of all countries in the region working together to prevent the financing of terrorist organizations and stop the promotion of extremist ideology. Trump offered to help the parties to resolve their differences, including through a meeting at the White House if necessary. Meanwhile, the Kuwaiti Emir was traveling all the concerned parties to bring them to negotiation table in order to resolve their differences through dialogues.

In his statement Qatari Foreign Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, said “Qatar had never experienced this type of hostility, even from an enemy country.” He went further and said that the Qatar will never surrender the independence of its foreign policy. He also said the Emir of Qatar would not travel to Washington for GCC crisis talks suggested by US President Donald Trump because he did not want to leave his country while it is “in blockade.” United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres also offered mediation if “desired by all parties”.

In this difficult situation Qatar as gesture of brotherhood ensured that it will not block the supply of Gas to UAE. The Qatar Petroleum CEO in his statement said that any such move could harm the UAE economy. Qatar will not harm its Brotherly countries. Even Qatari Emir without any hesitation congratulated Mohammed bin Salman on his appointment as crown prince of Saudi Arabia in a time his country is facing the worst type of crisis created by Saudi and its allies.

Surprisingly, Saudi Arabia came out with its thirteen points demands to end the crisis. These demands included shutting down of Al Jazeera Media Network, closing Turkish military base, scaling down ties with Iran, severe all alleged ties with the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah and Hamas. Qatar was given ten days to respond to the demands. Qatar categorically rejected these demands and said that these demands are neither ‘reasonable nor actionable’.

More than four weeks has been passed, but any end to the suffering of Qatari people is not visible. World is divided among the supporters and opposition factions. But they no one is coming forward with a reasonable framework to end this crisis. The international organisations are helpless in this situation. The major powers themselves have not taken any position to help in solving the crisis.

Such a ganging up by the larger countries to punish or force a small and relatively weaker country to submit its sovereignty and independence over its foreign policy is a dangerous sign. If international community fails to provide an acceptable solution to all the parties for the problem, the question of small state sovereignty will be doubtful.

*MD. AFROJ is a research Scholar of International Relations at the Centre for West Asian Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi. Earlier, he was a South Asia Foundation Fellow at Pondicherry University. He can be reached at afrozkhanjnu@gmail.com

Trans-Pacific View author Mercy Kuo regularly engages subject-matter experts, policy practitioners, and strategic thinkers across the globe for their diverse insights into U.S. Asia policy. This conversation with Dr. Anis Bajrektarevic  –  chairperson and professor in international law and global political studies, Vienna, Austria and editor of the New York-based scientific journal Geopolitics, History, and International Relations – is the 98th in “The Trans-Pacific View Insight Series.”

Q1:   Compare and contract regional security architectures in Asia and Europe.

While all other major theaters have had pan-continental settings in place already for many decades, such as the Organization of American States – OAS (American continent); African Union – AU (Africa); Council of Europe and Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe – OSCE (Europe), Asia is rather different. What becomes apparent, at first glance, is the absence of any pan-Asian security/ multilateral structure. Prevailing security structures are bilateral and mostly asymmetric. They range from the clearly defined and enduring non-aggression security treaties, through less formal arrangements, up to the Ad hoc cooperation accords on specific issues.

The presence of the multilateral regional settings is limited to a very few spots in the largest continent, and even then, they are rarely mandated with security issues in their declared scope of work.

Another striking feature is that most of the existing bilateral structures have an Asian state on one side, and an either peripheral or external protégé country on the other side which makes them nearly, per definition, asymmetric. The examples are numerous: the US–Japan, US– S. Korea, US–Singapore, Russia–India, Australia–East Timor, Russia–North Korea, Japan –Malaysia, China–Pakistan, US–Pakistan, China–Cambodia, US–Saudi Arabia, Russia –Iran, China–Burma, India–Maldives, Iran–Syria, N. Korea–Pakistan, etc.

Q2:    With Brexit in the UK and the “America First” foreign policy of the US, please give us your take on the future of NATO.

The West is apparently in a serious decline. The UK has been sliding down for 100 years, absorbing it by a skilful set of planetary contrasts. The US has been melting ever since the end of WWII. In 1945, Americans had 54% of global manufacturing output, today it is hardly a 1/3 of it.

NATO is a relict of Cold War instrumentarium. Currently, confrontational nostalgia is what keeps it afloat. Atlantistic world is overcommitted and overstretched. London and Washington understand that NATO increasingly becomes part of a problem not a solution, for their own future. Europe goes along with it. Simply, the Old Continent is not a wealthy club anymore. It is a theater with a memory of its wealthy past. The EU has to learn how to deescalate and compromise. This is in its best interest, for the sake of its only viable future.

Q3:    Is an Asian version of NATO plausible?

Why does the world’s largest continent must consider creation of a comprehensive pan-Asian institution? Not a military pact a’la NATO (since NATO is only an instrument of American military presence in Europe) but a true multi-vector and multilateral instrument. Prevailing security structures in Asia are bilateral and mostly asymmetric, while Europe enjoys multilateral, balanced and symmetric setups (the American and African continents too).

In my forthcoming book No Asian century, I go as far as to claim that irrespective of the impressive economic growth, no Asian century will emerge without creation of such an institution. Asia today is a huge running water without clear river banks – a rising economic success, social volcano and political hazard.

Q4:    Identify three ongoing geopolitical risks that Asia and Europe share.

For most of the 19th and a good part of 20th century, a central question of Europe and Euro-Atlantic was how many ‘Germanys’ Europe can digest – one big, über-performing and omnipresent, or several Germanophone states in a dynamic equilibrium with itself and the rest. This and the so-called the grand accommodation – Germany with Russia or France with Russia – remains a central security dilemma for many decades to come.

On the other flank of the world, the entire Asian architecture was based on an assumption of a weak center; fragmented, backword and soft mainland China. What we are witnessing now is awaking of China – reminiscence of an imperial Germany in the heart of Europe.

Q5:    What common linkages underpin U.S. transatlantic and transpacific relations, and how should the U.S. administration capitalize on them?

Chinese grab for fossil fuels or its military competition for naval control is not a challenge but rather a boost for the US Asia-Pacific –even an overall posture. Calibrating the contraction of its overseas projection and commitments – managing the decline of an empire – the US does not fail to note that nowadays half of the world’s merchant tonnage passes though the South China Sea. Therefore, the US will exploit any regional territorial dispute and other frictions to its own security benefit, including the costs sharing of its military presence with the local partners, as to maintain its pivotal position on the maritime edge of Asia that arches from the Persian Gulf to the Indian Ocean, Malacca, the South and East China Sea up to the northwest–central Pacific.

A real challenge is always to optimize the (moral, political and financial) costs in meeting national strategic objectives. In this case, it would be a resolute Beijing’s turn towards green technology, coupled with the firm buildup of Asian multilateralism. Without a grand rapprochement to the champions of multilateralism in Asia, which are Indonesia, India and Japan, there is no environment for China to seriously evolve and emerge as a formidable, lasting and trusted global leader.
Consequently, what China needs in Asia is not a naval race of 1908, but the Helsinki process of 1975. In return, what Asia needs from China and Japan is the ‘ASEAN-ization’, not the ‘Pakistanization’ of its continent.

First published by: http://thediplomat.com/2017/06/regional-security-architectures-comparing-asia-and-europe/

The Gulf crisis that pits Saudi Arabia and the UAE against Qatar is set to escalate with Doha certain to ignore Monday’s deadline that it complies with demands that would undermine Qatari sovereignty and humiliate Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani at a time that he is riding high on a wave of Qatari nationalism sparked by the Gulf crisis.

Four weeks into the crisis, the demands appear to have been crafted for what is becoming a longer battle that the two Gulf states hope will end with Qatar, with or without Sheikh Tamim, adopting policies crafted in Riyadh and Abu Dhabi. Saudi Arabia and the UAE have declared the demands to be non-negotiable, offered Qatar no face-saving way out of the crisis, and appear to have designed them to be deliberately insulting.

The Saudi-UAE-led coalition against Qatar is likely to further tighten the boycott of Qatar once the Monday deadline passes. However, UAE State Minister for Foreign Affairs Anwar Gargash’s prediction of a parting of ways, which ultimately could include Qatar leaving the six- nation Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) that groups the Gulf’s monarchies, would neither reduce tensions or end the crisis. Neither would an effort to suspend Qatar’s membership of the Arab League.

Saudi and UAE perceptions of Qatari policies as a threat to the survival of their regimes would not be allayed by a divorce that would allow Qatar to continue to chart its own course. It is those perceptions that drove the two countries to launch their zero-sum game. Moreover, a Qatar capable of defying its more powerful neighbours would put on public display limits to Saudi and UAE power.

The lesson of the past weeks is that Qatar can survive the boycott as long as countries like Turkey and Iran help it meet its food and water requirements, retains access to international shipping lanes, maintains its oil and gas exports; and has uninterrupted, normal dealings with the international financial system.

Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar have so far exempted oil and gas from their fight. Qatar continues to pump natural gas to the UAE through a partially Emirati-owned pipeline. Dubai is dependent on Qatar for 40 percent of its gas.

Similarly, Saudi Arabia has been careful not to disrupt the tanker market and complicate Qatar’s energy exports by blocking shared vessel loadings. Such a move would create logistical challenges not only for Qatar but also for the kingdom’s own clients who would be forced to reorganize dozens of cargoes. It could also reduce the number of available vessels and drive up shipping costs.

Qatar hopes that its ability to defy the boycott will force Saudi Arabia and the UAE to tighten the boycott in ways that could backfire. Potentially, that could happen if Saudi Arabia and the UAE act on a threat to take a you-are-with-us-or-against-us approach towards their trading and commercial partners. That would put to the test, Saudi Arabia and the UAE’s ability to impose their will on others.

So far, it’s not been easy going for Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Qatar refuses to bend, most Muslim countries are unwilling to follow the Saudi-UAE lead, and many in the international community are irritated by the two countries’ approach that threatens to complicate the fight against the Islamic State, risks volatility in energy markets, and increases instability in what is already the world’s most unstable region.

Despite denials, Saudi Arabia and the UAE’s take-it-or-leave-it approach appears to include the option of fostering an environment conducive to regime change if Qatar proves capable of circumventing the boycott for an extended period of time.

State-controlled media in the kingdom and the Emirates contributed to efforts to undermine Sheikh Tamim’s position with for the Gulf almost unprecedented attacks on Qatar’s ruling Al Thani clan and interviews with little known dissident family members as well as former military officers opposed to the emir’s policies.

The Saudi and UAE strategy risks painting the two countries into a corner with Qatari support for Sheikh Tamim complicating suggestions voiced by a prominent Saudi journalist with close ties to the government and a Washington-based Saudi lobbyist that the brutal 2013 Egyptian coup that brought general-turned-president Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi to power could be repeated in Qatar in some form or fashion.

Saudi and UAE tactics as well as some of the demands that include halting support for militants and Islamists, closing a Turkish military base in the Gulf state, reducing relations with Iran, and shuttering Qatar-sponsored media, including the controversial Al Jazeera television network, could however prove to be a double-edged sword.

In a move that likely contributed to turning Qatari public opinion against them, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, citing unsubstantiated allegations that the Gulf state supported Houthi rebels, expelled their nemesis from the Saudi-led military coalition fighting the insurgents in Yemen a day after six Qatari soldiers were wounded defending the kingdom’s southern flank.

The two Gulf states implicitly included Houthi rebels in Yemen in their demand that Qatar break off its relations with militants and Islamists. While there is little doubt that Qatar at times went too far in nurturing those relationships, it is equally clear that some of them enjoyed tacit Western and Saudi backing.

In the case of the Houthis, Qatar likely maintained clandestine contacts while joining the Saudi-led fight against them given Qatar’s repeated efforts over a period of more than a decade to mediate between the rebels, the Saudi-backed Yemeni government and the kingdom. Qatar negotiated since 2004 various ceasefires in intermittent wars between the government and the Houthis only to see them thwarted with the support of Saudi Arabia.

Former US diplomats in cables to the State Department while serving in Yemen and more recently in interviews suggested that Saudi Arabia’s obsession with the Houthis predates the rebels closer relationship with Iran since the invasion began in 2015. If anything, Saudi obsession drove them further into the hands of the Iranians.

Moreover, closer analysis of the Saudi and UAE demands creates the impression that certainly in the case of the kingdom the pot at times is blaming the kettle. Abd al-Wahhab Muhammad Abd al-Rahman Al-Humayqani, the only Yemeni on the Saudi-UAE list of alleged terrorists associated with the two Gulf states’ demands, is a US Treasury designated terrorist linked to Al Qaeda who, reportedly lives at least part-time in the Saudi capital.

The Treasury designation in 2013 did not prevent the Saudis from including Mr. Al-Humayqani in the delegation of the Saudi-backed government to failed peace talks in 2015 or from serving as an advisor to Yemeni President Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi, who is resident in the kingdom.

All of this makes hopes for a negotiated solution of the Gulf crisis all but an illusion. Maintaining the status quo is not an option for Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Escalation of the crisis is risky not only for the Gulf states themselves but also for the international community. Yet, pulling the protagonists back from the brink without loss of face is a non-starter as long as both sides of the divide target absolute victory at whatever cost.

By Sharri K Hall*

Despite their shared heritage, Haiti and the Dominican Republic have existed in a quasi cold war for centuries largely due to the rampant systemic racism that plagues the Dominican government and is cultivated by many Dominican citizens. Antihaitianismo is the present manifestation of racial prejudice, selective interpretation of history, and nationalistic Dominican false consciousness.[i] This antihaitianismo was bred and cultivated in the historic colonialism in both Haiti and the Dominican Republic.

The Historical Conflict on Hispaniola

There has been division between the two countries for many years. Originally, the Spanish took possession of the entire island, but only controlled the eastern side. The French progressively settled the western side. In 1797, Spain ceded the entire island to France. In 1791, Toussant Louverture initiated a slave revolution and conquered Santo Domingo in 1801, uniting Hispaniola. In 1808, Dominicans rebelled and rejoined Spain. returned the eastern side of the island to Spanish control. In 1822, however, Haiti reclaimed the entire island as the Republic of Haiti, initiating an occupation that led to Dominican hatred of Haitians that lasts until this day. In 1844, the Dominican Republic received independence from Haiti.[ii] Eventually, a “white is prime” ideal flourished during the United States’ occupation of Hispaniola beginning in 1915 in Haiti, then 1916 in the Dominican Republic. Some scholars believe that the United States helped the white elite to consolidate power by bringing institutionalized racism, amidst the United States’ own Jim Crow years, to the island and by importing Haitian labor to the Dominican Republic’s sugar cane fields.[iii]

The conflict rose to its height in 1937 during what is now called the Parsley Massacre, when Dominican Dictator Rafael Trujillo aimed to “whiten” the Dominican Republic by driving out the darker skinned Haitians. Trujillo, who was known to lighten his own skin with makeup, ordered the deaths of Haitians living in border cities. These Haitians were identified by their ability to pronounce the word perejil, Spanish for “parsley” – most Haitians could not pronounce the “r” sound as the French “r” was distinctly different.[iv] This massacre killed anywhere between 9,000 and 30,000 people.[v]

This massacre became known as el corte or “the cutting.” Any persons suspected of being Haitian or of Haitian descent were at risk. They were often rounded up to be beaten and killed. Even dark-skinned Dominicans were at risk. The United States under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who had been a supporter of the Trujillo regime, called the massacre a “systematic campaign of extermination,” and required the Dominican government to pay reparations. However, there is no evidence to suggest those payments ever occurred.[vi] The massacre was so tragic and central to the history of both nations that it was portrayed in Edwidge Danticat’s historical novel, The Farming of Bones, and Rita Dove’s poem, Parsley.

Dominican Immigration Policies

In 2010, the Dominican constitution was rewritten to strip citizenship from Dominican-born children of undocumented Haitian immigrants.[vii] In 2013, a lawsuit was mounted against the government to validate the citizenship of Dominicans born to undocumented Haitian parents, at least before 2010. The provision would allow those who had already been granted citizenship to retain it, but not to grant citizenship moving forward. Instead, in a move filled with significant political animosity, the Dominican Supreme Court ruled that anyone born to undocumented immigrants after 1929 was no longer a citizen.[viii] This already marginalized class could no longer legally own property or work.[ix] Due to criticism from neighboring Caribbean countries, in 2014, the Dominican government tried to include a “fix” for Dominicans of Haitian descent to reclaim their citizenship and those rights that come with it.[x]

The process of reclamation was quite arduous. It required that affected individuals prove their birth in the Dominican Republic. This could be done quite easily if their births were registered in the civil registry. If their births were recorded, they could obtain a cédula, a document that details each person’s ethnicity, race, and immigration status and allows them to receive a Dominican passport if legally qualified through citizenship. However, most Dominicans of Haitian descent did not have their births registered in a civil registry due to births outside of hospitals, language barriers, or fear of deportation.[xi] The means to reclamation were unclear and quite difficult; almost every source has different requirements listed. Dominicans that could not prove their births instead had to collect multiple[xii] identification documents, notarized testimonies from Dominican citizens attesting to their birthplace, and a two-year wait to apply for citizenship.[xiii] The fix divided Haitian immigrants into “documented” and “undocumented” categories, calling the undocumented ones “foreigners.”[xiv]

Numerous organizations and activists claimed that the law only existed to identify and reveal undocumented immigrants and justify persecution and deportation. Many previously documented Dominicans who were adversely affected by the law did not have their citizenship restored, as most could not financially afford the process or have the time to dedicate to registration.[xv] Furthermore, immigrants that were actually undocumented and wanted to become legal immigrants (that is, not claim citizenship but merely become documented) had to prove their identity, the length of time they had been in the country, their ties to Dominican society, their work, and their socio-economic condition.[xvi] To prove their identity, they had to attain a passport or birth certificate from Haiti, which involved both monetary and time costs. It was possible to attain legal status without identification but it required seven sworn statements from Dominican citizens testifying to the immigrant’s life in the country. If immigrants managed to compile these necessary documents, they then had to face long lines that extended from dawn until dusk.

It is not unfair for a nation to want to know who resides within its boundaries. Dominican Republic officials asserted that they wanted to help solve the problem of statelessness on Hispaniola by giving all persons a “legal identity” through documentation.[xvii] Being undocumented leaves individuals vulnerable: they do not qualify for state benefits (like healthcare or education), they can be deported, and in times of unrest, they have no protections under the law. However, the Dominican government made it exceptionally difficult for undocumented Haitians to become documented, which is surprising considering that the Dominican Republic benefits from Haitian migrants who form a steady source of low cost construction, agriculture, and domestic labor.[xviii] As such, it appears as though this entire proceeding was based on deep-seated racial stigmas of fairer-skinned Dominicans about dark-skinned Haitians rooted in the historical cultural conflict between the two nations resulting in a rampant antihaitianismo culture.

The remnants of these policies have left at least 210,000 people stateless, though the Dominican government claims only 13,000 belonging to no country.[xix][xx] Since 2015, many Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian descent are “voluntarily deporting” themselves out of fear that they will be forcefully removed; more than 70,000 have fled across the border. Because of the lasting effects of the 2010 earthquake, Haiti faces a housing crisis and is unequipped for a mass influx of people from across the border. As such, tent cities are growing on the Haitian border where deportees face malnutrition, poor sanitation, and a lack of clean water; frequent outbreaks of diseases have already claimed hundreds of lives. Though these policies are clearly detrimental for Haitians, because of rampant anti-Haitian racism, the Dominican Republic has not increased efforts to help Haitian immigrants or Dominicans of Haitian descent.

Antihaitianismo Rhetoric in the Present Day

Despite efforts from international organizations like Amnesty International to stem the hate seeping from the Dominican Republic, cultural xenophobia has only blossomed. This ingrained racism is learned at a young age and reinforced as citizens grow into adults. Analysis of textbooks from the early 20th century reveal that what Dominican children learn about their national history is blatant, discriminatory lies about Haitians and the Republic of Haiti.[xxi] Dominican history textbooks portray Haitians as the “eternal enemies of the Dominican people.”[xxii] Haitians are portrayed as savage, beast-like creatures who exist only to destroy the Hispanic traditions in the Dominican Republic.[xxiii] Images of Haitians are typically portrayed with crude, ape-like features, perpetuating rhetoric that Haitians are animals, not humans with inherent dignity.[xxiv] Students are, quite literally, educated to hate.

Though those textbooks were written in the 20th century, antihaitianismo is still extremely present in the Dominican elite. Rhetoric from the government and from Dominican citizens suggests antihaitianismo ideals are still widely believed and practiced. It is present in modern political discourse (as evidenced by the unreasonable immigration policies in place today). It is present in the nation’s elite’s literature; Joaquín Balaguer’s La Isla Revés became a national bestseller though it detailed the “historical misfortune of [having to live] next to Haiti.”[xxv] Balaguer, who was president of the Dominican Republic six times and as such had significant cultural influence, perpetuated the idea of white Dominicans, beguiling that there is no black heritage or ancestry in the Dominican race.[xxvi] Manuel Núñez’s El Ocaso de la Nación Dominicana details that decisive steps must be taken against Dominican revisionists who hope to reveal the truth about Dominican history in order to retain the cultural identity of the Dominican Republic in the face of Haitian aggression.[xxvii] He calls the revisionists “anti-Dominican” and thus, pro-Haitian.

This hate is evidenced broadly by the government as well. The government blames the documentation problem and its inability to help more people from the immigrant population. Dominican law prohibits undocumented children from continuing in school past grade eight.[xxviii] They require Dominicans of Haitian descent to constantly carry a cédula. Though some might compare these to the United States’ permanent resident “green” cards, they more closely resemble South African apartheid “passes.” Requiring testimony from Dominican citizens to receive documentation is prejudicial. It states that valid testimony can only come from Dominicans – that Haitians cannot be trusted to give truthful testimony. Furthermore, it makes it almost impossible for Haitian immigrants to become documented because there are few Dominicans willing to testify for Haitians, both out of their own xenophobic prejudice and out of fear of persecution for supporting Haitians. Though the government promised there would be no mass deportations as a result of the immigration laws, by the end of 2015 there had been at least 10,000 deportations with more to follow.[xxix]

Most frighteningly, Dominicans of Haitian descent who voluntarily deported themselves after the controversial immigration laws claimed that they were more afraid of aggression from Dominican citizens than from the Dominican government. In the Dominican Republic, hate isn’t restricted to the government or the elites; hate is spewed on the radio, at domino tables, and on the streets. Narratives such as “Haitians eat dirt,” “Haitians are unsanitary,” “Haitians are ungrateful traitors,” are common amongst radio show hosts and civilians alike.[xxx] In response to a Haitian boycott of Dominican products, Dominicans asked what the Haitians would eat “since they produce nothing,” and that the Dominican Republic is the only nation that supports Haiti, although until very recently, the United States has overwhelmingly supported Haiti.[xxxi] Newspapers in Santo Domingo, the capital of the Dominican Republic, print messages of the “invasion of a dark army whose greatest weapon [is their] high birth rate…” and the need to “defend the fatherland against uneducated savages.”[xxxii] Kreyol (Haitian) stations close to the border warned of ethnic violence against Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian descent by gangs, which some deportees have taken to calling tigueres, thugs or tigers, and who were credited with having burned down homes, stabbed and victimized, and even on occasion killed Haitians. Threats to burn down Haitian homes come from employers, coworkers, and even neighbors. Haitians now living in the tent cities on the Haitian border tell stories of being chased from hills to live in poverty, but even then they would rather live without regular food than with the dangers that lurk across the border.[xxxiii]

Conclusion

The antihaitianismo rhetoric that exists in Dominican culture will not end on its own. There needs to be more involvement from human rights organizations, both national and worldwide, before this systematic xenophobia leads to another mass genocide on Hispaniola. We Are All Dominicans (WAAD), a United States based human rights organization, fights to raise awareness about persecution in the Dominican Republic and build a Dominican identity that is not based on antihaitianismo. However, even in United States, they receive much criticism for being anti-Dominican.[xxxiv] In July 2015, Haitians in Port-au-Prince, Haiti and Little Haiti, Miami marched in protest of the Dominican government for the Dominicans of Haitian descent that faced deportation.[xxxv] [xxxvi] In 2015, the Coalition for Human Rights in the Dominican Republic led several protests of the laws in New York City.[xxxvii] There has not been enough investigation into this topic. The Dominican Republic needs to be called out globally for its treatment of Haitian immigrants.

Ignoring this systemic racism in the Dominican Republic makes a statement that xenophobic rhetoric can remain unchallenged, potentially encouraging other nations’ xenophobic groups through the message that racial victimization is not a serious issue. We cannot continue to believe that racial stigma is a thing of the past. It is very real and very present in the Dominican Republic and worldwide.

*Sharri K Hall, Research Associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

Additional editorial support provided by James Baer and Luis Duno-Gottberg, Senior Research Fellows, Lilianna Muscarella, Extramural Contributor, and Liam Timmons, Laura Schroeder, Martina Guglielmone, and Alexia Rauen, Research Associates at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

[i] Ernesto Sagás, “A Case of Mistaken Identity: Antihaitianismo in Dominican Culture,” http://faculty.webster.edu/corbetre/haiti/misctopic/dominican/antihaiti.htm.

[ii] Carrie Gibson, “The Dominican Republic and Haiti: one island riven by an unresolved past,” theguardian, October 7, 2013.

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] Gibson, “The Dominican Republic and Haiti.”

[v] Nick Davis, “The massacre that marked Haiti – Dominican Republic ties,” BBC, October 13, 2012.

[vi] Ibid.

[vii] Mariano Castillo, “Faces of a divided island,” CNN, April 13, 2016.

[viii] Ibid.

[ix] Mario Ariza, “La Apatrida: Dominicans of Haitian Descent are Deported and Forgotten,” The Miami New Times, February 21, 2017.

[x] Angela Cave, “Parading for Equality: Haitian-Dominican Activists Make a Statement at the Dominican Day Parade,” American Jewish World Service,” August 17, 2016.

[xi] Castillo, “Faces of a divided island.”

[xii] I could not ascertain exactly how many in my research, as no other thinktanks had it listed, and the official government publications on the law were difficult to understand.

[xiii] Castillo, “Faces of a divided island.”

[xiv] Cave, “Parading for Equality.”

[xv] Ibid.

[xvi] Castillo, “Faces of a divided island.”

[xvii] José Tomás Pérez, “We are not trying to undo the past,” The Miami Herald, July 13, 2015.

[xviii] Peter Granitz, “Haiti border crisis grows as Dominican Republic expels ‘migrants’,” Reuters, September 19, 2015.

[xix] Castillo, “Faces of a divided island.”

[xx] AQ Online, “Dominican Republic and Haiti Resume Immigration Talks,” Americas Quarterly, July 11, 2014.

[xxi] Sagás, “A Case of Mistaken Identity.”

[xxii] Ibid.

[xxiii] Ibid.

[xxiv] Ibid.

[xxv] Ibid.

[xxvi] Ibid.

[xxvii] Ibid.

[xxviii] Lindsay Fendt, “’I came here with nothing’: life in imbo for unwilling migrants on Haiti’s border,” theguardian, May 12, 2016.

[xxix] Azam Ahmed, “Forced to Flee Dominican Republic for Haiti, Migrants Land in Limbo,” The New York Times, December 12, 2015.

[xxx] Castillo, “Faces of a divided island.”

[xxxi] Ibid.

[xxxii] Ariza, “La Apatrida.”

[xxxiii] Ibid.

[xxxiv] Cave, “Parading for Equality.”

[xxxv] “Haitians protest over Dominican Republic deportations,” Aljazeera, July 22, 2015.

[xxxvi] Nadage Green, “South Florida Haitians Protest Deportations in Dominican Republic,” npr, July 27, 2015.

[xxxvii] “City Hall protests against DR laws and deportations,” Daily News New York, August 9, 2015.

Food security can be enhanced by strategic initiatives. Land scarce countries can still do much for agriculture and farming with effective policy measures. Singapore has learned to address the multi-faceted challenges of food security with good planning, efficient utilisation of available resources and clear vision for the future.

By Ong Keng Yong*

While many analysts have raised concern about feeding the world’s estimated 9.7 billion population by 2050 due to the prospects of supply not meeting demand, others have refuted this claim on grounds that even today, more food is produced than is actually consumed or needed. Yet the problem of hunger is still found in many parts of Asia and Africa. The persistence of hunger reflects the fact that food security is not only about having sufficient quantity of food available, but also about having physical and economic access to it.

In dealing with food security, the Singapore story is germane. Singapore does not grow nor produce most of its own food because of its limited land area. It has to import 90% of the country’s total consumption from abroad. Despite these limitations, food supplies are well managed. For a land scarce country, Singapore is regarded as the most food secure country in Asia according to the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Global Food Security Index (2016), and is also ranked 3rd globally. Singapore, in fact, has been able to work around its constraints and has shown impressive results in meeting its food and agricultural needs. For example, Singapore has increased self-sufficiency in leafy vegetables from 7% in 2010 to 12% today and it has been leading in technology and innovation in food production. How is this achieved? Three things stand out that merit attention.

Major Hub for Global Agricultural Trade

A key feature in Singapore’s economic development policies is its multi-pronged yet integrated and coherent approach to stay relevant and be plugged into the global economy. There is a constant reference to change and future. The focus is on how to maximise utilisation of available resources and innovate public policy where necessary. Public education is purposefully carried out to get citizen’s support as well as to launch entrepreneurial activities. Since its independence, Singapore has worked hard to become a major hub for regional trade and commerce. It has built and developed excellent infrastructure including roads and ports to continuously draw investments into the city-state. Singapore strategically devises policy measures and incentive packages to maintain its economic competitiveness and role as the key centre for business, finance and transportation in Asia.

The traditional entrepot functions of Singapore brought many Southeast Asian companies and international business to the island republic. Over the years,while Singapore does not have an agriculture sector, it captures 20% of global agricommodities trade. With its well-established networks of consumers and producers of agricultural products, Singapore now serves as a significant node for agricultural trade in the region and the global chain.

With no signs of letting up, Singapore further plans to strengthen its role as a key trading centre for agricultural goods and food. The initiative revolves around a wellmelded eco-system where every aspect of servicing this trade is efficiently developed.

Leveraging on Technology

Today, the landscape of food consumption, production and trade has changed significantly. With the rise of per capita income in developing countries, consumers are more exacting in food quality and safety. Imports of meat and cereals have grown due to increasing demand. On the other hand, climate change, rural-to-urban migration and population expansion threaten to reduce the yields in agricultural production, affecting supply. Given the risk that less food could be produced, the future of smallholder farms is under threat. Therefore, food security policies need to be reviewed regularly.

Against these trends, there is now more push to modernise agriculture. In Singapore, policy attention and multi-sectoral collaboration are given to develop science, technology and innovation. Singapore has recorded a number of achievements. Home-grown companies like Apollo Aquaculture, through its innovation of farming fish in stacked indoor tanks and treated water, is able to increase yields and reduce fish deaths amid warming climate affecting open sea.

Similarly, companies like Panasonic and Temasek Life Sciences Laboratory are using technologies such as vertical farming and optimisation of indoor temperature and humidity to not only increase yields dramatically, but also open up possibilities of growing fruits and vegetables not indigenous to Singapore.

Singapore is ever conscious of the need to further technological advancements to expand avenues of food and agricultural trade. Singapore has invested heavily in food science and technology. One example is Nanyang Technological University’s Food Science and Technology Programme and Food Technology Centre whose mission, among others, is to explore alternative ways of food treatment and hazard assessment. Strategically, Singapore is planting the seeds to become a knowledge hub for developing new and sustainable ways of producing food and contributing to the growing of agriculture.

Harnessing Talent

While agriculture has traditionally been ranked lower compared to the other sectors of the economy, apart from the technical and scientific research related to it, the advent of new farming technologies and further growth in agri-commodities trade have paved the way towards creating more professional-level jobs.

With growing presence in Singapore of top agri-commodity trading companies, such as Olam International and Cargill, as well as corporate giants such as Monsanto and Syngenta, there is potential for more jobs in transportation and logistics management, finance, microbiology, and data/statistical analysis, among others.

While Singapore has attracted foreign talent as part of its policy to drive economic growth, the imperative now lies in harnessing more local talent to meet the job requirements in the agri-food sector. Apart from offering more courses related to these in the higher institutes of learning, the younger generation has to be encouraged to pursue careers in the relevant fields.

With more activities to profile and grow Singapore’s eco-system for agricultural and food trade, there can be greater interest in agri-food occupations among Singaporeans who are also likely to venture abroad for opportunities in farming and food enterprises.

In sum, Singapore’s food security strategy stresses the importance of trade, technology and talent through policies such as food source diversification, optimal local food production and building multi-sectoral networks. Policy planners look at the country’s strong trade and diplomatic links as well as overall national development to ensure Singaporeans enjoy a regular and resilient supply of food.

It is therefore appropriate that Singapore is the setting for the 2017 World Agricultural Forum (WAF) Conference, a biennial gathering of corporate chiefs, policymakers and experts in the field of agriculture and food production. The S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS) is co-hosting this event on 6-7 July 2017. Alongside WAF 2017 will be a Youth Engagement Event, co-organised with Singapore’s Kranji Countryside Association wherein some of the experts at the Conference will be sharing insights with students in Singapore.

*Ong Keng Yong is Executive Deputy Chairman of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. This is part of a series on the World Agricultural Forum 2017.

By Tarun Basu*

If hugs and handshakes are markers to personal and bilateral relationships, then the first get-to-know meeting between Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and US President Donald Trump seems to have been singularly successful. The optics – as seen on TV – showed Trump proffering his hand of friendship to Modi – he called him a “true friend” more than once in the course of the day – after their meeting in the Oval Office, and then shaking his hand and hugging him at the end of their media appearance at the Rose Garden. This was followed by more hugs and handshakes while seeing Modi off at the end of a four-hour interaction and working dinner, the first Trump has at the White House for a visiting leader since become President on January 20.

What is the takeaway for India – and the region – for this maiden Indo-US summit meeting in the Trump era? One, Trump wants to largely continue the “strategic partnership” and “Major Defense Partner” relationship with India that was begun by his Republican predecessor George W Bush and continued by Barack Obama; two, with sharp business instincts, with economy and jobs his primary motivation, Trump thinks he can do business with India, buoyed as he may have been especially with USD 2 bn order for drones and what he called the ” (An) Indian airlines recent order of 100 new American planes, one of the largest orders of its kind, which will support thousands and thousands of American jobs” and the purchase of Westinghouse nuclear reactors. He wants India to import American natural gas and did not forget to add, like a true businessman, that the prices were being negotiated – ”trying to get the price up a little bit”!

And, if India is ready to do business with US – something which China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar etc hv learnt to their advantage – then the Trump administration is ready to accomodate Indian concerns and aspirations more than half way. India made a smart move – China had also made a similar move earlier – by inviting Trump’s eldest daughter Ivanka to lead the US delegation to the Global Entrepreneurship Summit in India later this year.

Trump has called the security partnership between the United States and India as “incredibly important” and said both nations will work together to destroy terrorist organizations and the radical ideology that drives them.

“We will destroy radical Islamic terrorism,” Trump said forcefully, an affirmation that may not have been exactly music to Pakistani ears. “Our militaries are working every day to enhance cooperation between our military forces. And next month, they will join together with the Japanese navy to take place in the largest maritime exercise ever conducted in the vast Indian Ocean.”

China had already sounded a veiled note of warning over the activity of “non-regional forces” and frowns upon the joint military activity of the kind that the US, Japan and India are going to do. China also does not like the formulation Indo-Pacific – as opposed to neutral Asia-Pacific – and would not be happy with the joint statement that talks about the “importance of respecting freedom of navigation, overflight, and commerce throughout the region” while calling upon “all nations to resolve territorial and maritime disputes peacefully and in accordance with international law.”

Trump concluded by saying that “I truly believe our two countries can set an example for many other nations, make great strides in defeating common threats, and make great progress in unleashing amazing prosperity and growth.” This was seen as not just standard officialese but, embellished with such Trumpesque epithets like ‘amazing’, carrying the imprimatur of the President himself.

From a visit that had begun with “low expectations”, given the unpredictability factor of the current President, the Indians have more than one reason to smile. They prepared well, read astutely the signals from the White House. especially issues and emotions that move and motivate Trump, and set the right frame for the meeting by making big-ticket business moves with the US that Trump could brag as job generating. The US responded in equal measure by making the pre-summit announcement of naming Syed Salahuddin, chief of Kashmiri militant group Hizbul Mujahideen, as a “global terrorist” and putting counter-terrorism cooperation, including in Kashmir, at the nub of their bilateral relationship. This could not be good news to either separatist elements in Kashmir or Pakistan.

Pakistan, especially, has been singled out for admonition with the joint statement calling on Pakistan “to ensure that its territory is not used to launch terrorist attacks on other countries” and also to “expeditiously bring to justice the perpetrators” of terror attacks on Mumbai, Pathankot and others, putting the onus on cessation of terrorism squarely on the shoulders of Pakistan.

*Tarun Basu is President, Society for Policy Studies. He can be contacted at tarun.basu@spsindia.in