Iraqi commanders said Saturday their forces are “tens of meters” away from defeating Daesh in Mosul, a day after a major counterattack by the militants.

The Joint Operations Command said: “Our units are still continuing to advance… Not much is left before our forces reach the Tigris River.”

It issued a statement saying that 35 Daesh members were killed and six captured when they tried to escape “the advance of our forces” in Mosul’s Old City.

Daesh members, who have vowed to “fight to the death,” hold less than 1 square kilometer of territory, but are using civilians as human shields, making it nearly impossible for US-led warplanes to flush them out.

A group of terrorists tried to escape across the river from west Mosul where they hold a dwindling pocket of territory, but were killed by Iraqi forces, a senior commander said.

“Some of them tried to cross to… the far bank (of the river), but we have forces there,” said Staff Lt. Gen. Abdulghani Al-Assadi, a senior commander in Iraq’s elite Counter-Terrorism Service (CTS).

The terrorists wanted to go back, but security forces “fired on them and killed them,” he said, without specifying how many died.

“We are seeing now the last meters and then final victory will be announced,” a presenter said, citing correspondents embedded with security forces. “It’s a matter of hours,” she added.

A US general said Iraqi authorities will imminently announce a final victory. “An announcement is imminent,” Baghdad-based Brig. Gen. Robert Sofge said. “I don’t want to speculate if it’s today (Saturday) or tomorrow , but I think it’s going to be very soon,” he added.

Dozens of Iraqi soldiers celebrated amid the rubble on the banks of the Tigris without waiting for a formal victory declaration, some dancing to music blaring out from a truck and firing machine guns into the air.

Baghdad operations commander Maj. Gen. Jalil Al-Rubaie said in a statement that action will be taken against those who fired shots in the air during celebrations. Al-Rubaie said that shooters will be brought to justice.

The mood was less festive, however, among some of the nearly 1 million Mosul residents, many of whom are living in camps outside the city with little respite from the blazing summer heat.

“If there is no rebuilding and people don’t return to their homes and regain their belongings, what is the meaning of liberation?” Mohammed Haji Ahmed, 43, a clothing trader, said in the Hassan Sham camp to the east of Mosul.

Meanwhile, Iraq’s regional Kurdish leader said this week that the government in Baghdad had failed to prepare a post-battle political, security and governance plan.

The two-day annual meeting of the G20—the leaders of the world’s 19 wealthiest nations plus the European Union — has wrapped up in Hamburg, Germany with a closing speech from its host. The G-20 comprises Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, Germany, France, Britain, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Canada, South Korea, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, the U.S. and the European Union.

Also attending were the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Guinea, Senegal, Singapore and Vietnam.

G20 accounts for just over 58% of global GDP, though that’s down from a peak of 60.9% before the 2008 financial crisis. The G20 members contribute 85% of global GDP. In the nearly 20 years since the group was formed, the US has remained the leader, but China has moved up the ranks, from the sixth largest economy in 2000 to the third today, behind only the US and EU.

These nations’ consumers buy the bulk of goods produced by the world’s largest companies, because they make up two-thirds of the global population and have the most spending power per capita.

Despite several years of middle-class wage stagnation, the US still leads the world in per capita GDP, both in absolute terms and based on purchasing power parity (a measure of how much consumers can buy based on the cost of goods where they live).

Readers may remember that G20 was an extension of the G7 and was formed after the Asian financial crisis of the late 1990s when it became obvious that “global financial issues could no longer be managed” in traditional ways. Or, that’s how former US Treasury secretary Larry Summers and his research assistant, Matthew Schoenfeld, explained in a 2012 article. “It is said one should visit one’s doctor before one has a serious medical problem,” they wrote. “It is in this way that the first decade of meetings of the G20 finance ministers and central bank governors will be remembered.”

Germany presided the G20 Summit this year, and put on the agenda topics like the climate change, free trade, and helping migrants and refugees that are important for all but not so for the US president, Donald Trump. The latter has already rowed with Europe once over climate change and refugees at the G7 summit in Italy. He has also visited Poland – Europe’s rogue guy that is also the region’s greatest carbon emitter – ahead of the G20 Summit, perhaps symbolizing once again his uneasy relationship with the EU.

Early in the week, German chancellor Angela Merkel criticized the Trump administration’s protectionism, saying “globalization is seen by the American administration more as a process that is not about a win-win situation but about winners and losers.” There are few options but to make a success of globalization, Merkel warned earlier in a report laying out the meeting’s priorities. “There can be no return to a pre-globalization world.”

On climate change, Merkel has prepared the ground carefully, hosting in Berlin the two allies she needed – the Indian prime minister, Narendra Modi, and the Chinese premier, Li Keqiang. China remains the single largest emitter of carbon, and India, the third. Both countries have said they will not pull out of the Paris treaty, and will beat their commitments.

Merkel is also concerned about Africa and genuinely fears that long term demographic trends mean 100 million Africans could come to Europe driven by climate change, poverty for which Europe is totally unprepared. Combating poverty upstream in Africa to curb the flow of mass migrants to Europe downstream is her guiding idea. Her specific initiative is to team up African nations which have committed to economic reforms with private investors who would then bring jobs and businesses.

Saturday’s agenda featured discussions on partnerships between the G-20 and Africa, on migration and health. There was also a discussion on digitalization, empowering women and unemployment.

As hinted above, a key focus of this year’s summit has been how the member states position themselves on global trade and climate change. The host, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, said after the first day of meetings that discussions on trade were very difficult and that differences on climate change were clear.

According to the latest reports in the news media, despite some objections from the USA, G20 has agreed on the fundamentals and that the just-released joint communique is a ‘G20 communique, not a G19 communique’. However, the tone of the communique shows clearly that the USA remained an outlier on the climate issue.

On climate issue, it states, “We take note of the decision of the United States of America to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. The United States of America announced it will immediately cease the implementation of its current nationally-determined contribution and affirms its strong commitment to an approach that lowers emissions while supporting economic growth and improving energy security needs. The United States of America states it will endeavour to work closely with other countries to help them access and use fossil fuels more cleanly and efficiently and help deploy renewable and other clean energy sources, given the importance of energy access and security in their nationally determined contributions.

The Leaders of the other G20 members state that the Paris Agreement is irreversible. We reiterate the importance of fulfilling the UNFCCC commitment by developed countries in providing means of implementation including financial resources to assist developing countries with respect to both mitigation and adaptation actions in line with Paris outcomes and note the OECD’s report “Investing in Climate, Investing in Growth”. We reaffirm our strong commitment to the Paris Agreement, moving swiftly towards its full implementation in accordance with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in the light of different national circumstances and, to this end, we agree to the G20 Hamburg Climate and Energy Action Plan for Growth as set out in the Annex.”

As can be seen the US did successfully manage to insert text referencing fossil fuels. It will be the only country in the world not signed up to the landmark 2015 Paris Accord other than Nicaragua, which complained that it wasn’t strong enough, and Syria, currently mired in a bloody civil war. Trump’s administration has sought to unravel domestic climate policies by dismantling the clean power plan, which would slash emissions from coal-fired power plants, halting new emissions standards for cars and trucks and opening up new areas of public lands and oceans to mining and drilling.

On women empowerment, the communique reads, “Enhanced equal access to the labour market, property, quality employment and financial services for women and men are fundamental for achieving gender equality and full realisation of their rights as well as a prerequisite for sustainable and inclusive growth. We are making progress in achieving our 2014 Brisbane commitment to reduce the gender gap in labour force participation by 25 percent by 2025 but agree that more needs to be done. We also commit to take further action to improve the quality of female employment and eliminate employment discrimination, and reduce gender compensation gaps and provide women with protection from all forms of violence. We will improve women´s access to labour markets through provision of quality education and training, supporting infrastructure, public services and social protection policies and legal reforms, where appropriate.”

On food security, the communique reads, “Recognising the famine in some areas of South Sudan and risk of famine in Somalia, Yemen and North-Eastern Nigeria, we are more than ever committed to act with the required urgency, supporting UN agencies and other humanitarian and development organisations in a coordinated and comprehensive response to save lives and support conditions for sustainable development…

We will further strengthen our humanitarian engagement and reaffirm our commitment to addressing the underlying causes of recurrent and protracted crises.”

On displacement and migration issue, the communique reads, “The world is experiencing historic levels of migration and forced displacement. While migration is influenced by many political, social and economic developments, the main drivers of forced displacement include conflicts, natural disasters as well as human rights violations and abuses. Migration and forced displacement trends are of major relevance for countries of origin, transit and destination…

We seek to address the root causes of displacement. We call for concerted global efforts and coordinated and shared actions, in particular with respect to countries and communities that are under high social, political and financial pressure, and for combining both an emergency approach and a long-term one. To this end, we acknowledge the importance of establishing partnerships with countries of origin and transit. We will promote sustainable economic development in those countries. We commit to addressing the distinct needs of refugees and migrants, in particular close to their region of origin and, when applicable, to enable them to return home safely. At the same time, we place special emphasis on vulnerable groups, including women at risk and children, particularly those unaccompanied, and to protecting the human rights of all persons regardless of their status.”

One of the major highlights of this year’s G20 summit was the first face to face meeting between Trump and Russia’s Putin. In the run-up to the summit the two men staked out opposing views on major international issues. On Thursday, Trump used a speech in the Polish capital Warsaw to call on Russia to stop “destabilizing” Ukraine and other countries, and “join the community of responsible nations”. Setting out his own G20 agenda in German financial newspaper Handelsblatt, Putin called for US-led sanctions on his country, imposed in response to Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 (by Obama Administration), to be lifted. Putin also argued strongly in favor of the Paris climate agreement, saying it was a “secure basis for long-term climate regulation” and Russia wanted to make a “comprehensive contribution to its implementation”, while Trump has taken the US out of the Paris agreement.

They met closed door for nearly two hours discussing a plethora of issues, including Ukraine, Syria and other problems, and some bilateral issues. They were unable to agree on the exact outcome of talks over the Russian hacking allegations. No one knows what would be the ultimate outcome of the meeting except that both the parties have agreed to declare a ceasefire in south-west Syria from Sunday.

G20 summits are greeted with fierce anti-globalization protests, and this weekend’s summit in Hamburg in Germany was no exception.

Climate change has been one of the rousing causes for G20 protesters who have clashed with police in Hamburg, resulting in more than 100 arrests. On Friday, Greenpeace erected a giant effigy of Trump, dressed in a diaper and soiling himself with oil on the globe, on the river Elbe. Other environmental groups, per the Guardian, UK, were more optimistic, noting that almost all the world’s major powers were broadly behind the transition to low-carbon energy and ameliorating the impacts of climate change. Andrew Steer, president of the World Resources Institute, opined that it was a landslide victory for countries voicing support for global climate action. “Chancellor Merkel demonstrated deft leadership in rallying 19 of the world’s largest economies to deliver an unmistakable message behind climate action… The question remains how quickly the world will surge forward and how far behind the Trump administration will let the United States fall.”

Angela Merkel closed the G20 summit in Hamburg with a rebuke to President Trump’s stance on climate change. “Unfortunately — and I deplore this — the United States of America left the climate agreement, or rather announced their intention of doing this,” Merkel said.

Officials had been at an impasse over an increasingly isolationist United States and Trump’s climate change and trade policies for most of the summit, and Merkel made it clear the United States had made talks difficult.

Nearly 54 years ago, on June 26, 1963, U.S. President John F. Kennedy famously said, ‘Ich bin ein Berliner’ (meaning: I am a Berliner) in a ground-breaking speech in Berlin. A crowd of 120,000 Berliners had gathered that day in front of the Schoneberg Rathaus (City Hall) where he offered American solidarity to the citizens of West Germany.

This time, obviously, no one expected the POTUS to say ‘I am a Hamburger’, which would have music to the ears of its native host, Chancellor Merkel, who was born 63 years ago in this very city. Worse still, the First Lady Melania Trump could not even walk outside her hotel room and attend G20 spouse events because of security concerns and protests. Donald Trump is also unwelcome in London! He is increasingly becoming a joke around the globe, seen more as a divider and not a unifier, an impulsive man and not a serious leader who demands respect.

The theme of this year’s G20 summit was “Shaping an Interconnected World”. That encompasses three aims – strengthening economic resilience, improving sustainability and assuming responsibilities. The success or failure of this year’s G20 meeting will ultimately be judged on if the leaders delivered on that theme safeguarding a peaceful world.

In a declaration issued at the end of the G20 summit, the group announced that Saudi Arabia will host the conference in 2020. Argentina will host the 2018 G20 and Japan the 2019 event.

Museums that house a collection can do so with two consequences: they approve and collaborate with the subject matter (the Tate’s pandering to Tracy Emin’s menstrual, sex stained bed, as a case in point), or stridently take issue with it, lecturing visitors. (The Holocaust museum.)

The Museum of Capitalism tells its visitors of a mission to educate “this generation and future generations about the ideology, history, and legacy of capitalism.” In so doing, there is more than a scant suggestion that we have somehow moved into something after capitalism.[1]

Walking to its location near Jack London Square is ample preparation. It is desolate and coarse: sterile, cold buildings, suddenly punctuated by a wine shop teaming with patrons and tasting options; run down sheds suddenly turned into sharp apartment complexes in spurts of gentrification.

Appropriately enough, the museum is housed within an Oakland waterfront office building, a pop-up exhibition featuring a range of themed items ranging from the Capitalist Bathroom Experience (we all defecate, don’t we?) to Mindfulness techniques for the baton wielding, trigger-happy police force. Visual artists predominate. Even the building itself is revealed as an anatomised version of capitalism, ushering the viewer to move through set pieces of power and production.

The museum suggests a counter, a form of resistance against the state. The premise is obvious enough: it is the state that has done more than anything to provide the conditions that enable capitalism to flourish, be it through military industrial complexes, policing, land use, labour and commodities. As Darwin Bondgraham notes, “this museum of capitalism is also a museum of government under capitalism.”[2]

But there is nothing to suggest the transcending of capitalism, despite the valiant attempt to consider alternatives through feminist discourse, anarchism, environmental regeneration, and community solidarity. A range of these are supplied in Oliver Ressler’s multi screen showing “Alternative Economics, Alternative Societies” (2003-2008).

Inevitably, there are a range of displays that poke fun at corporate misbehaviour, though this is done with degrees of savage humour and sombre consideration. Yet this is the United States, and Oakland is a belt where enterprise and the capitalist urge exist like viral excitements. Outside the museum is the waterfront with glistening boats that are gaudy rather than tasteful, monsters on the sea that float defiantly.

No matter. The museum’s website insists on the wisdom of Raymond Williams: “To be truly radical is to make hope possible, rather than despair convincing.” The capitalist project, a point signalled at in the exhibits, was propagandised as not something of despair, but promise. It was erroneously tied to the notion free markets would somehow entail sound democratic practice and more accessible responsible representatives. What did happen, in time, was a surrender of that relevant representation, a literal sell-out to the boardroom, the corporatocracy.

What, then, of this form of human organisation that seems, in the scheme of existence, a short one? The museum does not necessarily promote a world instead of capitalism, or after it. There is, in fact, a significant contemporary dimension to what is on show.

This contemporary dimension features installations that speak of the casualties of capitalism. The sub-prime mortgage catastrophe, the names of banks closed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, can be viewed as corpses of finance.

The destruction of the singular experience that current processes of capitalism inflict is also evident in Chip Lord’s nine-channel video installation “Peak Air Travel: To & From” (2016). The modern global airport city entails the levelling of uniqueness into a dreary, drone-like existence. It brings to mind a remark made by British comedian Paul Merton: to go to an airport in China is never to leave one, terrifying as they are in their identical construction.

There is a final irony netted by the museum’s display. While being free, the cost has to borne in some way. Tipping, the private customer initiative always encouraged in the United States to pad out poor wages, is encouraged. And the museum itself has been appropriated as part of the regenerative theme of capitalism behind the district’s new “image”.

As Jack London Improvement District Executive Director Savlan Hauser claimed, “Jack London is an established waterfront destination, but has lacked this kind of cultural anchor… a Museum of Capitalism is the kind of thing our neighbourhood has been missing.”[3]

Notes:
[1] https://qz.com/1015649/a-new-museum-is-preparing-people-for-the-downfall-of-capitalism/

[2] https://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/seeing-state-power-inside-the-museum-of-capitalism/Content?oid=7843611

[3] http://www.salon.com/2017/06/24/opening-day-at-oaklands-museum-of-capitalism/

By Timur Toktonaliev

The role played by Islam in Kyrgystan has been steadily growing ever since independence in the early 1990s. Although it remains a secular republic where religious parties are banned, analysts say that Islam is likely to play a part in upcoming presidential elections.

There are also fears of radicalisation, with at least 600 Kyrgyz nationals known to have travelled to fight in Syria and Iraq.

Alexey Malashenko, chief researcher at the Dialogue of Civilizations (DOC) think-tank, spoke to IWPR about the likely impact this trend may have on the future direction of the state.

IWPR: Do you think growing interest in Islam among the Kyrgyz population will lead to the Islamisation of politics, and then of the state itself?

AM: The growth of Islam in society is inevitable, and is taking place across the entire Muslim world. To some extent, it is more about re-Islamisation – Islam has always been there, and nobody got rid of it. This re-Islamisation means that people become more interested in religion, its doctrines, and more strictly observe Islamic traditions and norms of behaviour, including restrictions and prohibitions. But [it also means] that Islam is politicised, becoming not only a religion but also an ideology, which is radical to some extent.

Islam is increasingly being used by politicians as an instrument for achieving personal success. It becomes a political factor, which, as is known from the experience of many countries, contributes to destabilisation. The state’s actions play a significant role. On the one hand it must properly monitor and restrain the process of such re-Islamisation, but, on the other hand it must not resort to systematically harsh methods to suppress it. Otherwise, it will provoke a response.

We should acknowledge that Kyrgyzstan is a kind of miracle: with the highest political and even revolutionary activity of any society in Central Asia, religion has not become a serious political factor, which could have happened. And it is to the state’s great merit that it has managed, not without difficulty, to develop a reasonable approach to Islam.

If the secular system fails to demonstrate its effectiveness, what would it look like if the state adopted some Islamic principles? Would it be like Malaysia or Indonesia or should we expect something more radical?

The mixture of secular principles of government with religious attitudes, including even some Shariah norms, is inevitable. However, a lot of complex collisions can arise and different countries solve them differently. It should be noted, however, that even in the 28 Muslim countries where Islam is a state religion, the constitution takes priority, even when it appeals to Islamic traditions.

In this context, Kyrgyzstan… can be compared with Malaysia and Indonesia. I would add Algeria and even Egypt, which, despite the successes of Islamists at the beginning of the second decade of our century, still retain a de facto secular nature of government.

Kyrgyz politicians are increasingly using Islamic rhetoric for their own purposes. What is the likelihood that purely Islamist political parties will emerge, and how would the population perceive them?

Serious ‘Islamic parties’ will most likely not appear in Kyrgyzstan. The ship has sailed, as they say. They would have needed to have been created earlier on. However, marginal groups – they could declare themselves to be parties – might emerge that would be capable of organising loud rallies but would not have public support. People do not want riots. Moreover, there is the experience of the middle east, which shows what religious extremism can lead to.

As for specific politicians, I do not yet see charismatic personalities that could successfully use Islam as a rallying call. We don’t have that political culture or tradition. The emergence of such a kind of personality is possible only amid chaos. But I don’t see it coming.

What about other countries in Central Asia? How much does Islamisation influence their policies, or is Kyrgyzstan in a unique situation?

I think the most difficult situation has developed in Tajikistan, where the state and the president, in an effort to establish complete control over Islam, have gone too far [in clamping down on Islamist parties] which sooner or later will evoke a response.

In general, the re-Islamisation I describe will continue, as well as the inevitable politicisation of Islam to some extent. The authorities and ruling elites are scared of it. However, on the other hand, they have gained some experience not just of struggle, but a kind of communication with Islamists. They keep an eye on some, and take harsh measures against others prone to action.

The influence of Islamism persists because it is mainly the response to domestic economic, social and other challenges. Moreover, except for Kyrgyzstan, in the rest of the region Islam is actually the only form of protest, since there is no real opposition there.

Are there any examples in the world when a secular country gradually adopts some Islamic norms? How successful has this proved to be?

The world has experience of the coexistence of religious and secular systems. Sometimes, let’s take Russia, for example, the secular law turns a blind eye to Sharia. For example, in Muslim regions, first of all in the North Caucasus, polygamy takes place. Everybody knows about this – from President Putin to the local policeman.

The head of Chechnya, Ramzan Kadyrov, used to justify polygamy saying that during the two wars in Chechnya, many men were killed.

So, the compromise between the secular law and religious tradition is quite possible and even necessary.

This article appeared at IWPR’s RCA 814

By Srecko Latal*

The Bosnia Constitutional Court’s most recent set of decisions could lead to a new and dangerous escalation of the current political crisis, opening a “pandora’s box”, local and international officials told BIRN.

The court, at its latest panel session Thursday, made several decisions on key issues which will likely have a major impact on the country, sources said.

Among these issues, the most important is related to an appeal filed by Bosnian Croat politician Bozo Ljubic, submitted in September 2016, complaining that the electoral mechanism to establish the House of Peoples in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina violates the constitution.

The Constitutional Court partially accepted this appeal in December 2016 and gave Bosnia’s state parliament six months to fix problematic parts of the election law. Parliament – which has been left without majority support since late last year – failed to amend the law, so the court decided to remove problematic parts of the law itself.

In doing so, the court removed the legal basis for establishing the House of Peoples in the Federation. Without it, governments cannot be formed on either a federal or state level, a Bosnian government official told BIRN, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The Bosnian state parliament now has until October next year to amend the election law. This is when next general elections are scheduled. If this does not happen, after the elections Bosnia will be left without both state and federal governments, which could then lead to chaos, anarchy and possible disintegration, the official said.

A similar legal situation occurred in the southern town of Mostar in 2012. The state parliament failed to amend parts of the electoral law that were found to be unconstitutional, so the constitutional court erased them.

As a result, Mostar has not since held local elections and has been ruled by its mayor, Ljubo Beslic, via a technical mandate. Such a situation could not save the state and federation, which need both executive and legislative institutions to function properly, officials told BIRN.

US and EU administrations are aware of this situation and are pondering their next steps, Western diplomats told BIRN.

The same day, the constitutional court made several other controversial decisions. It rejected an appeal filed by Bosnian Serb politicians from the National Assembly of Bosnia’s Serb-dominated entity of Republika Srpska.

They claimed that Bosnia’s state holidays – March 1 (Independence Day) and November 25 (Statehood Day) violated the constitution because they are not recognized as state holidays by Republika Srpska.

This decision triggered a strong reaction from Republika Srpska president Milorad Dodik, who in the past made no secret of the fact that that this appeal was the tit-for-tat move after the constitutional court in November 2015 declared Republika Srpska Day on January 9 unconstitutional due to the fact that the same day was also an Orthodox religious holiday, St. Stephen’s day.

Speaking from eastern Bosnian town of Zvornik on Thursday, Dodik declared this latest decision of the state constitutional court further proof that the court is a political court controlled by Bosniaks, passing decisions against Serb and Croat national interests.

Dodik also stressed that two Serb representatives should withdraw from the court.

Local and international officials and experts told BIRN they feared that Dodik will use this decision to attempt another push to abolish the state constitutional court, which he has been trying to do for the past several years.

The state constitutional court also ruled that a Croat Democratic Union, HDZ, proposal to reform an election law for the state presidency, the House of Peoples in the Federation and Mostar city council, was not violating vital national interests of Bosniaks, as a group of Bosniak politicians had claimed.

The draft law, criticized by EU and US officials and local experts as being ethnically even more divisive then the current law, will now be able to be put back on parliament’s agenda, where it will likely trigger new disputes especially between Bosniak and Croat ruling national parties.

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin answered journalists’ questions on the results of the two-day G20 Summit. Following is a transcript of that news conference, as delivered by the Kremlin.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon,

Allow me to skip any statements and monologues. You have seen and heard everything, a great deal. Let us get straight to questions.

Go ahead, please.

Question: Mr President, both experts and ordinary people, some of whom are rampaging near this building now, are known to have different opinions on the usefulness of G20 summits. At this summit, for example, there was more talk about your meeting with Mr Trump. And yet which of the issues discussed by the G20 is most relevant for Russia? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: G20 is primarily an economic forum, even though many political and similar issues emerge. Nevertheless, the main issue is the development of the global economy, and this is what received the greatest attention.

We agreed on determining global economy sustainability principles, and this is vitally important for working along the same standards.

Then we continued with the issue which in fact had been launched in St Petersburg: money laundering and everything connected with tax havens and tax evasion. It is a crucial matter with practical implications.

Next, no less important and also connected with the economy, a related but very important issue – the fight against terror, tracking money flows to prevent the funding of terrorism.

Finally, a very big and very sensitive issue is climate change. I think in this respect the Federal Republic of Germany chairing the G20 has managed to reach the best compromise in a difficult situation the chairing nation has found itself in, namely due to the US quitting the Paris Climate Agreement. An agreement was reached, a compromise, when all the countries have recorded that the United States pulled out of the agreement but they are ready to continue cooperating in certain areas and with certain countries on addressing climate change challenges. I think this is a positive result in itself, which can be credited to Chancellor Merkel.

There are other issues we looked into. For example, digital economy. Here we proposed adopting common rules in the area of digital economy, defining cyber security and designing a comprehensive system of behaviour rules in this sphere.

We said today – the President of the South African Republic spoke very convincingly about it; in fact, this issue was touched upon in practically everyone’s speech and in some way it is reflected in the final documents – that we must be ready for the release of the labour force, we must make joint efforts, we must figure out what should be done with the workers who have lost their jobs, how to arrange retraining, what the deadlines are and what rules should be put in place.

Among other things I drew attention to the fact that trade unions will have to be engaged because they will protect not only the workers but also the self-employed individuals operating in the digital economy, and the number of such jobs is increasing. This is connected in one way or another with women’s rights and education for girls. This is being discussed at many forums but we talked about it today in the context of digital economy.

Overall, this forum is definitely effective, and I believe it will play a role in stabilising the global economy in general.

Question: Mr President, I would like to follow up on my colleague’s topic. Even though there were many political issues at the summit, they keep on surfacing at the G20 summits more and more often, yet you listed economic issues, which remain the priority anyway. Many speakers, ministers from different countries responsible for the economy, said that 2017 could become the year of global economic growth. How feasible is that and will this growth be seen in Russia in view of the current unfavourable trends – sanctions, restrictions and other factors?

Vladimir Putin: We have not seen any unfavourable trends so far, or they have almost disappeared at any rate. Certain factors are having a negative impact on economic development, including in the global economy, the economy in the Euro zone and in Russia, those same illegitimate restrictions you have mentioned. We call for lifting any restrictions, for free trade, for working within the World Trade Organisation, in line the WTO rules. By the way, one of the topics discussed here was free trade and countering protectionism. This is also one of the crucial areas that should be mentioned.

On the whole, there is some progress. However, the initial optimistic growth forecasts have been downgraded. Nevertheless, there is growth, and it is apparent, including in Russia.

I said recently and repeated it here that Russian economic growth is tangible, the Russian economy, and we can say this with certainty, has recovered from the recession. We have been growing for the third quarter in a row, and soon it will be the fourth quarter in a row. Growth exceeded 3 percent in May: it was 3.1 percent. I think we will have an average of 2 percent in 2017. This is also a significant contribution to the global economic growth.

Let me remind you that we also have low unemployment of 5.2 percent, our reserves are growing, including the reserves of the Central Bank and the Government. The Central Bank reserves have already reached $412 billion. The federal budget revenues grew by 40 percent, and all this is happening against the background of fairly low inflation of 4.4 percent. All this taken together certainly gives us optimism; however, one cannot say with certainty that this is a long-term trend. We must take care to sustain this growth trend. I have every reason to believe that we will manage to do it.

Question: Mr President, your meeting with President Trump was literally the focus of everyone’s attention at the summit. How do you access the results of this meeting? It is no secret that US President had voiced a rather tough rhetoric in Poland, and there had even been unfriendly statements from US media in the run-up to the summit. Did Mr Trump ask you directly about Russia’s interference in the US [presidential] election? Did you like him personally? Do you think you will get along?

Vladimir Putin: The US President asked me this question directly, and we discussed it. And this was not a single question, there were many, and he gave much attention to this issue. Russia’s stance is well-known and I reiterated it. There is no reason to believe that Russia interfered in the US election process.

But what is important is that we have agreed that there should not be any uncertainty in this sphere, especially in the future. By the way, I mentioned at the latest summit session that this directly concerns cyberspace, web resources and so on.

The US President and I have agreed to establish a working group and make joint efforts to monitor security in the cyberspace, ensure full compliance with international laws in this area, and to prevent interference in countries’ internal affairs. Primarily this concerns Russia and the United States. We believe that if we succeed in organising this work – and I have no doubt that we will – there will be no more speculation over this matter.

As regards personal relations, I believe that they have been established. This is how I see it: Mr Trump’s television image is very different from the real person; he is a very down to earth and direct person, and he has an absolutely adequate attitude towards the person he is talking with; he analyses things pretty fast and answers the questions he is asked or new ones that arise in the course of the discussion. So I think that if we build our relations in the vein of our yesterday’s meeting, there are good reasons to believe that we will be able to revive, at least partially, the level of interaction that we need.

Question: To follow up on of your answer, could you please say if President Trump has accepted your denial of Russia’s involvement, Russia’s interference in the US election?

Vladimir Putin: I repeat, he asked many question on this matter. I answered all of his questions as far as I could. I think he took note and agreed. But it would be better if you asked him about what he thinks about it.

Question: One more question about the domestic policy, if I may. Actually, it is unrelated to the G20 but the question is about Russia’s domestic policy. I would like to ask what you think of Alexei Navalny and his activities. And why you do not say his name and surname when you answer questions about him.

Vladimir Putin: I think we can engage in dialogue, especially at the level of the President or the Government, with the people who propose a constructive agenda, even if they voice criticism. But if the point is to attract publicity, this does not encourage dialogue.

Question: Earlier this morning you had a meeting with the French President and the German Chancellor. I assume you had an in-depth discussion on the situation in Ukraine. Did a new vision emerge, and is there any hope that Donbass will come out of the ordeal gripping it right now? Can the discussion of the issue launched with the US President play its role, or do the interests of Russia and the United States still diverge in Ukraine, or may be even oppose each other in some matters? Which, by the way, can be presumed from the background of the US diplomat who was appointed special envoy.

Vladimir Putin: The interests of Russia and Ukraine, the interests of the Russian and Ukraine people – and I am fully and profoundly confident of this – coincide. Our interests fully coincide. The only thing that does not coincide is the interests of the current Ukrainian authorities and some of Ukraine’s political circles. If we are to be objective, of course, both Ukraine and Russia are interested in cooperating with each other, joining their competitive advantages and developing their economies just because we have inherited much from the Soviet era – I am speaking about cooperation, the unified infrastructure and the energy industry, transport, and so on.

But regrettably, today our Ukrainian colleagues believe this can be neglected. They have only one ”product“ left – Russophobia, and they are selling it successfully. Another thing they are selling is the policy of dividing Russia and Ukraine and pulling the two peoples and two nations apart. Some in the West like this; they believe that Russia and Ukraine must not be allowed to get closer in any areas. That is why the current Ukrainian authorities are making active and successful efforts to sell this ”product.“

But I think this will eventually come to an end. Russia, at any rate, wants for this situation to be over as soon as possible.

As regards the United States’ involvement in settling the situation in Ukraine, President Trump and I have talked about this and we agreed – and actually, this has already been done – that a special representative of the administration would be appointed to handle this issue on a permanent basis and to be in constant contact both with Russia and Ukraine, with all the parties interested in settling this conflict.

Question: Mr President, I have a question about the Middle East, which is seething at the moment: Syria, Qatar and other countries. You must have had discussions on Syria at the G20 Summit. How do you assess the prospects for the Syrian settlement after those discussions and after the recent meeting in Astana? Has the stance of the new US Administration on this issue changed or become more constructive, especially in view of yesterday’s agreements?

And also about Qatar, if I may. How do you assess the situation? Was it discussed at the G20 Summit?

And one more question, if I may…

Vladimir Putin: I will have to make a full report to you. (Laughter.)

Question: Well, one does not often get this chance. On the terrorism issue: as far as I know, agreeing on the Statement on Countering Terrorism was a difficult process. If it is not a secret, what were the major contradictions?

Vladimir Putin: To be honest, I am not aware of the difficulties, you had better ask the Sherpa. In my view, there were no basic objections from anyone. Maybe some of the wording. But, to be honest, I am not aware of that. I know that the text was agreed on. At any rate, at the level of delegation heads, heads of state, there were no problems or tensions. Everyone admits that this is a common threat and everyone states their readiness to fight this threat.

As for Qatar, the problem was not discussed. It is a fairly burning regional issue, and can impact certain processes, by the way, including in the economy, in the energy area and in terms of security in the region, but I did not discuss this issue with anybody during the Summit.

About Syria. Yes, we discussed this issue with almost all of my interlocutors. As for whether the US stance has changed or not – I would say it has become more pragmatic. It does not seem to have changed in general, but there is an understanding now that by combining efforts, we can achieve a lot. Yesterday’s deal on the southern de-escalation zone is clearly the result of this change. You know, others may react as they like, but I can tell you, this is one of the breakthroughs we have made in our work with President Trump. This is a real result of cooperation, including with the United States. Jordan has joined in the effort, and so have several other countries in the region. We have held consultations with Israel and will continue them in the near future. Still, this is a very good result, a breakthrough of a kind. Therefore, if we move the same way in other directions, towards other de-escalation areas…

We have discussed this very thoroughly with the President of Turkey today. This does not entirely depend on us, of course, as much has to do with the controversy between the countries in the region. Everyone has their own concerns, everyone has their own preferences, their own interests, I mean legitimate interests, so this is the way we must treat these – as their legitimate interests; we need to look for compromises.

You know, sometimes we find them. In any case, the fact that active military operations have ceased, the fact that we are now discussing de-escalation zones is a huge step forward.

Now we need to agree on the exact boundaries of these zones, and how security will be ensured there. This is a painstaking, even tedious effort, and it is extremely important and responsible work. Based on the recent positive experience, relying on the good will of Iran, Turkey, and of course, the Syrian Government and President al-Assad, we can take further steps.

The most important thing is – we have actually reaffirmed this, also in the documents establishing this zone in the south on the border with Jordan, and the area that borders on the Golan Heights – the most important thing is to ensure Syria’s territorial integrity, eventually, so that these de-escalation zones become the prototype of regions that could cooperate with each other and with the official Damascus. If we manage to do this, we will lay the groundwork, create the prerequisites for resolving the entire Syrian problem by political means.

Question: We have already talked about interfering in the elections but we have new elections coming up in Germany.

Vladimir Putin: Here in Germany?

Question: These days we say “we have elections in Germany” in September. Is Russia planning to interfere in them? Did you notify Angela Merkel about how we are going to do it? Maybe you will give me a hunch as well? (Laughter in the audience.)

Vladimir Putin: You are asking rather provocative questions. But I told you that we had not interfered in the United States either. Why should we make trouble here as well? We have very good relations with the Federal Republic. It is our largest trade and economic partner in Europe country-wise, one of our leading trade partners in the world. We have large joint projects on the agenda that we support, for example, Nord Stream 2. There are a lot of tales being told about it, arguments and even resistance but it is absolutely evident that it is in the interests of the European economy and in the interests of the German economy, which wants to abandon nuclear power.

Why would we do it? Interfering in domestic political processes is the last thing we would wish to do.

If you look at the press, the German press or the European press in general, the French press, it is they who keep on interfering in our domestic affairs. But we are not concerned about it because we feel confident.

Question: Thank you very much, Mr President, for the opportunity to ask you a question on behalf of my television network. We meant to ask you about your meeting with President Trump, but my colleague has already asked the same question. And you said we should ask President Trump about what had happened.

Vladimir Putin: No, I did not. You should ask him about how he sees it, what he thinks about my answers. As to what happened – nothing happened, we did not interfere.

Remark: Unfortunately, the White House offers practically no information about what is going on.

Vladimir Putin: We will give them a piece of our minds. (Laughter.)

Remark: Could you just share what President Trump said during your meeting when you told him that Russia had not interfered in the political process?

Vladimir Putin: He started asking probing questions, he was really interested in some details. I gave him fairly detailed answers as much as I could. I told him about my dialogues with the previous administration, including with President Obama. But I do not feel that I have the right to give details of my conversations, say, with President Obama, it is not an accepted practice at this level. I think it would not be quite appropriate of me to give details of our conversation with President Trump. He asked me and I answered him. He asked probing questions, and I offered explanations. I think he was satisfied with those answers.

Remark: Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: You are welcome.

Question: Going back to the issue of boosting economic growth, to the measures that could be taken, the Government has already drafted a plan, and as far as we know, you have read it but for some reason the plan is classified. We know some parts of it from what you said about them.

Vladimir Putin: Let me explain. As you must know, we have several groups working on this issue: a group headed by Mr Titov with the involvement of the business community, and a group headed by Mr Kudrin, who has gathered a large number of respected experts. The Government is also working. But we should make a plan that will be acceptable, optimal for the next steps to be taken in the economy starting in 2018. And we must review all the proposals, assess them and in the end, make the final decision.

It may not be one of the proposals submitted; it may be something based on all three proposals. But work is currently underway, and we do not talk about it in advance.

But the Government has certainly done a great deal in this area, and we will rely largely on the Government’s proposals. We cannot ignore the results of Mr Kudrin’s work, and Mr Titov also has some sensible suggestions. This is why we are working at present to decide what the final variant will be out of the proposals for the development of the Russian economy from 2018 onward.

That is all. There are no secrets. What is the point? The point is that it is wrong to announce what has not been adopted yet. We could just send the wrong signals to the economy, and that is it. It all comes down to that.

Question: I have a question about domestic policy. I have learned that you have been briefed on the [limo] car of the Cortege project, which is to be used at the 2018 presidential inauguration.

Vladimir Putin: You seem to know this better than me: this is the first time I have heard about it.

Question: Have you thought of going for a drive in this car at the official event, that is, at the inauguration?

Vladimir Putin: No, I have not, because the car is not ready yet. You can go for a drive in it yourself, I will see how it goes, and later we can test it out together.

Question: You have spoken about the meeting with Mr Erdogan. Could you please elaborate – when you touched upon the issue of the first zone, the northern one, did you discuss the issue of the Kurds and particularly the territory of Afrin, where representatives of the Russian Centre for Reconciliation of Opposing Sides are present? The Turkish media are already preparing the ground for the Turkish army’s intervention to this area. Also, did you discuss the future of [Syrian President] Bashar al-Assad with Mr Trump and Mr Erdogan? For instance, Mr Tillerson said yesterday that this person has no future in the Syrian politics. He did not say how and when, but that was what he said.

Vladimir Putin: Let me answer the second question first. Mr Tillerson is a well-regarded man, he received the Russian Order of Friendship, and we feel great respect for him and we like him. But he is not a Syrian citizen, and the future of Syria and President al-Assad as a political figure has to be determined by the Syrian people.

As regards the Kurdish issue, this is a very big and complicated problem. We keep in contact with many Kurdish groups and make no secret of this. But with regard to military support of their activities, here our US colleagues are far ahead of the game; they are making much greater efforts in this regard.

Our servicemen – not advisers – who are monitoring the ceasefire are indeed present in many regions of Syria, where the truce agreement has been reached. But speaking of the regions you have mentioned, there are one or two of them there, they are not military units. They are performing the task that everyone is interested in fulfilling. But so far, we are not witnessing any preparations for military action; quite the opposite, we expect that our preliminary developments on establishing the de-escalation zones in several regions – in the Idlib area, in the north – will be accomplished. And this cannot be done without Turkey’s support.

Question: My colleagues here have already recalled the words President Trump said in Warsaw. He made yet another statement about the United States being ready to begin direct supplies of liquefied natural gas to Poland and Central Europe. What do you think of these plans, especially in the context of our plans for the Nord Stream? What if gas becomes a new cause of tension in US-Russian relations?

Vladimir Putin: I view these plans highly positively because healthy competition is good for everyone. We support an open market and healthy competition.

The US President said yesterday during the discussion that the United States stands for open, fair competition. And, by the way, when I spoke, I supported his point. So, we are absolutely all right with this; if it is so, if there is open and fair competition, no political motives or political resources involved, it would be quite acceptable for us. Because to date, it is an obvious fact that any specialist would tell you: the cost of production and delivery of liquefied natural gas from the United States is much higher than our LNG – even LNG – and is not even comparable to Russian pipeline gas. So, there is no doubt that we have an absolute competitive advantage. But to keep it, our market participants must work hard. They need to retain these competitive advantages.

Let us wrap this up. Go ahead, please.

Question: After the first meeting with President Trump, do you think it would be possible to gradually pull Russian-US relations out of deep crisis they are in, or is it difficult to say anything at all yet?

Vladimir Putin: I very much hope so, and it seems to me that we have built certain prerequisites for this.

Thank you very much. All the best.

US President Donald Trump met Saturday with Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe at the G20 Summit in Hamburg, Germany.

According to the White House, the two leaders condemned North Korea’s July 4 launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile, which showed that North Korea is a threat to the United States and its allies, and countries around the world.

President Trump and Prime Minister Abe affirmed that the international community must address North Korea’s ballistic missile and nuclear weapons programs quickly and decisively, the White House said, adding that President Trump reaffirmed the ironclad commitment of the United States to the defense of Japan, as well as to the Republic of Korea, from any attack, and reiterated that the United States is prepared to use the full range of capabilities in such defense.

President Trump and Prime Minister Abe committed to redoubling their efforts to bring all nations together to show North Korea that there are consequences for its threatening and unlawful actions, the White House said.

The two leaders also discussed a range of other regional issues of mutual interest. They reaffirmed that the strong United States-Japan Alliance is the cornerstone of peace and prosperity.

Church and rights groups warned against possible abuses in evacuation centers as the conflict in the southern Philippines continues.

The non-government Center for Women’s Resources said displaced women and children are vulnerable to abuses in the centers.

Cham Perez, the center’s research head, called on the government to address the crisis “proactively,” adding that women and children can fall victims to trafficking and illegal recruitment.

Perez cited cases of abuse in the aftermath of the 2013 siege in the city of Zamboanga, also in Mindanao, where displaced women were reportedly forced to engage in “sex for money.”

At least half of the more than 400,000 refugees from the city of Marawi are women.

Perez also cited “gender-based abuses,” like verbal and physical abuse, that usually happen in “militarized areas.”

Sister Betsy Espana of the Our Lady of Triumph of the Cross congregation said displaced women likely victims of abuses by male refugees or residents.

“We are warning against people who are planning to capitalize on displaced people,” said the nun.

As of July 5, the government’s social welfare department has already provided some US$2.2 million worth of relief and psychosocial aid to refugees displaced by the fighting in Marawi.

By Liam Timmons*

The Caribbean faces several challenges to its energy sector, which harm the region’s people and potential for economic growth. The Caribbean power generation sector receives 87 percent of its energy production from imported fossil fuels, despite the availability of solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, and biomass resources that could serve as a substitute for this fossil fuel dependence. Trinidad and Tobago is the only net exporter of fossil fuels, while all other Caribbean countries are net oil importers. Overall, more than half of the energy capacity of 10 of 13 Caribbean nations comes from diesel or oil; only Belize (hydro-electric), Suriname (hydro-electric), and Trinidad and Tobago (natural gas) generate a majority of their capacity from other sources.[i] Caribbean electricity costs are four times higher than those of the United States,[ii] and with petroleum by far the most expensive resource for electric energy production,[iii] the Caribbean’s imported-oil dependence places a heavy burden on governments and citizens. Overall, renewable energy in the Caribbean would not only be better for the environment, but fiscally responsible as well.

The Caribbean’s oil dependence leaves it vulnerable to shifts in oil prices. Oil price shocks contribute to an average of seven percent of real GDP growth variation in the region, with Dominica affected the most at 15 percent.[iv] Thus, a ten percent increase in real oil prices reduces real GDP growth by 0.5 percent over five years in tourism-based economies; commodity producers are affected significantly less, while Trinidad and Tobago, as a net oil exporter, actually sees an 0.8 percent rise in real GDP.[v] Furthermore, by increasing the rate of real, effective exchange rate appreciation (meaning an increase in the weighted average value of a currency relative to an index of other major currencies), the same ten percent increase in oil prices would decrease competitiveness by 2.8 percent over five years in tourism-based economies and 3.8 percent in commodity producers.[vi]

In addition to cost, the Caribbean faces supply deficits and inefficiencies that affect the power market’s ability to supply electricity to consumers. Although Caribbean countries average 90 percent electrification rates, much of this number comes from off-grid self-generation due to frequent power outages and low reliability.[vii] Sectoral concerns including limited generation capacity, outdated systems, and a lack of technical expertise have driven domestic tariffs above 30 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) for most countries, more than double those of the United States.[viii] Finally, lack of diversification and vertical integration of electric firms leaves consumers without access to energy because of the inability to finance generation capacity and national grids, while the absence of national regulatory agencies leaves a legislative gap in the sector.[ix]

These obstacles must be overcome quickly, as energy demand is projected to rise 3.7 percent per year, doubling by 2028.[x] A number of Caribbean nations have already set renewable energy and renewable electricity targets for the near future. These goals range from those of Trinidad and Tobago who want 5 percent of peak electricity demand to be renewable by 2020, to those of Dominica, Grenada, and Guyana who have slated 90 percent renewable power by 2030.[xi] Additionally, many nations have set energy efficiency, sustainable transportation, and emissions reductions targets.[xii] However, despite these goals, policy implementation is lacking. On average, six of 15 countries have enacted regulatory renewable energy support policies, and five of 15 have enacted fiscal incentives and public financing.[xiii] Only three of 15 countries have enacted energy efficiency support policies and sustainable transportation policies.[xiv]

It is not for lack of potential that the Caribbean has not begun a policy shift towards renewable energy. Annual solar irradiation (the power received from the sun in a certain area) ranges from 1700 to 2300 kWh/m2 and wind velocity averages five to nine m/s, meaning any nation can tangibly take advantage of wind and solar energy technology. Larger islands with high mountains have the potential for hydro-electric power generation, and geothermal power is possible on the region’s volcanic islands, which include Grenada, St. Vincent, or Dominica. Finally, biomass (organic matter used as fuel) can be used on islands with large agricultural sectors.[xv]

Instead, a number of technological, economic, political, and social barriers have hindered Caribbean adoption of renewable energy. A survey of 30 participants from the private sector, utilities, international organizations, and governmental and academic institutions identified the most important barriers to this adoption. The most important barriers were economic and political, with lack of regulatory framework, gap between policy targets and implementation, and high initial investments being cited as the most critical.[xvi]

Fortunately, there are a number of policy initiatives that can be enacted to combat these barriers. National regulatory agencies should be implemented on a nationwide level to increase the ability of energy firms to enter the market. This would increase competition, drive down costs and incentivize consistency and the accommodation of consumers. At the same time, a stronger regulatory framework within the Caribbean community would increase coordinated efforts among Caribbean nations and assist the meeting of regional goals. This regional regulatory framework could serve as an expansion of the Caribbean Renewable Energy Development Programme (CREDP), which was established in 1998 to overcome policy, finance, capacity, and awareness barriers to renewable energy in the region.[xvii] Regarding the gap between policy targets and implementation, oftentimes energy goals imply the need for changes in infrastructure and other investment, but do not quantify the scope and cost of these investments. Therefore, a long-term investment strategy is needed when proposing national and regional energy goals. Policy creators would do well to be specific in their proposals, define implementable plans, and point to the expected benefits of renewable energy projects to close the gap between target, expectation, and implementation. It is necessary for lawmakers to show a strong commitment to achieving these goals. By creating clearer implementation plans it is more likely renewable energy will garner lawmaker support. Finally, the transition to renewable energy will more than offset initial installation costs.

Three case studies show the ability for Caribbean nations to enact change when these barriers are overcome. Since 2011, Dominica has been a leader in geothermal energy with the potential for 500 megawatts (MW) of power to come from this energy source. The nation has formed the Dominica Geothermal Development Company to develop a small geothermal power plant which outputs around five to seven MW at the Wotten Waven-Laudat hot spring.[xviii] The project has the potential for 120 MW, which would allow it to export power to Guadeloupe and Martinique.[xix] The World Bank has pledged $50 million for the plant and has brought in a number of other partners such as the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development, the government of New Zealand, the Clean Technology Fund, and the Small Island Developing States DOCK Support program.[xx] Should a large-scale geothermal power plant be implemented, it would serve as a model for other countries such as St. Lucia, St. Vincent, and St. Kitts and Nevis by kick-starting the regional geothermal industry.[xxi] In addition to efforts in Dominica, the solar water heater industry has operated in Barbados since the 1970s, and more than 50,000 units have been installed on the island.[xxii] The systems have reduced energy use, emissions, and fuel import bills. Barbadian solar water heaters have saved approximately 200 million kWh per year, resulting in lowered emissions by over 400 kilograms of carbon dioxide per system per year, a reduction of 5.5 percent of national carbon emissions.[xxiii] Finally, Jamaica has seen a surge of wind power infrastructure in recent years, headed by two commercial-scale wind farms. Wigton Wind Farm has a capacity of 38.7 MW, and has been implemented in two phases. The Petroleum Corporation of Jamaica has plans to add another 24 MW of capacity, bringing the total to 62.5 MW.[xxiv] A guaranteed energy price of 13-14 US cents per kWh could spur significant wind energy development.[xxv] These case studies demonstrate the Caribbean’s ability to have positive developments in the renewable energy sector and eventually meet their energy goals.

Meeting Caribbean targets in energy efficiency and renewable electricity would have large effects on oil imports, national electricity costs, and long-term GDP. Meeting energy efficiency goals, for nations with a target higher than ten percent, would decrease oil imports by between ten and twenty percent, reduce electricity costs by one to thirteen percent, and increase GDP by up to six percent. Jamaica, committed to increasing energy efficiency by 71 percent, would see a 69 percent reduction in imports, a 31 percent reduction in electricity costs, and a 14 percent GDP increase. Renewable electric targets would have a greater reduction in oil imports (between five and 49 percent for countries targeting 20 percent renewable electricity), a slightly higher reduction in electricity costs (between four and 31 percent), and a lower effect on GDP (between zero and three percent).[xxvi]

In addition to economic and energy benefits, the Caribbean would accrue social benefits from the transition to renewable energy. Chief among these are avoiding climate change damages, reducing particulate emissions, increasing fossil fuel exports and import substitution, and increasing the inflow of foreign direct investment (FDI) causing job growth in the energy sector. Overall, the aggregated value of the social benefits brought on by the switch to renewable energy would outweigh the cost to produce this energy.[xxvii] Overall, according to the Inter-American Development Bank, “even when only partially and conservatively estimated, the societal benefits of [non-traditional renewable energy technologies] in [Latin America and the Caribbean] are sufficiently large enough to justify the eventual wholesale entry of these technologies.”[xxviii]

Renewable energy initiatives in the Caribbean come with a number of region-specific concerns, however. International cooperation is critical for the Caribbean’s ability to meet the goals laid out in the Paris Agreement. Under the Obama administration, climate change was a major area for international cooperation. President Obama committed $3 billion to the Green Climate Fund, designed to help developing countries combat and adapt to climate change.[xxix] However, the Trump administration has not only pulled out of the Paris Agreement, but has pledged to end support for the Global Climate Change Initiative and funding for United Nations climate change programs.[xxx]

Additionally, renewable energy initiatives are themselves vulnerable to climate change. For example, when climate change affects patterns of droughts, dry spells and increased forest fires create haze which inhibits the power generation of solar cells.[xxxi] This impact will only increase as temperatures rise as a result of climate change. Additionally, increased flooding risk endangers hydro-electric dam reservoirs, threatening overflowing and structural failures, while droughts may prevent them from generating power altogether.[xxxii] Thirdly, hurricanes threaten the destruction of wind turbines and other infrastructure; climate change has dramatically increased the destructiveness of hurricanes in recent years.[xxxiii]

Should these challenges be met, conditions in the Caribbean can be seen as ripe for a transition to renewable energy. High oil dependence has contributed to rising energy costs and economic vulnerability as most Caribbean nations’ economies are tethered to oil prices and can be unhinged by supply or demand shocks. Additionally, the Caribbean has massive potential for renewable energy in several forms: hydro-electric, geothermal, solar and wind, and Caribbean governments have committed to strong renewable energy targets for the near future. These governments should make strong efforts to dismantle current barriers to renewable energy adoption and enact policies to make these goals a reality.

*Liam Timmons, Research Associate at the Council on Hemispheric

Affairs Additional editorial support provided by Kirwin Shaffer, Senior Research Fellow at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, Emma Tyrou, Extramural Contributor at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, and Sharri K Hall and Alexia Rauen, Research Associates at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

[i] McIntyre, Arnold, Ahmed El-Ashram, Marcio Ronci, Julien PM Reynaud, Natasha Che, Ke Wang, Sebastian Acevedo Mejia et al. “Caribbean energy: macro-related challenges.” (2016).

[ii] Familiar, Jorge. “Unlocking the Caribbean’s energy potential.” World Bank. January 31, 2015. http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/opinion/2015/01/31/unlocking-the-caribbeans-energy-potential.

[iii] McIntyre, Arnold, Ahmed El-Ashram, Marcio Ronci, Julien PM Reynaud, Natasha Che, Ke Wang, Sebastian Acevedo Mejia et al. “Caribbean energy: macro-related challenges.” (2016).

[iv] Ibid.

[v] Ibid.

[vi] Ibid.

[vii] Ibid.

[viii] Ibid.

[ix] Ibid.

[x] Gerner, Franz. “Caribbean Regional Electricity Generation, Interconnection and Fuels Supply Strategy: Synthesis Report.” Prepared with support of the LCR Energy Group. Washington, DC: World Bank (2010).

[xi] Ochs, Alexander, Mark Konold, Katie Auth, Evan Musolino, and Philip Killeen. Caribbean Sustainable Energy Roadmap and Strategy (C-SERMS): Baseline Report and Assessment. Worldwatch Institute, 2015.

[xii] Ibid.

[xiii] Ibid.

[xiv] Ibid.

[xv] Blechinger, Philipp, Katharina Richter, and Ortwin Renn. “Barriers and solutions to the development of renewable energy technologies in the Caribbean.” In Decentralized Solutions for Developing Economies, pp. 267-284. Springer, Cham, 2015.

[xvi] Ibid.

[xvii] United Nations Development Programme Global Environment Facility. “Caribbean Renewable Energy Development Programme.” (2004)

[xviii] “How Dominica has breathed new life into its geothermal project.” New Energy Events. March 16, 2017. http://newenergyevents.com/how-dominica-has-breathed-new-life-into-its-geothermal-project/.

[xix] Ochs, Alexander, Mark Konold, Katie Auth, Evan Musolino, and Philip Killeen. Caribbean Sustainable Energy Roadmap and Strategy (C-SERMS): Baseline Report and Assessment. Worldwatch Institute, 2015.

[xx] “How Dominica has breathed new life into its geothermal project.” New Energy Events. March 16, 2017. http://newenergyevents.com/how-dominica-has-breathed-new-life-into-its-geothermal-project/.

[xxi] Ibid.

[xxii] Ochs, Alexander, Mark Konold, Katie Auth, Evan Musolino, and Philip Killeen. Caribbean Sustainable Energy Roadmap and Strategy (C-SERMS): Baseline Report and Assessment. Worldwatch Institute, 2015.

[xxiii] Ibid.

[xxiv] “Wigton Windfarm.” Ministry of Science Energy and Technology. http://mset.gov.jm/wigton-windfarm.

[xxv] Ochs, Alexander, Mark Konold, Katie Auth, Evan Musolino, and Philip Killeen. Caribbean Sustainable Energy Roadmap and Strategy (C-SERMS): Baseline Report and Assessment. Worldwatch Institute, 2015.

[xxvi] McIntyre, Arnold, Ahmed El-Ashram, Marcio Ronci, Julien PM Reynaud, Natasha Che, Ke Wang, Sebastian Acevedo Mejia et al. “Caribbean energy: macro-related challenges.” (2016).

[xxvii] Societal benefits from renewable energy in Latin America and the Caribbean (5)

[xxviii] Ibid.

[xxix] Viscidi, Lisa. “Trump’s Withdrawal From the Paris Agreement Challenges Latin America.” The New York Times. June 23, 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/23/opinion/paris-agreement-climate-change-latin-america.html.

[xxx] Ibid.

[xxxi] Sembiring, Margareth. “Climate Change and Renewable Energy: Mitigation or Vulnerability?.” (2016).

[xxxii] Ibid.

[xxxiii] “Hurricanes and Climate Change.” Union of Concerned Scientists. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/hurricanes-and-climate-change.html.

Great Ormond Street Hospital in London is applying for a new hearing with the high court after new evidence suggests the critically ill baby could benefit from an experimental treatment.

The decision comes after a team of seven international medical experts alerted the hospital that fresh, unpublished data suggested that an experimental drug could improve Charlie’s brain condition.

One of the signatories of the letter is a researcher and neurologist with the Vatican-owned Bambino Gesu Hospital in Rome, which offered to transfer Charlie to their facilities earlier this week. Great Ormond Hospital said they denied the transfer for legal reasons.

“Two international hospitals and their researchers have communicated to us as late as the last 24 hours that they have fresh evidence about their proposed experimental treatment,” a hospital spokesman said, according to the BBC.

“We believe, in common with Charlie’s parents, it is right to explore this evidence,” they said.

“Great Ormond Street Hospital is giving the High Court the opportunity to objectively assess the claims of fresh evidence…It will be for the High Court to make its judgment on the facts,” they said.

Charlie has been diagnosed with mitochondrial depletion syndrome, a rare genetic disease thought to affect just 16 children in the world. The disease causes progressive muscle weakness and can cause death in the first year of life.

Charlie’s case has caught international attention for the various legal battles that his parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, have fought in an attempt to save their son’s life.

The current decision of the hospital to apply for the appeal comes as a surprise after Charlie’s parents were denied their request by the High Court to take Charlie to a hospital in the United States to seek experimental treatment, even after they had raised over $1 million to take him there. Charlie’s parents were also denied their request to take their son home to die.

Both the Vatican pediatric hospital and Pope Francis have expressed their support for Charlie.

“The Holy Father follows with affection and emotion the story of Charlie Gard and expresses his own closeness to his parents,” read a July 2 statement issued by Vatican spokesman Greg Burke.

“He prays for them, wishing that their desire to accompany and care for their own child to the end will be respected.”

On June, the day the Charlie’s life support was initially scheduled to be disconnected, the Pope also used his Twitter account to send a clear pro-life message in the infant’s favor:

“To defend human life, above all when it is wounded by illness, is a duty of love that God entrusts to all.”

Charlie’s case will be heard by Justice Francis on Monday at 2 p.m. local time (9 a.m. Eastern) according to a High Court listing.

US President Donald Trump was looking isolated on the contentious issue of global warming Saturday as the Group of 20 summit of major economic powers was winding down with all other countries calling for the rapid implementation of the Paris climate accord.

“We reaffirm our strong commitment to the Paris Agreement, moving swiftly towards its full implementation,” according to the G20’s final text, dpa sources say.

Trump announced last month that Washington was bailing out of the 2015 Paris accord on climate change.

The G20 rebuffed a call by Trump to renegotiate the Paris accord, saying its members believe the agreement is “irreversible.”

“We take note of the decision of the United States of America to withdraw from the Paris Agreement,” the communique reads pointedly.

Along with trade, climate change has been one of the most divisive issues at the two-day summit, with G20 officials working around the clock in a bid to forge agreement on the two questions.

Earlier in the day, the G20 leaders agreed to maintain the fight against protectionism and promote trade, but also found a way to accommodate Trump’s America First economic nationalist agenda, according to a final statement seen by dpa.

“We will keep markets open, noting the importance of reciprocal and mutually advantageous trade and investment frameworks and the principle of non-discrimination,” the final statement reads.

The communique goes on to say that the leaders, whose countries represent 85 per cent of the world’s economic activity, “will continue to fight protectionism, including all unfair trade practices, and recognize the role of legitimate trade defence instruments in this regard.”

But at the same time, the group acknowledged “the role of legitimate defence instruments in trade,” the text reads.

This was the language necessary to win Trump’s approval and gives backing to some attempts to fight against trade practices that seem unfair.

The G20 summit also called for action by its members – notably China – to reduce overcapacity in its steel sector amid threats from the US to impose sanctions, part of the moves to stop dumping in the nation and reduce steel imports.

“We commit to further strengthen G20 trade and investment cooperation,” the final communique says.

Trump has sharply criticised recent trade deals and globalization, claiming they has cost American jobs.

But in their final statement, the G20 leaders say: “International trade and investment are important engines of growth, productivity, innovation, job creation and development.”

The G20 summit has been held against the backdrop of a raft of world leaders – including Chinese President XI Jinping, Russian President Vladimir Putin and German Chancellor Angela Merkel – strongly backing free trade and warning about the economic fallout from protectionism.

Leaders also called for a crackdown on human traffickers as part of their efforts to face up to the global refugee crisis, according to the G20 summit’s final statement seen by dpa.

“We commit to countering migrant smuggling and trafficking in human beings and we are determined to take action against people smugglers and traffickers,” the statement reads.

Original source

Russian President Vladimir Putin has told leaders at the G20 summit that Russia has never interfered in the U.S. election, Russian G20 sherpa Svetlana Lukash said on Twitter on Saturday, July 8, Reuters reports.

“Pres Putin points to #G20 partners on absence of real evidence of that & confirms that Russia had never interfered in US elections,” she wrote.

Putin and U.S. President Donald Trump held a much anticipated face-to-face meeting on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Hamburg on Friday.

“We look forward to a lot of very positive things happening for Russia, for the United States and for everyone concerned,” the U.S. president said as journalists were briefly allowed in to witness part of the meeting. “It’s an honour to be with you.”

Separating the reality from the hype in Prime Minister Modi’s visit to Israel isn’t an easy task.

By Manoj Joshi

Separating the hype from the reality of the Modi visit to Israel is not an easy task. In part this is because of the personalities involved. Both Prime Minister Modi and his Israeli counterpart ‘Bibi’ Netanyahu are hyped up personalities.

Take, for example, Bibi’s comment that the India-Israel friendship was “a marriage made in heaven.” In no time, the internet put out that this was Israel’s third marriage since the Israeli PM had used an identical phrase to describe his country’s relationship with a) Microsoft in 2016 and b) China earlier this year in March.

Playing to the gallery

Modi played to the gallery with a visit to Yad Vashem, the Holocaust memorial, as well as a meeting with young Moshe Holtzberg who survived the Mumbai terrorist attack of 2008 that took the lives of his parents Rivka and Gavriel.

A measure of the publicity were the front page headlines that accompanied the decision of the two countries to set up a $ 40 million fund for joint innovation.

Just two days earlier, Indian tycoons Nandan Nilekani and Sanjeev Agarwal set up a $100 million fund in India, which was appropriately placed in the business pages of newspapers.

Israel’s careful posture

Admiration for Israel is part of the BJP’s DNA. The Jewish state is seen as a model for what they would like India to be, and its battles with Arabs and Palestinians is seen as being similar to India’s fight with Pakistan.

Given its size, Israel has some justification for adopting a posture which compels it to fight its battles outside the bounds of the country. India on the other hand, does not face a comparable threat, yet, the Modi government makes out as though terrorism is an existential threat to India.

Terrorism did figure in the joint statement but not in any prominent way. The Israelis probably did not want to get too mixed up in the Indian focus on the Taliban and the Pakistani groups. And unlike our other strategic ally, the US, they did not call on Pakistan to ensure that its territory was not used to launch terrorist attacks on other countries.

Deliverables from the visit

Minus the hype, then, the real meat in the visit was on practical matters. There is a great deal India can learn from Israel in the area of water management and agriculture.

But while Israel can give us the technology which it already does, and help us with some extension work, it is India’s responsibility to disseminate it widely and it’s not clear whether our states have the capacity to do so.

Israel is important to us in the area of space programmes. It may be recalled that the first radar imaging satellite used by our defence services, TechSar, was custom-built in Israel. What India needs to tap is Israel’s huge SME sector which has world-class niche capabilities in a range of technologies.

The joint statement has identified some areas like atomic clocks, GEO-LEO optical links, and electrical propulsion of satellites.

Defence pact fairly routine

Another area of importance is cyber security. Though the joint statement makes an anodyne reference, India would be well advised to make this a focus area of its relationship.

Given its security perspective, Israel has developed a high-quality IT base specialising in anti-virus software, cyber defence technologies and other forms of internet security. Many global vendors have set up shop in Israel or, like Microsoft, acquired Israeli companies. Israel’s ties with the United States gives it a special edge in this area.

The joint statement reference to defence is, again, fairly routine, emphasising the need to focus on joint development of products and transfer of technology from Israel.

A lot of the technology has an American connection and any transfer would require a US go-ahead. Indeed, one of the principal Indian motives in establishing close defence ties with Israel was to use it as a cutout for US technologies which are always difficult to acquire and come with many conditions. But Israel takes a totally business-like approach to defence technologies and India has to shell out hard cash to acquire them.

Indian defence imports are vital for Israel constituting 41 percent of the exports of their arms industry. Notwithstanding the hype, they are less important for India, and amount to just 7 percent of our imports, with many of the products we get also available from other European and Russian companies.

De-hyphenating Palestine

Modi and Netanyahu probably see each other as birds of a feather. Both are right-wing and revel in muscular policies both at home and abroad, though in Bibi’s case, the posture is an outcome of his dependence on extreme right-wing parties.

For Israel, the Modi visit is a big thing, because of the obvious veneration that the visitor has for the Jewish state, unlike many other leaders around the world who would rather avoid the Israeli embrace.

Added to this is Modi’s decision to de-hyphenate the Palestinian relationship by avoiding a visit to Ramallah, the Palestinian headquarters, which is just 30 minutes away by road.

Israel’s equation with China and Iran

The contrast with China could not be starker. China’s trade with Israel is three times that of India, already more than a thousand Israeli start-up companies have set up shop in China.

Bibi has strongly endorsed the One Belt One Road project yet, Beijing has not hesitated as to support UN resolutions denouncing Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory and in 2016, during a visit to Egypt, Xi Jinping called for the establishment of a Palestinian state with its capital in East Jerusalem.

Iran’s location and the Chah Bahar and International North South Transportation Corridor projects offer New Delhi a means of riposting China’s OBOR. Just how New Delhi hopes to square the circle of its “strategic ties” with Israel and the US. Although, its strategic needs with Iran are not clear.

This article originally appeared in The Quint.

One more G20 summit has ended, now in Germany, without paving way for any tangible improvement in the ground situation in the world for the better.

This G20 summit has been marked by protests against the G20 leadership when over 160 police officers were injured, dozens of activists hospitalized and more than seventy protestors were detained. Typically , the German Chancellor thanked the security forces for their work, as the G20 leaders met behind a heavy police presence in a no- go zone that were off limits to the protestors and most of the people.

While the German Chancellor is right in condemning the violent form of protests as unacceptable, she also should have gracefully accepted the justification for such protests , as G 20 summit has become a cosmetic show of so called world leaders from a few countries, who are not really representative of the countries all over the world. The protestors think that some countries have joined together to discuss the world issues between themselves to benefit themselves with least consideration for other developing nations. The protestors further are of the view that G20 members want to discuss issues on cross section of subjects relating to the countries who are not part of the G20 summit. For example, USA and Russia were discussing about the Syrian crisis without involving Syrian government or any people representative from Syria.

Obviously, the right forum to discuss such matters and thrash out the problems confronting the world is the United Nations Organization and not a group of countries which seem to be of the view, that they can think for the world and direct the world movement. G20 summit is an event that has inevitably undermined the importance of United Nations, though it may not be intended that way by G20 members.

One wonders how the countries participating in the G20 summit have been short listed who have organized themselves as a forum. Even between these member countries, there are high income inequality. Among G20 members, Germany recorded the lowest income inequality while South Africa registered the highest. There are considerable differences in the industrial growth and technology development between these countries. There are little common between all of them.

One is not really clear as to what the G20 summit really sought to achieve except as a get together of selected few countries for whatever purpose.

The world countries joined together and formulated a draft policy to manage the world climate issues and arrived at the 2015 Paris Climate Accord.

However, US President Trump  has now rejected the accord in one stroke and other G20 members and rest of the world remain surprised and do not know how to go about further in combating global warming issues, without participation of USA which remains as one of the significant polluters in the world.

On the issue of trade, there is agreement that there should be fair trade which is a universal expectation and not confined to G20 members alone. But, the G20 members have sought to discuss about world trade issues between themselves, unmindful of the needs and priorities of other countries who are deeply concerned about trade related issues and are not part of the G20 summit.

The decision of the summit with regard to the trade issues are unlikely to be binding on the members , as G20 summit does not have the moral authority that United Nations has. Ultimately, all G20 members would be chalking out the trade policies of individual member countries based on their own self interest, as it has been happening after several G20 summits earlier.

The world is now suffering due to terrorist activities with hundreds of innocent people losing their lives in one part of the world or the other. Many countries affected by terrorist acts could do nothing about this, as several countries themselves are suspected to be involved in encouraging terrorists directly or indirectly as part of their self centred geo political strategies.

Indian Prime Minister Modi spoke strongly against the terror groups and named a few of them. In spite of such strong speech from Mr. Modi, there was thunderous silence among other G20 members, without any tangible and coordinated action plans.

Some of the G20 members like China and India or USA and Russia have running confrontation between themselves and have mutual suspicions. Cosmetic laugh and hand shake between these members are not going to make them less hostile to each other.

At the end of the G20 summit, the leaders of the member countries will go back to their place after enjoying their retreat and world will become no better. For these G20 members, the G20 summit is one more photo opportunity.

At this critical juncture and in this particular ‘do or die’ moment in Somali history, objective assessment of new trends has an existential significance. Early this year when the previous Somali President was voted out of the office in favor of a more popular one, the euphoria was so contagious, and expectation so high. Sadly, that was eclipsed by leadership strategic errors and vicious strings of terrorist attacks and targeted assassinations.

With over 30 such attacks since February, the belligerence, frequency and lethal accuracy have set a new precedent. Ironically this came at a time when the new government launched a controversial campaign of what many—especially in Mogadishu—considered selective disarmament, declared an “all-out war” against al-Shabaab and promised to eradicate them within two years.

Naturally, almost all fingers are pointed at the usual suspects, al-Shabaab. And it is hard to dispute when they themselves continue to claim responsibility, though sometimes through spokespersons that are barely known to the public. However, to accept that never-changing narrative that there is only one actor who solely benefits out of conditions of insecurity is to naively assume that all other clandestine armies, scores of shadowy experts and deadbeat ‘security’ gangs across Somalia are there for shark-fin-gazing in the Indian Ocean. In addition, there are the domestic profiteers of chaos who in the past three decades been investing heavily to defend the status quo by any ruthless means necessary.

Dyslexic Priorities

Whatever the end result, no one can accuse the new government of not trying. The government has launched initiatives such as cleaning the city, attending public events to boost public morale, and conducting random office inspections to keep ministers and staff on their toes. While these are good initiatives, there are more critical issues waiting for the government’s full attention. On some of these issues the government has already taken ill-advised approaches.

After declaring war against al-Shabaab, a stealth enemy that is part of the social fabric, and promising to eradicate them “in two years” the government launched a controversial disarmament campaign that many interpreted as a defanging process of certain clans and interest groups. Launching such initiative before any attempt was made toward confidence-building or managing perception would only make genuine conciliation facilitated by current government dead on arrival.

The government also declared war against corruption without providing comprehensive definition or what constitutes ‘corruption’, and without pushing through the Parliament all anti-corruption laws and the establishment of an independent commission to fight corruption; especially when clouds of suspicions hover over certain government officials. In clear conflict of interest, some ministers (and MPs) own private security companies that compete for projects. Both the President and the Prime Minister stated publicly that they and all their ministers will declare their individual assets for transparent public scrutiny. Several months into office, officials are yet to make good on those promises.

They also aggressively expanded the selective taxation that targets the likes of fruit venders and Tuk Tuk or Bajaj drivers (3 wheeled taxis) while exempting the conglomerate businesses such as money remittances and phone and internet services.

Private Security Branding

In a clever marketing strategy that exploits consumer biases, major manufacturing companies of household products commonly have several competing brands of the same products side by side in super markets. They even hire different brand managers to advance one product against another, though profits generated from all those products ultimately go to the same owners.

The private mercenary industry clearly duplicated the same strategic marketing, and nowhere is that more apparent than in The Horn.

Horn of Africa is a tough and a high volatile neighborhood. It’s only second to the Middle East where it, in fact, shares many traits- natural resource wealth, historical grievances and suspicions, and leaders with myopic vision and gluttonous appetite for corruption. With Donald Trump being in the White House and UAE establishing its intelligence network and loyal militia in Somalia, the stage is set for a new theater of lucrative clandestine operations. The current volatile political and security landscape could not have been more ideal for Erik Prince, founder of the infamous Blackwater, and companies. If it did not exist, they would’ve invented it.

Erik Prince and companies’ clandestine operations in Somalia began in 2010 when Saracen International appeared in Mogadishu and in Puntland regional administration. However, with Blackwater’s record of crimes against humanity, a loaded name (Saracen), and a good number of their mercenaries being remnants of Apartheid era enforcers, it didn’t take long to attract UN and other human rights groups’ attention. So, Saracen turned into Sterling Corporate Services.

Against that backdrop, the Prince-led Frontier Services Group Limited (aka The Company) comes to the scene to provide “security, insurance and logistics services for companies operating in frontier markets”. So, is it not within the realm of rational skepticism to question the good-faith of any Mafia group offering business protection services, life insurance, and luxury burial/cremation package for a price that you cannot refuse?

Modified Hegemony

In recent decades, Ethiopia has secured itself certain level of authority that made her the de facto hegemon of The Horn. With IGAD being a political rubberstamp where Ethiopia sets the agenda, decides the when and why of every meeting and which one of her concocted initiative gets mandated, it was not that hard.

The good news is with current government, Somalia is no longer entirely obedient to the marching orders of its hegemonic master. Moreover, the Oromo and Amhara peaceful insurgency has on the one hand exposed the repressive tendencies of the Ethiopian government; on the other, the vulnerability of its ethnic federalism. So, Ethiopia was compelled to re-strategize for its own survival. It has settled—at least for now—to remain low profile and calibrate its previous ambition to directly control a good number, if not all, of Somalia’s coveted ports and other resources.

As the de facto custodian of Somalia security that can stabilize or destabilize at will is the guarantor in each of the DP World deals. They are set to make 19 percent in Berbera seaport deal, maybe much more lucrative deals in the Bossasso and Barawe.

The X-Factor

Recently the US has removed Mukhtar Robow out of its terrorist list. This, needless to say, placed Robow on a dangerous stage and under a lethal spotlight. Robow was an enigma. He was considered the man who always gave credence to the narrative that al-Shabaab is not a terrorist organization driven by Somali issues but an organization driven by global ambition that has 700 plus foreign fighters.

Robow was also one of the last high profile Shabaab leaders to be added to the terrorist list. He also had very close relationship with warlords from his region who were loyal to Ethiopia. Days after he was taken out of the list he became under Shabaab attack. Oddly, the Somali government sent its army to defend Robow against his comrades. But this might make clear sense if, in the coming months, Robow and company flee to Barawe and settle there.

Dollars and Dysfunction

The Somali government must muster the courage to call the current international community sponsored and lead counterterrorism and stabilization system what it is: a failed system with a high price tag. Any foreign-driven reconciliation project intended to simply clear the anchorages for lucrative but controversial commercial (and military base) seaport deals in Berbera, Boosaaso, and Barawe will in due course fail. Make no mistake, without effective institutions of checks and balances and political stability, ‘foreign investment’ is euphemism for predatory exploitation or looting.

The new government either failed to understand al-Shabaab for what it truly is: a symptom of a number of root causes such as lack of reconciliation and trust, inept leadership and lack of national vision, chronic reliance on foreign security and funding.

All eyes are on President Mohamed Abdullahi Farmaajo. Somalia cannot afford another four years of sleepwalking into catastrophe- a reinvented web of political, social, economic and geopolitical problems. This nation direly needs a shock therapy.

Therefore, President Farmaajo must go to the Parliament to declare all foreign energy and security related agreements unilaterally signed by regional administrations as null and void. The current trajectory would not only keep Somalia in perpetual dependency but in perpetual violent conflicts.

On September 19th the UN General Assembly debates will open. President should articulate a new vision on that global platform and put pressure on the Security Council to convert AMISOM—minus frontline states and private securities—and other forces on the ground (US, UK, UAE, Turkey, etc.) into a U.N. peacekeeping mission. This may achieve three essential objectives: minimize the negative roles played by certain actors, control free flow of arms and centralize the command and control of all militaries on the ground. Equally important, it will sideline the frontline states and private military services.

The UN mission should last no longer than two years- a period long enough for a genuine, Somali-owned and sponsored reconciliation.

Wherever they operate, the latter abides to neither local nor international laws. They thrive in impunity and that is why they have a long atrocious record and that is why they constantly keep reinventing themselves.

Rest assured, in the court of public opinion, every bone they break and every person kill will be blamed on President Farmaajo, UAE and US for ‘ushering in’ these merchants of death and suicide deals.

Meanwhile, unless we change our thinking and attitude, things will remain the same or get worse. Streets will get cleaner for the next tragedy, and Somalia will remain the most attractive playground for zero-sum games, for quick riches, and for undermining political or geopolitical opponents. It is an ever-morphing dangerous environment where the hunter is being hunted.

New research reveals that baits used by hunters have become a substantial portion of black bears’ diets. In northern Wisconsin, over 40% of the diet of harvested animals consisted of bait subsidies.

The widespread availability and consumption of these calorically rich baits—often high-sugar foods, such as cookies, donuts, and candies—may be bolstering the bear population density in the region.

Thirty states permit hunting black bears, 12 of which allow baiting prior to the opening of the hunting season. However,  the findings indicate that the goals and consequences of baiting policies should be re-evaluated.

“It’s not surprising that bears are eating bear bait, but what is notable is the extent. Not only are these bears consuming bait just before they are harvested, but also throughout their lifetimes, which makes them one of the most highly subsidized populations of bears,” said Dr. Rebecca Kirby, lead author of the Journal of Wildlife Management study.

Investigators have revealed that the Gram-positive, anaerobic bacterium Clostridium difficile is widely distributed in soil samples from children’s and dogs’ sandboxes located within the metropolitan area of Madrid.

The researchers also found the presence of genetically diverse strains of C. difficile. The presence of certain strains displaying increased toxin production, and in some cases multidrug resistance, could constitute a major health risk. This bacterium can cause symptoms in human and animal hosts ranging from mild diarrhea to life-threatening inflammation of the colon.

“Our results are just a call to action. A ‘One Health; approach is required in future environmental surveys for this emerging pathogen,” said Prof. José Blanco, corresponding author of the Zoonoses and Public Health study.

Preamble:

We, the Leaders of the G20, met in Hamburg, Germany on 7-8 July 2017 to address major global economic challenges and to contribute to prosperity and well-being.

Mastering the challenges of our age and shaping an interconnected world is the common goal of the G20 as our premier forum for international economic cooperation. The G20 revealed its strength during the global economic and financial crisis some ten years ago when it played a crucial role in stabilising economies and financial markets. What was true then continues to hold: We can achieve more together than by acting alone.

Progressing our joint objective in the G20 – strong, sustainable, balanced and inclusive growth – remains our highest priority.

Globalisation and technological change have contributed significantly to driving economic growth and raising living standards across the globe. However, globalisation has created challenges and its benefits have not been shared widely enough. By bringing together developed and emerging market economies, the G20 is determined to shape globalisation to benefit all people. Most importantly, we need to better enable our people to seize its opportunities.

We are resolved to tackle common challenges to the global community, including terrorism, displacement, poverty, hunger and health threats, job creation, climate change, energy security, and inequality including gender inequality, as a basis for sustainable development and stability. We will continue to work together with others, including developing countries, to address these challenges, building on the rules- based international order.

Expanding on the results of previous presidencies, in particular the 2016 G20 Summit in Hangzhou, we decide today to take concrete actions to advance the three aims of building resilience, improving sustainability and assuming responsibility.

With attention in the Middle East focussed on the Gulf crisis, the United Arab Emirates is elsewhere seeking to reshape the region in ways that could alter its power dynamics. The UAE’s latest effort concentrates on clipping the wings of Hamas and installing its own man in the Gaza Strip in a move that would likely strengthen cooperation with Israel, potentially facilitate an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement, and take the Jewish state’s increasingly close ties to the Gulf state out of the shadows.

The UAE effort involves a carrot and stick approach in which Israel and Palestine Authority (PA) President Mahmood Abbas play bad cop while Egypt is the good cop in a pincer move that is intended to weaken Hamas, the Qatar-backed Islamist group and Muslim Brotherhood offshoot that controls Gaza.

A lowering of public sector salaries in Gaza by Mr. Abbas and reduced electricity supplies by Israel at the Palestinian leader’s behest drove Hamas into the arms of the UAE and Egypt as the International Red Cross and other international agencies warned of an impending calamity.

Hamas was conspicuously absent from a list of demands presented to Qatar two weeks into the five-week-old Saudi-UAE-led campaign to force Qatar to halt its support of militants and Islamists. Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al Jubeir had initially included Hamas at the beginning of the Gulf crisis among the groups the campaign was targeting.

Hamas’ exemption coincided with a series of meetings in Cairo between Hamas, Egyptian intelligence and Mohammed Dahlan, a UAE-backed, Abu Dhabi-based controversial former Palestinian security chief and arch rival of Mr. Abbas who is manoeuvring to succeed the Palestinian leader.

Mr. Dahlan, who is believed to be close to UAE Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed as well as Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman, is alleged to have played a role in other covert UAE operations, including a failed effort to boost the country’s human rights image at the expense of that of Qatar. Mr. Dahlan went into exile in the UAE in 2007 after Hamas defeated his US-backed efforts to thwart the group’s control in Gaza. Mr. Dahlan has since been indicted by the PA on corruption charges.

The deal being hammered out in Cairo would allow Mr. Dahlan to return to Gaza in a power sharing agreement with Hamas that would undermine the position of Mr. Abbas and loosen the Israeli-Egyptian blockade of Gaza that has choked the impoverished strip.

Egypt and the UAE have already moved to alleviate the economic crisis in Gaza in a bid to sweeten the deal. Egypt has begun to send diesel fuel at market prices, but without taxes imposed by the PA, and has signalled that it would open the crucial Rafah border crossing between Gaza and the Sinai.

Associates of Mr. Dahlan were reported to be preparing the border station for re-opening with a $5 million donation from the UAE. Egypt reportedly is supplying barb wires, surveillance cameras and other equipment to enhance border security. The UAE, moreover, has earmarked $150 million to build a power station and has hinted that it would fund construction of a port.

“If the plan does come to fruition, it could make an Israeli-Egyptian dream come true… It will ensure a fine profit for all sides, except for Abbas and Palestinian aspirations to establish a state,” said prominent Israeli columnist Zvi Bar’el.

Mr. Bar’el argued that the deal would widen the gap between Gaza and the PA-controlled West Bank, halt ties between Hamas and Islamist insurgents in Sinai where an Islamic State-affiliate this week claimed responsibility for the killing of 23 Egyptian soldiers, allow Egypt to lift the blockade of Gaza and flood it with Egyptian goods, empower a Palestinian leader that Israel believes it can do business with, ease pressure on Israel that has repeatedly been condemned for the blockade, and roll back the influence of Qatar and Turkey, Hamas and Gaza’s main supporters.

The effort to weaken Hamas and return Mr. Dahlan to Palestine is part of a six-year, UAE-driven, Saudi-backed effort to roll back the achievements of the 2011 popular Arab revolts that toppled autocratic leaders in Egypt, Libya, Yemen and Tunisia and reshape the Middle East and North Africa in the two Gulf states’ mould.

The campaign included support for the 2013 military coup in Egypt that removed Mohammed Morsi, a Muslim Brother and the country’s first and only democratically elected president from office, and brought general-turned-president Abdel Fattah Al Sisi to power. It has culminated in the Saudi-UAE-led boycott of Qatar that has so far failed to force the Gulf state onto its knees.

Along the way, the UAE has supported forces in Libya opposed to the internationally recognized Islamist government and joined Saudi Arabia in a disastrous military intervention in Yemen even though the kingdom and the emirates differ on what a future Yemen should like and what Yemeni forces the alliance should align itself with.

In the process, the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Israel have found common ground in their opposition to Iran and Islamist forces. Pilots from Israel and the UAE flew side-by-side in March in an exercise with the air forces of the United States, Italy and Greece. The UAE has bought military equipment from Israel worth hundreds of millions of dollars and allowed Israel to open in 2015 a diplomatic mission in Abu Dhabi that is accredited to the International Renewable Energy Agency rather than the Emirates.

Turkey, which has backed Qatar in its dispute with Saudi Arabia and the UAE and has sent troops to the Gulf state, has suggested that the UAE funded last year’s failed coup aimed at overthrowing Islamist President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a watershed event in modern Turkish history.

Daily Sabah, a, a newspaper with close ties to the government of Mr. Erdogan’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), as well as anonymous Turkish foreign ministry sources accused the UAE of having pumped $3 billion into the failed coup that the president blames on Fethullah Gulen, a Turkish imam who lives in exile in the United States.

Hamas appeared in May to want include Gaza in efforts to rewrite the political map of the Middle East when it adopted a new statement of principles that for the first time accepted a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The document endorsed “the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of June 4, 1967,” a reference to Israel’s borders on the eve of the war in which the Jewish state captured the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

The UAE-driven, Saudi-backed effort to reshape the Middle East has so far had mixed success. Its main success story is Egypt. Military intervention has driven Yemen to the edge of the abyss; Libya is in the throes of a civil war and jihadist insurgency; Syria has been wracked by civil, jihadist and regional proxy wars; and Qatar has so far refused to bend to the UAE and Saudi Arabia’s will. A UAE-Egypt engineered power sharing agreement in Gaza between Hamas and Mr. Dahlan would constitute a welcome second success.

I’ve always found stories of people engaging in extreme adventures fascinating.

I recall growing up and reading the stories of the great explorers and some of their madcap adventures, and being mentally transported to distant climes and harsh environments. It is for this reason that I’m a big fan of National Geographic.

Today’s children are different though. The privileged ones immerse themselves in a 3D world of video games, some so graphic, they make the journal of an active special forces operative read like a fairy tale. Others embrace television and the escape offered by social media.

Nevertheless, when Central Bank of Kenya (CBK) first announced through Twitter and Facebook that some of its staff would be climbing to the summit of Africa’s highest mountain in June, I felt a shiver go down my spine even though I was in the loop.

I mean, what’s a central banker without a suit? Come on! Those chaps look so serious you can’t imagine them swapping their comfy offices for a 19,341 feet high challenge on their bucket list right? Wrong.

It turns out that some of their cravings are not so different from yours and mine after all…well apart from fighting altitude sickness and freezing temperatures on a mountain. Yes, they do get excited and “catch feelings.” Spending a week without being able to shower or bathe properly is therefore no big deal for them, I discovered.

Such endeavors as hiking up a killer mountain on increasingly limited amounts of oxygen certainly need a powerful anchor, something beyond just the incentive of wanting to test yourself against mortal elements. In this case it was charity. CBK staff fell in love with a bunch of unbelievably sweet children from a Kenyan school for the deaf.

In the process of bonding they discovered that the disadvantaged kids from St. Kizito Litein School were learning under conditions that would be challenging even for pupils with normal hearing in regular schools. So why not raise money to put things right? I mean, it’s a no-brainer!

Scaling Kilimanjaro thus looked like the perfect poster for overcoming life’s challenges and living a healthy lifestyle while doing good for others less privileged than yourself. At least that is how CBK staff felt when they began this journey with preparatory hikes up hills and small mountains in Kenya.

What they were to learn, however, was that when confronted with the real thing, you need to draw on everything you’ve learned, and then some.

The mountain controls you, and not the other way around. With the CBK Governor Dr Patrick Njoroge and the CEO of Bank of Africa Ronald Marambii in tow, they tested the limits of their endurance beyond what they could have imagined – and learned the value of teamwork.

“We were one team with a common objective and we realized the fact that the climb wasn’t a competition,” CBK Governor Dr. Patrick Njoroge told Philip Sambu of Gina Din Communications.

“It was a tough five days. Tanzania is blessed to have this amazing mountain within its territory,” Bank of Africa’s CEO Marambii told Sambu.

“Scaling this mountain takes every ounce of your energy. On the final day, it took us 10 hours to summit thanks to the help from excellent guides and porters,” he noted.

CBK staff Mr. Onesmus Kirimi told Sambu that even the precursor hikes up the Aberdares and other lesser peaks prior to the excursion were not enough to prepare one for the raw power of Mount Kilimanjaro.

“Loss of appetite and lack proper toilets, the simple luxuries of life that we take for granted – we had to deal with that,” said Kirimi.

I also found his colleague Mr. Gikuhi Ndegwa’s personal account of the experience quite interesting. Ndegwa loves humor and there’s never a dull moment with him. Here’s a bit of it as narrated to the CBK Communications team:

“My team had Ayub and Omari as the guides together with Steve, a ranger from Kilimanjaro National Park. Omari was the storyteller and quite bubbly. No wonder all the guides going up or down the mountain seemed to know him. His alluring stories and mastery of the many lyrically composed Kilimanjaro songs and jigs made him quite interesting. Ayub on the other hand was a serious guide with a keen eye on health issues. He was our ‘medical guide’.

“I remember one Bank of Tanzania guy slipping only to quip: “Mungu aliumba miamba zake naye binadamu na kiherehere chake kajiambia apande milima kuchungulia miamba zake mwenyezi Mungu!” Kiherehere muache! (Which roughly translates as: “God created his rocks with human beings and his eternity, and he told them to climb the mountains to look at the rocks of God!”) He chuckled! We really missed the chap’s stories when he pulled out on Day Two.

“Kilimanjaro tents seemed to have more zips, probably to retain heat and it required some special ‘mole’ skills to crawl inside and other skills to slip into the sleeping bag. But the biggest challenge was how to turn once your body got numb from sleeping in one position. It required the skills of a crocodile mauling its prey in the Mara River to turn with the whole sleeping bag lest you turned inside only for the hood to cover your face!

“At breakfast when people shared experiences, it appeared turning in a sleeping bag was a common challenge. Another common challenge was the choice between leaving your ‘smelly’ hiking boots inside the tent or leaving them outside the tent where they could freeze over. To my amusement, I learned that some people had opted to use their boots for pillows! Right from Day One, I decided that some needs could be suppressed. I never woke up to use bathroom facilities at night and how I was able to manage this and save myself from uncalled for hypothermia is a miracle.”

I did some research and discovered that the primary reason people fail to reach the summit of Africa’s highest mountain is altitude sickness, rather than strength or fitness.

Altitude sickness can overwhelm you, putting you in a zombie-like state, so the guides kept a close eye on the team all the way. Especially when you consider that the final stretch to the top is roughly 16-18 hours of walking at high altitude.

So these CBK people are tough, really tough. You really don’t want to go messing around with them.

Apparently acute mountain sickness and heart attacks have killed people on the mountain so no one is immune. And that’s why I’m not going “up there”any time soon. I’d rather live the experience via National Geographic. If I find myself on any mountain peak, it will be the result of a kidnapping: trust me.

*Peter Okong’o works in the communications department for the Central Bank of Kenya.