By Dalga Khatinoglu

Iran explained further details of a $4.8-billion deal with a consortium, headed by Total.

Three days after inviting Iran’s Oil Minister Bijan Namdar Zanganeh to parliament to answer the critic’s questions about the deal, Deputy Head of the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) for Engineering and Development Affairs Gholamreza Manouchehri said during a press conference on June 15 in Tehran that the interest rate of Total-lead consortium’s investment is 2.5 percent, while the ratio, offered by National Iranian Investment Fund is 7-8 percent.

“In total, about $1 billion would be paid as tax to Iranian government, based on agreement as well,” he said adding that the period of investment return also is 10 years, which will start after inauguration of the first stage.

The first and second stages of the project would become operational in 40 and 60 months respectively.

The project’s first stage will cost $2.479 billion, Zanganeh said July 12, including the drilling of 30 wells, construction of two 1,500-ton platforms, as well as laying a 250-km underwater pipeline.

The second stage also includes the construction of a 20,000-ton platform and its installation at phase 11 in order to prevent gas output level after falling reservoir pressure in 2023.

He said that the period of investment return of the second stage would also be 10-year after commissioning of heavy platform (2023-2033).

According to the $4.8-billion deal, some 335 bcm of methane, 290 mb/d of gas condensate, 26 million tons of ethane, propane and butane, as well as 2 million tons of sulphur are expected to be produced from phase 11, totalling $84 billion based on $50/barrel oil price, of which 15 percent or $12 billion is expected to be paid to the consortium in 20 years.

Total has a 51-percent share in the project, while the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) and local Petropars Ltd. owns 30 percent and 19.9 percent, respectively.

Manouchehri said that Total should invest $500 million in two years and in case it wants to withdraw from the project due to possible sanctions or other problems, Iran will only pay the invested amount gradually after the project become operational without any interest or profits.

By Dr Subhash Kapila

“Seizing the Future” in the words of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, most aptly and precisely, captures the essence of the iconic yet overly belated Israel-India Strategic Partnership forged by the meeting of the hearts and minds of the two dynamic and assertive Prime Ministers PM Netanyahu and PM Narendra Modi last week during the first –ever visit of an Indian Prime Minister to Israel in 70 years.

The Israel-India Strategic Partnership can really be defined as the “Advent of the Inevitable” though the inevitability was long delayed by successive Indian Prime Ministers till PM Modi assumed office in New Delhi. Now that the joint journey has well-begun in 2017, let the Indian political and policy establishment invest persistently in taking this Strategic Partnership to greater heights. India as an Emerged Power bears the onus of a greater responsibility in this direction. Within India this Strategic Partnership should receive bipartisan political support and should not be politicised in the name of minority vote-banks or adherence to the fossilised remains of Non-Alignment.

The Israeli President and the Prime Minister broke all protocols in welcoming the Indian Prime Minister and this itself was reflective of the tremendous regard and affection that the leaders and people of Israel have for India. The warmth extended by Israeli leaders was overwhelming. Similar was the Israeli media coverage.

Israel as PM Netanyahu stated in his welcome at the airport reception on PM Modi’s arrival that “We have been waiting for you” was an assertion well-timed and well-stated. It was aimed as a personal tribute to PM Modi for his audacious strategic reachout to forge a strategic partnership with Israel. No Indian Prime Minister, not even the first BJP Premier Vajpayee had taken the initiative to visit Israel, even after Israel’s unhesitating rushing of military supplies during the Kargil War.

But more significantly it was aimed at the Indian nation-State signifying that Israel had patiently waited for 70 years for India to break- out of its self-imposed shell of political and strategic diffidence towards Israel arising from misplaced sensitivities towards Indian Muslims sentiments and the reactions of Arab and Muslim nations, an Indian policy that brought no dividends from the targeted segment.

Israel needs to be given credit by India that despite India’s lack of political and strategic reachout to Israel in the last 70 years, Israel extended much-needed political support and military aid to India in the aggressive and unprovoked wars of 1965, 1971 and the Kargil War of 1999. Expressed by me in the last decade was the sentiment that it is now India’s payback time to Israel.

PM Modi’s visit to Israel stands widely and extensively covered both in the Israeli and Indian media and so also the all-encompassing outcome of the Israel-India Strategic Partnership. The Joint Communique issued during the visit is appended with this Paper for Partnership 2017. However, this Paper instead of repeating the same and media reports will attempt to analyse the overall significance of the Israel-India Strategic Partnership 2017 in its political and strategic dimensions.

In Israel-India Strategic Partnership it is difficult to separate the political, strategic and military strands as they are intertwined. It is therefore best to analyse the dimensions under the generic heads of “Politico-Strategic” and “Strategic Military”. Even the economic dimension gets subsumed in both these terms as in my view that dimension only addedly contributes to the two intertwined dimensions mentioned.

In politico-strategic dimensions the overall implications are significant and far-reaching. Historicity and rich civilsational shared heritage aside, the contemporary significance has best been captured in an article in the UK Daily, ‘The Independent’ which makes two pertinent observations. The first observation made is that “Indian PM Modi’s visit to Israel puts him firmly on the side of Trump and his international strongmen”. More significantly, the second observation asserts that “What we are watching in slow motion is the biggest realignment of the global order since the Second World War,”

Emergence of a strong and vibrant Israel-India Strategic Partnership in 2017 exactly portends that when analysed laterally suggests that Israel and India get positioned in an overarching strategic grouping comprising the United States, Japan, India and Israel. Not to be forgotten is that Israel is in the process of evolving a strong political and military relationship with Vietnam, with India also so involved with Vietnam for decades.

These nations may not be tied in any formal alliance structure but their complementarity of overall strategic convergences and their strong bilateral bonds existing or being forged does qualify for the assertion that the Israel-India Strategic Partnership has set in motion a new major realignment of global balance of power with implications not only for the Middle East but also the contiguous region of South Asia and the wider Indo Pacific Asia.

The emergence of the Israel-India Strategic Partnership which portends to now grow into an open and assertive strategic partnership, with India no longer weighed down by political diffidence, promises to add considerable strategic ballast to the informal strategic grouping outlined above. This in turn places a heavy burden on India now to live upto the strategic expectations of the nations stated above. I daresay that in living upto the strategic assertiveness expected of India, Israel will play a significant and unhesitant role especially in the military capacity- building of India as without military muscle to back it India’s foreign policy cannot reach its full fruition.

In terms of politico-strategic significance two more points need to be highlighted. Israel investing and underwriting a strong and vibrant Strategic Partnership with India indicates two determinants. Israel has significantly invested in India’s potential as a Great Power, so highlighted by the Israeli Prime Minister. Secondly, it marks an Israeli ‘Pivot to Asia’ when viewed in the context of Israel so far had foreign policy focus on the West. In this direction, India can be expected to assist Israel with its considerable foreign policy footprints in Indo Pacific Asia.

In terms of Middle East politico-military implications two things stand out in relation to the Strategic Partnership. Israel no longer would feel isolated in the region with India expectedly standing strongly by its side. India having come out of the closet and strongly affirming its Strategic Partnership with Israel has sent strong politico-strategic signals to the region of its departure from its established foreign policy which in essence spun around appeasement of Arab and Muslim nations. It is for record that no Arab or Muslim nation has supported India on Kashmir but sided with Pakistan on grounds of Islamic affinity.

With the Israel-India Strategic Partnership being a tipping point in the global and regional balance of power, reverberations are obviously taking place. Initial reactions suggest that Pakistan is seriously disturbed on this development. Reactions within Pakistan and in the Pakistan media are rabid and panicky. The reactions from the Middle East are muted. This arises from the reality that Israel has Peace Treaties with two Arab nations–Egypt and Jordan, and Saudi Arabia as the leading nation of the Islamic world has its diplomatic mission in Israel.

The United States, Japan, Vietnam and the European countries seem to view the emergence of this Strategic Partnership in positive terms. No noticeable reactions have emerged from Russia. China is noticeably muted on this development. This could possibly be due to China having military sales relationship and with sizeable Chinese FDI invested in the tourism sector in Israel. However, it cannot be believed that China is not concerned about the new realignment affecting the global balance of power.

Some in India are concerned that Israel’s close military relationship with China could prospectively dilute the Israel-India Strategic Partnership. Israeli PM Netanyahu seems to have implicitly hinted that Israel views its military relations with China strictly in terms of sale of military technology which in many cases is subject to restrictions by the United States. On the other hand when PM Netanyahu defines its Strategic Partnership with India as one of “Seizing the Future” the implications and long-range perspectives should be obvious.

Analytically, it should strike any observer that if Israel is getting extensively involved in India’s modernisation and build-up of it Armed Forces, does it not imply that this Israeli effort tends to militarily strengthen India against its confirmed military threats emanating from China with Pakistan in tow?

Turning attention to the strategic-military dimensions of the Israel-India Strategic Partnership, the canvas is wide and colourful and very promising. Without listing the detailed inventories of military sales that have already flowed-in and those in the pipeline, it can be pointed out that items of innovative and technological defence collaboration gets highlighted in three critical areas of military concern to India in relation to India’s military asymmetry with China, namely, space systems, cyber warfare and ECM, besides missiles and anti-ballistic missiles systems.

Lastly, Israel and India are two nations under sustained assault by Fundamentalist Islamic Terrorism and both nations have decided to cooperate in a big way to combat this menace including more integrated terrorism intelligence-sharing so vital for both countries counter-terrorism operations. Unlike other countries which incorporate the terrorism menace as routine references in Joint Communiques, in case of Israel it can be analysed as here that the Israeli assistance in terrorism intelligence and counter-terrorism expertise sharing would be considerable and substantial. Israel can play a vital role in improving India’s counter-terrorism deterrence against Fundamentalist Islamic Terrorism. This should be a strong message to Pakistan which shelters Islamic Jihadi Terrorism.

In the strategic dimensions that propel the Israel-India Strategic Partnership well into the future would be two geopolitical perceptions gaining ground lately. The first is the perceived or misperceived as I would put it, of the decline of the United States as a Superpower. The second is the perception that China’s not so benign military rise and its aggressive military brinkmanship on its peripheries and elsewhere is unstoppable.

There is yet another dimension in the Israel-India Strategic Partnership and that is a convergence on the Indian Ocean. Little discussed but the potential is vast. In one of my SAAG Papers in the last decade I had touched on this. Besides the geopolitical convergence, Israel is involved in a major way in terms of build-up of its capabilities in missiles, UAVs and surveillance systems.

Finally, in terms of concluding observations, it needs to be emphasised that unlike India’s other Strategic Partnerships where the overall intent gets subsumed by the Major Powers, regional interests and away from India’s national interests, in the case of Israel-India Strategic Partnership the geopolitical and strategic convergences are strong and unambiguous. This will be an enabler as both Israel and India strive to “Seize the Future.”

Appendix:

India-Israel Joint Statement during the visit of Prime Minister to Israel (July 5, 2017) July 05, 2017

1. Marking the 25th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries, Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India visited Israel from 4-6 July 2017 at the invitation of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel. This historic first-ever visit by an Indian Prime Minister to Israel solidified the enduring friendship between their peoples and raised the bilateral relationship to that of a strategic partnership.

2. Noting that they represent two cradles of civilizations that have nurtured their respective heritages over the centuries, the two leaders affirmed their intention to build a broad-based relationship that will realise the full potential of their association. In doing so, they recognized that throughout history, the Jewish Communities have always had a home in India and have been treated with warmth and respect.

3. Reviewing the development of the relationship after a quarter century of diplomatic ties, the two leaders agreed on initiatives and policies that would reflect the goals and aspirations of both nations and widen their collaborative endeavours in a broad range of areas. They visualized that the two countries will become close partners in development, technology, innovation, entrepreneurship, defence and security.

4. Recognizing its centrality for development, India and Israel agreed to establish a “Strategic Partnership in Water and Agriculture”. This will focus on water conservation, waste-water treatment and its reuse for agriculture, desalination, water utility reforms, and the cleaning of the Ganges and other rivers using advanced water technologies. It will also include the reinforcement and expansion of the existing Centres of Excellence (COE) under the stewardship of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MASHAV) and the Ministry of Agriculture of India to promote commercially viable business models involving Farmer Producer Organizations (FPOs); the provision of quality planting material; and the transfer of post-harvest technical know-how and market linkages involving the private sector through PPP, B2B & other models. The two leaders also agreed on the establishment of a Joint Working Group to steer this Partnership.

5. The two Prime Ministers noted the importance of realizing the full potential of bilateral trade and investment. They tasked the India-Israel CEO Forum to come up with early recommendations in this regard. Both leaders underlined the need to boost bilateral cooperation in innovation and entrepreneurship and called for greater collaboration in the field of start-ups.

6. Recognizing the importance of facilitating movement of businessmen and women, India and Israel underlined their expectation that the granting of multiple entry visas to business people for up to five years will encourage greater economic and commercial exchanges.

7. The two Prime Ministers agreed that negotiations would be conducted on an agreement for the Protection of Investments in order to encourage bilateral investments from both sides.

8. The two Prime Ministers welcomed the conclusion of the Memorandum of Understanding for establishing the India-Israel Industrial R&D and Innovation Fund (I4F) by the Department of Science and Technology, India and the National Authority for Technological Innovation, Israel with a contribution of US$ 20 million from each side. This MoU will play a seminal role in enabling Indian and Israeli enterprises to undertake joint R&D projects leading to development of innovative technologies and products that have potential for commercial application.

9. Recognising the importance of fostering wide ranging knowledge-business partnership for industries, R&D institutions and government agencies from both countries, Israel warmly welcomed India’s offer to be the “Partner Country” for the annual Technology Summit to be held in India in 2018.

10. Both leaders welcomed the ongoing cooperation between the Israel Space Agency (ISA) and the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO). They expressed satisfaction over the signing of three MoUs and Plan of Cooperation in the areas of Cooperation in Atomic Clocks; GEO-LEO Optical Link; Academic collaboration and Electric propulsion for small satellites which would further enhance cooperation between the two countries. They also encouraged the two Space Agencies to further enhance the growing relationship for mutual benefit. The two leaders acknowledged that the recent launching by ISRO of an Israeli nano satellite is an important milestone in this arena.

11. The Prime Ministers noted with satisfaction that both sides have agreed to upgrade their scientific and technological collaboration by supporting joint research and development projects in the cutting edge areas, including ‘Big Data Analytics in Health Care’. They directed the India-Israel Joint Committee on Science and Technology to explore the possibility of further advancement of scientific collaboration including setting up of Networked Centres of Research Excellence in the cutting edge areas of mutual strength and interest.

12. Reaffirming the importance of bilateral defence cooperation over the years, it was agreed that future developments in this sphere should focus on joint development of defence products, including transfer of technology from Israel, with a special emphasis on the ‘Make in India’ initiative.

13. India and Israel are committed to promote security and stability in cyberspace on both the governmental and private levels. The Prime Ministers emphasized the importance of enhanced dialogue between their national cyber authorities and expressed their commitment to expand and accelerate their cooperation in this sphere including laying a mutual roadmap for its implementation. Both sides also recognise the value of enhancing and further institutionalising their broad-based cooperation on cyber issues through a Framework for cooperation in the area of cyber security.

14. Recognizing that terrorism poses a grave threat to global peace and stability, the two Prime Ministers reiterated their strong commitment to combat it in all its forms and manifestations. They stressed that there can be no justification for acts of terror on any grounds whatsoever. The leaders asserted that strong measures should be taken against terrorists, terror organizations, their networks and all those who encourage, support and finance terrorism, or provide sanctuary to terrorists and terror groups. They also underscored the need to ensure that terrorist organizations do not get access to any WMD or technologies. Both leaders also committed to cooperate for the early adoption of the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism (CCIT).

15. Both leaders reaffirmed their commitments as envisaged in the agreement on cooperation on Homeland and Public Security and encouraged the various Working Groups to implement the agreement in an efficient and effective manner.

16. The two Prime Ministers underlined the importance of enhanced collaboration in the field of Higher Education and Research and agreed to promote this through relevant agreements and the Joint Research Grant Programme.17. Noting the importance of growing people to people contacts between India and Israel, the two leaders agreed to facilitate the promotion of travel & tourism in both directions, including through the further enhancement of air links between India and Israel.

18. Appreciating the contribution of the Jewish community in India and Jews of Indian origin in Israel in bringing the two societies closer, Prime Minister Modi announced the opening of an Indian Cultural Centre in Israel. This was warmly welcomed by Prime Minister Netanyahu who expressed his deep respect for Indian culture and recalled Israel’s strong support and sponsorship of PM Modi’s initiative to promote the practice of Yoga by designating June 21 as International Yoga Day.

19. The two Prime Ministers recognized the contribution of Indian care-givers in Israel and expressed their intention to reach a mutually agreed-upon arrangement which will provide for their continued arrival in a regulated manner.

20. The two Prime Ministers discussed the developments pertaining to the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process. They underlined the need for the establishment of a just and durable peace in the region. They reaffirmed their support for an early negotiated solution between the sides based on mutual recognition and security arrangements

21. During the visit, the following Agreements were signed:

i. MoU between the Department of Science & Technology, India and National Technological Innovation Authority, Israel for setting up of India-Israel Industrial R&D and Technological Innovation Fund (I4F).

ii. MoU between the Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation of the Republic of India and the Ministry of National Infrastructure, Energy and Water Resources of the State of Israel on National Campaign for Water Conservation in India

iii MoU between U.P. Jal Nigam, Government of Uttar Pradesh, of the Republic of India and the Ministry of National Infrastructure, Energy and Water Resources of the State of Israel on State Water Utility Reform in India

iv India-Israel Development Cooperation – Three Year Work Program in Agriculture 2018-2020

v Plan of Cooperation Between the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) and the Israel Space Agency (ISA) regarding cooperation in Atomic Clocks

vi MoU between the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) and the Israel Space Agency (ISA)regarding cooperation in GEO-LEO Optical Link

vii MoU between the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) and the Israel Space Agency (ISA) regarding cooperation in Electric Propulsion for Small Satellites

22. Prime Minister Modi thanked the people and Government of Israel for their gracious hospitality and extended a warm invitation to Prime Minister Netanyahu to visit India at a mutually convenient time. Prime Minister Netanyahu accepted the invitation.

By Daniel Urchick

President Donald Trump’s recently proposed funding cuts will notably eliminate foreign aid programs for Central Asia states. From a US perspective, terminating such programs is both myopic and counterproductive, as good relations with Central Asian countries bolster the administration’s counterterrorism efforts both in the region and in neighboring Afghanistan. With a forthcoming deployment of additional US forces to Afghanistan, now is not the time for the United States to withdraw from Central Asia.

International aid is America’s primary method of projecting influence and building cooperative mechanisms to achieve both regional and larger foreign policy goals. The White House’s intention to reduce aid to Central Asia by nearly 60 percent risks minimizing an already diminished US regional presence. This would come at a time when the administration claims to be solely focused on combating ISIL and Islamist extremism, and thus undermines its own interests in Afghanistan, where the longest war in American history is still ongoing with no end in sight.

With a resurgent Taliban gaining ground, and not to mention a growing ISIL presence, the security situation in the so-called “graveyard of empires” is deteriorating rapidly. Consequently, the United States is now sending an additional 4,000 soldiers to the conflict ridden country to help Afghan forces in their fight against Islamist extremists. But by withdrawing most of the aid given to Afghanistan’s northern neighbors, the administration is virtually ensuring that America will not receive the logistical help and support it has enjoyed over the past 16 years, making the US troops’ mission much more difficult than it needs to be.

A troop surge and the potential loss of more American lives may be meaningless if militants fleeing Afghanistan cross the border to Central Asian nations such as Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan and ignite a regional conflagration that could ultimately spill back across the Afghan border. The elimination of most security and development-oriented aid programs to these countries will undoubtedly leave them more vulnerable to Islamist militants retreating to these countries for sanctuary or recruitment. Notably, past analysis of Russian and Chinese security aid via the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) has shown that Central Asia is still unprepared for an ISIL-like destabilizing event.

Despite the espoused commitment to destroying ISIL and combating terrorism across the globe, the proposed cuts show that the Trump administration does not have a true understanding of how to combat these threats globally. ISIL has pulled thousands of recruits from Central Asia that have been subsequently used to attack the United States’ NATO ally Turkey and embark on other suicide missions. Furthermore, the idea of an Islamist caliphate usurping a government has deep roots in this region, reaching back to the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. Such radical ideas in the region are hard to destroy and are always simmering just below the restive surface. US aid and influence helps counter ISIL’s recruitment efforts and other extremist ideas more broadly. Leaving the region and ceding the initiative to countries like Russia and China will only encourage suppression and the regression of human rights, which will in turn encourage the breeding of extremism.

In 2013, US Secretary of Defense James Mattis (then head of US Central Command) said, “If you don’t fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition.” This warning rings truer than ever today as the world’s threat environment becomes increasingly complex, particularly in Central Asia. If the United States severely reduces the foreign aid it provides to this region, then it will voluntarily be placing itself and its vital foreign policy interests in a position from which they may not recover.

Islamist extremism in Central Asia is an insidious and too-often ignored issue in the mainstream media’s coverage, but this does not justify the administration’s cuts to a region that is central to US security. Rather than cut aid to Central Asia simply because it is hard to understand the region’s complexities, increased resources should be devoted to the region. The convergence of several security issues means a dollar of aid spent on security assistance or civil rights education goes three times as far. This will give the supposed fiscally minded administration the maximum effect on American greatness per dollar spent. After all, proactive aid is always cheaper than buying more bullets for Secretary Mattis.

The opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints expressed by the authors are theirs alone and don’t reflect any official position of Geopoliticalmonitor.com, where this article was published.

By Dr. Arshad M. Khan*

July 14, is Bastille Day. It is the day when the common people of France, despairing their grievances would never be addressed, stormed the Bastille It was a turning point for the French Revolution, and is celebrated annually with parades, fireworks and general festivity.

This year the salute at the military parade down the Champs Elysees was taken jointly by the new President of France Emmanuel Macron and U.S. President Donald Trump. France is the U.S.’s oldest ally — the French navy and French troops helped American colonists defeat the British and achieve independence over 240 years ago.

The two leaders have one significant fact in common: both took on their political establishment and won; Trump even took on the media. Both now are happy to partner against ISIS in Syria, and both favor better relations with Russia. Trump had a two-hour meeting with Putin at the G-20 meeting; Macron met with Putin twice, first at Versailles and then again at the G-20.

Trump also talked trade with Macron and even suggested something new on the Paris Climate Accord.

Back home, another storm in a teacup. Some Russian promised dirt on Hillary Clinton. He met with Donald Trump Jr. and had little to offer. As these things go, the Russian was probably enhancing his own business status by appearing close to the Trump family. The Democrats are back screaming Russian interference in the election. Question: Would Hillary’s people have followed up on such an offer?

Meanwhile, the long trail of corruption reaching back to Arkansas and how Hillary miraculously turned $1,000 into $100,000 trading commodities, a significant figure when her husband was earning about a third of that amount, and many other questions, will continue to dog her. How about the trade confirmations necessary for tax purposes, and something anyone with a spouse in politics would keep to establish propriety. These would surely prove her claims.

Hillary and Bill Clinton have earned $153 million from speech making. In a July 31, 2015 Rolling Stone article, former President Jimmy Carter is quoted as saying, the U.S. is no longer the democracy that made this nation great. What it is “is an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery.” They pay their money and get what they want.

By the way, the Jimmy Carter Center is not sitting on billions collected for a foundation. It has nearly eradicated river blindness (Guinea worm) in Africa, and is fighting other neglected tropical diseases like trachoma. It also monitors foreign elections when asked, fights for human rights, and for peaceful conflict resolution.

While one can disagree strongly with Trump’s policies on health care and climate change and a lot more, one knows they are his policies. He is not beholden to large donors. And while he is constrained in trying to improve relations with Russia, he is trying. It is the only country that can blow us up ending life as we know it, and no one wants that Doomsday Clock edging still closer to midnight.

One also remembers what the hacking did — it exposed the Democratic establishment as thoroughly corrupt — so dirty it needs a ton of Clorox bleach.

About the author:
Dr. Arshad M. Khan is a former Professor based in the US. Educated at King’s College London, OSU and The University of Chicago, he has a multidisciplinary background that has frequently informed his research. Thus he headed the analysis of an innovation survey of Norway, and his work on SMEs published in major journals has been widely cited. He has for several decades also written for the press: These articles and occasional comments have appeared in print media such as The Dallas Morning News, Dawn (Pakistan), The Fort Worth Star Telegram, The Monitor, The Wall Street Journal and others. On the internet, he has written for Antiwar.com, Asia Times, Common Dreams, Counterpunch, Countercurrents, Dissident Voice, Eurasia Review and Modern Diplomacy among many. His work has been quoted in the U.S. Congress and published in its Congressional Record.

Source:
This article was published at Modern Diplomacy.

By Wang Li*

On July 10, the president-elect Kh. Battulga was inaugurated at the State House in Ulan Bator, where he vowed to resume the “third neighbor policy” for safeguarding Mongolia’s independence and freedom. Although Mongolia’s role in the world affairs is marginal, the people living on land-locked country have been well-known for their great dream.

It is true that the nomadic tribes did create the largest Mongol Empire in human history by very controversial means between 1227 and 1294. Yet it is generally accepted that Mongolia as a unified entity had been non-existent until 1992 when the former Soviet Union was disintegrated. The milieu in that Mongolia is located has never changed, for its neighbors—China and Russia—are two formidable powers in any real sense.

Yet, the idea of the “third neighbor” is a facet of foreign relations of Mongolia referring to its building relationships with countries other than Russia and China that historically had a sphere of influence extending to the country. While Russia and China are the neighbors physically that Mongolia shared borders with only, the “third neighbor” was first put forward by former U.S. Secretary of State James Baker during his meeting with Mongolian leaders in 1990. For sure, it refers to the U.S. as a third neighbor with a view to endorsing the Mongols’ first move toward democracy. Since then, the idea of “third neighbors” has been picked up by Mongolian policy- makers from time to time and eventually become formalized in its foreign policy and legislation. This reveals their desire to have more the “third neighbors”, primarily the United States, Japan, South Korea, India and Turkey.

Actually, it is more than a symbolic gesture for Mongolia, since 2003, it has been involved into military drills with the United States and other NATO members. In 2010, Mongolia sent its contingents to Afghanistan under the command of NATO while it was invited to participate in the 2012 NATO summit in Chicago with individual partnership and cooperation program status. By contrast, although Mongolia was granted the status of the observer member in 2004, it has never applied for a formal status like India, Pakistan or Iran. As a senior diplomat of Mongolia stated in 2013, “Mongolia’s third neighbor countries play a crucial role in its foreign policy.”

Yet, this rhetoric is never realistic in practice. First, that Mongolia has tried to balance its relations with Russia and China on one hand with relations with other major powers is not an easy task for the elites in Ulan Bator. True, this is not a new tactic in diplomacy, but it seems that Mongolia has missed the point that its giant neighbors would never accept the involvement of the third neighbor(s) into their strategically proximate areas. Then Mongolia argued that the third neighbor policy simply echoed the age-old sentiment of the Mongols to look beyond the two neighbors, like it did in history to adopt Buddhism from India over Chinese Confucianism and Russian Slavic religions. Yet, it reflects their consciousness of looking broadly in geopolitics rather than cultural affinities.

Second, neither China nor Russia has interfered into Mongolia’s domestic affairs in the post-Soviet political reforms and power transition from one-party rule to a liberal democracy. In effect, China and Russia have helped Mongolia tackle its severe economic hardships after the sudden end of Soviet investment and subsidies. In 2012 when Mongolia became a member of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), it met no challenge from Moscow and Beijing. Since the third neighbor policy is used frequently, it does cause misperceptions with its two neighbors. Economically, no country including Mongolia likes to put all their eggs into one basket. Yet, China and Russia have large impact on the Mongolian economy in an overwhelming way. For instance, President Putin said, “The natural geographical proximity of Mongolia, Russia and China make it possible for us to implement good long-term projects in infrastructure, the power sector and the mining industry. We have what to discuss with each other. Naturally we deem it important, expedient and useful to start a permanent dialogue.”

Essentially, the third neighbor policy, though dynamic, is an effort on the part of Mongolia to balance the influence from China and Russia. To that end, the foreign policy-makers in Ulan Bator have stretched out to look for key players globally that have greater geopolitical impact on Mongolia, Russia and China. As the challenges ahead are so great, the ruling elites of Mongolia do not have room for oversights. On one hand, Mongolia under ex-President Elbegdorj made the proposal of a “Russia-China-Mongolia trilateral cooperation” in 2014, with Xi‘s endorsement and Putin’s acquiescence, there was little standing in the way of trilateral cooperation. For Mongolia, this trilateral initiative meshes well with Elbegdorj’s focus on being involved landlocked country into global diplomacy. On the other hand, Mongolia has failed to deepen its cooperation with Russia despite making major inroads elsewhere in the world. In 2013 alone, it signed 63 bilateral agreements, including with the U. S., EU, China and Japan. Yet, it did not manage to sign any new agreements with Russia.

To certain extent, the unique geopolitical opportunity Mongolia presents makes it a vital strategic partner for those wanting to hedge against the influence of either China or Russia, or both. This encourages some groups of the Mongolians to pursue unrealistic or even adventurous goals. In addition, its rich natural reserves and vibrant economy also attracts the recession- stricken West to be eagerly involved in landlocked country. Yet, it has been dependent on Russia militarily while it is evidently too close to China, its largest trade partner and foreign investor. Since relationship with China is likely to determine Mongolia’s future, the leaders in Ulan Bator feel uneasy about this, clearly trying to avoid being embraced too closely by China or by Russia. Given this, what Mongolia primarily wants is the Western help to shield it from the overwhelming influence of its neighbors and to yield enough diplomatic room when engaging with any sides.

On September 29 2015, then President Elbegdorj, a Harvard-educated politician, addressed at the UN General Assembly. He cited Mongolia’s recent history, along with its geographic reality and the uniqueness of the chosen path of national development, to advocate neutrality. He said that “Mongolia has pursued a peaceful, open, multi-pillar foreign policy. This stance enabled us to declare Mongolia in a state of permanent neutrality. Therefore I am convinced that Mongolia’s status of permanent neutrality will contribute to the strengthening of peace, security, and development in our region and the world at large.”

Frankly speaking, the declared status as permanently neutral is a new initiative on the part of Mongolia, and equally is a logical extension of the “third neighbor” policy rather than a real departure from it. From the geopolitical and legal perspectives, permanent neutrality takes the long-time desire to balance two overbearing neighbors by turning to virtual neighbors; and to a next step by permanently declaring Mongolia to remain in between these two neighbors, not siding with one or the other, and not aligning militarily with any outside party to neutralize any notion of threats against these neighbors emanating from Mongolia.

The proposal of “permanently neutral” by Elbegdorj elicited the debates on its ends and means. Yet it is self-evident that since the future will likely hold ever-closer economic ties with China, the neutrality declaration may assuage Russian fears that Mongolia might become a staging ground for aggression toward Russia in the future. In a similar manner, Mongolia lacks of desire to forge any kind of geostrategic ties with China. Thus neutrality would offer a quasi- guarantee that Mongolia will not turn into a Russian buffer state against China in a military sense. Choinkhor Jalbuu who is director of the Mongolian Geopolitical institute and former ambassador to Washington argued incisively, “Having permanent neutrality doesn’t mean isolation from inter- national community. Put it simply, it is a position that Mongolia will not join any side against any country.”

Oddly enough, now the president-elect Battulga argued for the resumption of “third neighbors” policy. But the question is that does he want to dance with wolves romantically or he will realistically embrace Mongolia’s tenet as an actively engaged member of the international community. This is very the path chosen by the people of Mongolia rather than by others.

About the author:
*Wang Li is Professor of International Relations and Diplomacy at the School of International and Public Affairs, Jilin University China.

Source:
This article was published by Modern Diplomacy

India still could not manage to get in to the cartel of civil nuclear trade (the NSG). This is due to the certain fact of India’s poor non-proliferation credentials recognized internationally. However, Indian officials could not be bothered whatever by the decision on NSG membership. For instance, Indian External Affairs Ministry Spokesperson Vikas Swarup said, “India is not seeking NSG membership as a gift and that India is seeking it on its non-proliferation record.” But the very fact is quite opposite to that owing to the very basic aspect that India is a non-NPT state wherein NSG membership resides for states that are Party to the Treaty.

About India’s first nuclear test a lot has been written with regard to the post-nuclear suppliers group’s debate that it was actually a device derived from Canadian and US exports designated purely for peaceful purposes. It was this so called peaceful nuclear test that compelled the United States and numerous other countries to create the Nuclear Suppliers Group to restrict global nuclear trade more relentlessly.

The West is cracking down on some bona fide integer with regards to Indian nuclear security; especially India’s potential of becoming a hefty fissile material proliferator in the South Asian region. Besides the Indo-US strategic partnership aiming at mutual outcomes, there are several reports in the print and social media by US think tanks and policy-making institutions expressing similar apprehensions.

There was a report by the Belfer Centre for Science and International Affairs of the Harvard Kennedy School titled “The Three Overlapping Streams of India’s Nuclear Programmes”. It actually identifies the problems in India’s nuclear program arising from gaps in the commitments New Delhi had made after its nuclear deal with the US, and in its separation plan, its Safeguards Agreements and its Additional Protocols. The relationships and overlaps between its three streams of nuclear program — civilian safeguarded, civilian unsafeguarded, their civil and military programs — observed in the report are not transparent.

On the contrary, the international community is continually portraying India’s nuclear track record as A grade — this could be to achieve their (big powers) self-centered goals by posing India as such. After the US, many other countries have followed suit by engaging India in similar kind of uranium deals (Indo-US Nuclear Deal) for a dual purpose. Consequently, it has worse and diverse implications for the South Asian nuclear region.

As a result of these nuclear / uranium deals, especially the Indo-US nuclear deal, India’s Nuclear weapons will surely benefit without having any burden on its indigenous resources. This is because it will give India access to huge reserves of fissile material that would be more than enough for upgradation and enhancing its number of nuclear weapons. This will result in the vertical proliferation that could ultimately initiate an enhanced arms race in the South Asia region. Secondly, the move will also smash the entire emphasize of the non-proliferation regime.

So in actuality, admittedly, India has nothing to give in return to so many deals in the name of the so-called good proliferation record of India. Instead, the Indian nuclear program is unsafe, saying that India’s civilian nuclear energy project, which is being expanded with the help of countries like the United States, can create new potential pathways to the acquisition of fissile material that could be diverted for military purposes.

It is also clear that India has a poor nuclear materials safety record. According to the NTI (Nuclear Materials Security Index), which assesses the security of nuclear materials around the world, India scores below Pakistan, and is ranked only above North Korea and Iran. Thus, assessing all of together, the picture depicts not only the poor state of export controls in the country but further shows the intricate associated concerns of nuclear proliferation and misuse.

For India, NSG membership could [may] boost its international standing as a responsible atomic power and also give it greater influence on issues related to global nuclear trade as many countries are already in line with similar kind of deals as of 2008. However, the country would be the only member of the body that has not signed the NPT; signaling an open discriminatory act towards Pakistan. Since, the NSG decisions as taken on consensus, first China has reaffirmed it is not going to happen, but if it does happens then India could always stand against any civil trade with Pakistan. Resultantly, this would lead to a regional nuclear arms race as India is and would remain out of the NPT and would not have to sign the treaty.

C. Christine Fair in her recent opinion article titled “Pakistan Can’t Afford China’s ‘Friendship’” has tried to muddle the clarity of China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) reflective of enduring mutually beneficial friendship between the two countries. Her analysis on Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and CPEC reflects the colossal loss of objectivity for venting opaque views. The concocted incidents cited from history of Pakistan China bilateral relations shows the failed attempt by an intellectual mercenary who would sacrifice objectivity to vindicate her biased rhetorical disposition under the garb of analysis.

Her “analysis” shows the ignorance of the Chinese model of foreign assistance. Unlike the US that has historically used the foreign aid as a tool to corrupt the local elite for buying their loyalties to serve its interest, Chinese employ foreign economic assistance for capacity building of the recipient state. Such strategy has been highly effective and has helped China to connect and secure goodwill with the people of economic assistance recipient country. Non-interference and development projects instead of cash driven foreign economic assistance strategy by China has bought it huge approval for its enhanced role in developing countries in Asia and Africa.

Economic consensus between Pakistan and China reflected in CPEC is structured on a decades old all-weather friendship that has lasted the test of time. As the Chinese model, both for military and economic assistance is banked on developing domestic capabilities instead of building perpetual reliance on China, Pakistan has received immense assistance in this regard from its all-weather friend. In Pakistan, the ongoing process of indigenization of military hardware technologies is achieved through sustained support from China.

Christine Fair argues that China failed to help Pakistan especially in 1971 war with India. When Indian proxy war by arming and training terrorist organization Mukti Bahni in East Pakistan reached its peak, to avert Indian aggression of direct war, the US foreign policy elite favored the idea that China’s mobilization of forces along Indian border would dissuade India from starting full scale war with Pakistan. Christine Fair deliberately fails to mention the rift between USSR and China at that time and Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Co-operation signed between USSR and India on August 9, 1971 whereby USSR pledged to come to rescue of India in case of war against any state. It was this treaty that forced China not to play the role it wanted to help Pakistan.

Destabilization through terrorism sponsoring leading to Balkanization of other states in South Asia is Indian strategy for dominating the region as the largest state carving its sphere of influence riding on the economic rise. India has long history of state sponsored terrorism for destabilizing the region through use of non-state actors. In China, the territorial integrity is closely linked to the legitimacy of Chinese Community Party, which is reflected in its foreign policy as well. The BRI is aimed at creating stable and economically prosperous neighborhood that will augment the dividends of Chinese economic rise at home.

Pakistan and China have offered India to join CPEC for regional connectivity and economic development. Christine Fair who has historically argued that India has the instrument of accession by the rule of the state of Jammu and Kashmir, hence Indian claim of sovereignty over the state is stronger than Pakistan. She blatantly ignores the fact that sovereignty belongs to the people of land. The popular uprising against Maharaja Hari Singh before signing of instrument of accession with India meant that he had lost the legitimacy to conclude any agreement on behalf of people of Jammu and Kashmir. Maharaja Hari Singh had ceased to be legitimate ruler of princely state Jammu and Kashmir.

Argument for Indian sovereignty over Jammu and Kashmir on the basis of such instrument of accession is in complete disregard of human rights covenants especially those dealing with civil and political rights. Kashmir is recognized as disputed territory between India and Pakistan under United Nations Security Council resolutions, hence opposition of CPEC by India on baseless claims of territorial sovereignty over Kashmir is not justified. Pakistan wants that the people of Jammu and Kashmir should be given right to self-determination integral to the basic of human rights and promised by Indian leadership when they themselves took this dispute to the UN.

CPEC will become the engine of peace and stability for Pakistan. The benefits of energy generation projects and communication network for mobility of goods and services will reinforce the efforts by Pakistan to counter terrorism and extremism through economic uplift of least developed areas of Pakistan. Often rhetorical, devoid of empirical evidence charge labelled by the detractors of CPEC is that the project is not commercially viable. Such argument ignores the fact that China initiated this project because China stands to gain massively through CPEC. Reducing the cost of importing and exporting goods through BRI connectivity projects, and securing access to markets, achieving further competitive advantage that Chinese firms already enjoy will ensure that China becomes the driver of world trade and development in near future.

While the Western Scholars presume that China is developing Gwadar port as redundancy in case of blockade of Malacca Strait, such narrative ignores the logic of economics. China is diversifying supply routes for reducing the cost of imported raw material especially petrochemicals. For China, the proximity of oil rich Middle East makes Gwardar port natural cost effective choice for imported energy.

Early harvest energy under CPEC are coming online and are helping Pakistan tackle the chronic shortage of electricity for domestic and industrial purpose. In the past, the US announced plans for giving preferential access to industrial units established in militancy hit areas of Pakistan especially Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), the US came up short on its promise of helping Pakistan to counter terrorism through economic uplift of the society. Instead of giving meaningful market access to Pakistan’s industry, the US has relied on misdirected, meagre and inefficient foreign aid that is often squandered. Recent visit by high level delegation from Chinese National Development and Reform Commission for reviewing the progress on CPEC related projects especially Special Economic Zones(SEZs) shows that this project is driven by market considerations helping Pakistan and China achieve economic development. In Pakistan, the consensus at societal and state level about CPEC shows the confidence that developing states pose in China led BRI that is structured on geo-economics rather geopolitics strategies of the US that have created nothing but destruction and destabilization around the world.

*The author works as Senior Research Associate with Strategic Vision Institute, a think tank based in Islamabad. The author can be reached at adil@thesvi.org

The BBC said Sunday that Jodie Whittaker will be the new Doctor Who. Whittaker will be the Thirteenth Time Lord and take over from Peter Capaldi, who leaves the hit show at Christmas.

The identity of the new Doctor was revealed exclusively on BBC One and on social media around the world after the Men’s Wimbledon Final on Sunday.

New head writer and executive producer Chris Chibnall, who takes over from Steven Moffat on the next series, made the decision to cast the first ever woman in the iconic role.

“I’m beyond excited to begin this epic journey with Chris and with every Whovian on this planet,” said Whittaker. “It’s more than an honor to play the Doctor. It means remembering everyone I used to be, while stepping forward to embrace everything the Doctor stands for: hope. I can’t wait.”

Whittaker said that she wants Doctor Who fans not to be scared by her gender. “Because this is a really exciting time, and Doctor Who represents everything that’s exciting about change. The fans have lived through so many changes, and this is only a new, different one, not a fearful one,” said Whittaker.

Chris Chibnall, New Head Writer and Executive Producer, said that he always knew that he wanted the Thirteenth Doctor to be a woman. According to Chibnall, Whittaker’s, “audition for The Doctor simply blew us all away. Jodie is an in-demand, funny, inspiring, super-smart force of nature and will bring loads of wit, strength and warmth to the role. The Thirteenth Doctor is on her way.”

Speaking on the change, Peter Capaldi said that, “Anyone who has seen Jodie Whittaker’s work will know that she is a wonderful actress of great individuality and charm. She has above all the huge heart to play this most special part. She’s going to be a fantastic Doctor.”

Matt Strevens, Executive Producer, said that he has been a fan of Whittaker for years and always hoped to work with her. :She is an actor of great emotional range and inhabits every role with complete passion and conviction. Just thinking about what she will bring to the Doctor makes me as excited as a kid at Christmas. It’s going to be a lot of fun,” Strevens said.

By Anne Rathbone Bradley*

The case of 11-month-old Charlie Gard continues to garner international attention and pleas for his life from Donald Trump and Pope Francis. Cases like Charlie’s, while exceptional and rare, are important because they establish precedents regarding the relationship between the individual and the state. When we think about it in this way, Great Ormond Street Hospital – which has been the target of much criticism – is actually almost an incidental player.  The London children’s hospital is responding to the rules of the game — the institutional legal structure — and we can expect it to act according to the incentives those rules set forth.

Institutions and incentives also play a key role in creating an environment where Charlie’s case can have a happier ending — where human ingenuity can be freed to achieve disease prevention and cure.

It’s rare for children who acquire the disease Charlie has to survive through late childhood. Experience and advances in treating the condition have been minimal, because only 16 people are known to have ever had this condition. Without treatment Charlie’s death is certain. With treatment, his death is still very likely. Some say the hospital should cut off life support because the chances are so grim — it’s simple risk analysis.  Others say the parents, Connie Yates and Chris Gard, should be able to decide and go to any length they see fit to save his life.

There are two deeply disturbing stories here: First, that the state can decide for the parents what treatment they can give or not give and legally withhold the child from his parents while doing so. And, second, that we are facing a disease that we know very little about.

The state is not a legal guardian of people, an entity that assigns rights and dignity. Quite the opposite: The state is a construct that we use (often not very effectively) to protect rights and dignity that we already have. The biggest concern we should have with the state is that it has a strong tendency to violate its position, and history is a powerful reminder of this tendency. The state in fact, has no dignity, only people do.

As such, the family is the most important societal mechanism for protecting and defending the rights and dignity which come from our Creator. Where the family or community cannot do this, we employ the state, bounded by the rule of law and respect for individual rights, to protect those rights.

When the state crosses that boundary and assumes the role of parent, we can only expect that the natural role of families, churches, and communities will be eclipsed, and this will erode our natural rights and dignity. Parents must be the ones to make the choices about the care of their children. This is why Charlie’s legal battle matters so much.

Put yourself in the position of his parents: If it was your child, you would want the opportunity both legally and financially to do everything you could for that child. You would want to choose what care your child receives and where.  You would want to exhaust every possible life-saving measure, even if the odds were not favorable. The legal structure is depriving Charlie’s mother and father of that right and assuming a paternalistic role over the quality and length of his life.

Freeing healthcare

When the state protects the pre-ordained rights of individual people, we all have the chance to thrive. It is only in this environment that people are free to flourish, in part by finding ways to solve the real problems that plague us. And this brings us to the second part of the story.

Only when markets are freed and people can innovate do we get life-saving technologies. Charlie and those who come after him need doctors who have the incentives to try and fight this disease. For that we need a system that frees scientists and doctors to innovate and harnesses their human creativity for the Charlies of the world. It is this very process that has made it unlikely that you or I will die from the flu, measles, smallpox, or tuberculosis. Fatality rates for those diseases have plummeted over the past 300 years precisely because we have had the freedom to innovate.

However, the trend among wealthy countries is to overly-burden the health care field with regulations that make disease prevention and cure exorbitantly expensive. The UK system is one of “universal healthcare.”  Universal healthcare means that everyone is enrolled and coverage is largely “free.” Free meaning there is no monetary price paid by the customers at the point of service, yet the real price people pay is quite high.

Doctors and other health care providers under this system cannot offer their services through a price system. Prices are needed because they help us ration scarce resources and prices work in conjunction with profits and losses, providing the necessary incentives for human ingenuity and innovation.

By Ylenia Gostoli*

An already overstretched and poorly functioning reception system for asylum seekers stranded on the Greek islands is at risk as many of the NGOs providing health, legal, and other services prepare to pull out or have already left.

From 1 August, the majority of EU funding that has been going directly to the NGOs will start to be channelled through the Greek government. But the government has yet to release a plan detailing how it will manage the handover and there are growing concerns the transition will result in the disruption of services and a further deterioration of living conditions for the 14,000 migrants and refugees trapped on the islands.

At the height of the so-called refugee crisis in 2015, refugees spent no more than three or four days at camps like Souda on the island of Chios before moving to the mainland and then north along the Balkan route. But the camp is now home to an estimated 950 people, about 30 percent of whom have been there for more than six months, according to municipal estimates. Some have been there since the EU’s agreement with Turkey went into effect in March 2016, when Greece began detaining all new arrivals to the islands until their asylum claims were processed.

Under the agreement, Turkey was deemed a safe, third country that the majority of asylum seekers could be returned to. But in practice, a backlog of claims and a lengthy appeals process has meant only about 1,000 migrants have so far been deported back to Turkey, while a total of 9,500 refugees and migrants have arrived in the islands so far this year, according to the UN’s refugee agency, UNHCR. New arrivals continue to outnumber transfers to the mainland. During May and June, for example, 1,149 people arrived to Chios, while only 719 departed for the mainland.

Worsening conditions

The overcrowding at Souda camp meant that until recently newer arrivals were accommodated in tents on the nearby beach. According to camp manager Theodoris Konstantinidis, two weeks ago there were “orders from above” to move the asylum seekers back inside the camp, where residents complain of rat infestations, outbreaks of scabies, and a shortage of shelters.

Talal Hedifah, a 37-year-old marine engineer from Tartous in Syria, was among those told to dismantle his tent on the beach and move back into the camp. He arrived on Chios six months ago and says he came fleeing conscription to President Bashar al-Assad’s army. His initial asylum application was rejected and he’s now appealing the decision and hoping to avoid deportation to Turkey.

“They want us to be here, but they don’t want us to be here,” he told IRIN, wiping sweat from his forehead in the sweltering tent he shares with four other men. “I just want to go, anywhere, I don’t care where. If they want me to stay in Greece, I will stay. Anywhere I can have a normal life.”

On Wednesday, Human Rights Watch released a report documenting the deteriorating mental health of asylum seekers trapped on the islands in a state of prolonged uncertainty. Rates of anxiety, depression, self-harm, and suicide attempts are high, and humanitarian workers fear that a poorly planned shift in service provision could worsen the situation.

No transition plan

While the government is keen to show the Greek public – widely sceptical of the presence of international NGOs in the country – it is taking back control, planning for the transition to government-run services has been anything but smooth. Some NGOs have already left and others are due to withdraw services for which no replacement has been planned. Those hoping to remain are scrambling to find alternative sources of funding to continue their work.

“It is the government’s attempt to take on more responsibility and directly control the flow of resources,” said Gianmaria Pinto, country director of the Norwegian Refugee Council, which is winding down its operations on the islands at the end of July. “It’s definitely a more sustainable approach… On the other hand, it should come with a plan.”

Since the government announced the change in February, “we haven’t heard a word,” he added. A joint letter from several international NGOs to Greece’s migration minister, Yiannis Mouzalas, as well as several requests for meetings, have gone unanswered.

IRIN also made several attempts to contact the Ministry of Migration but received no response.

The EU has spent hundreds of millions of euros on managing the refugee crisis in Greece since 2015. An investigation published by Refugees Deeply in March estimated that $803 million had come into the country, the bulk of it ($654 million) from the European Commission, making it per capita “the most expensive humanitarian response in history”. With the Greek government unable to absorb a significant portion of those funds, much of it was channelled to large NGOs and UN agencies via ECHO, the EU’s humanitarian aid arm. Under the new system, the government will receive funding from the EU’s Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund and its Internal Security Fund to run reception facilities on the islands.

A statement jointly released by seven NGOs on Tuesday welcomed the transition as a positive step “if implemented transparently, promptly and in close collaboration with the organisations currently providing services”, but warned that information about how the transition would be implemented was severely lacking.

“Without a transition plan, gaps in services will likely occur, and men, women and children may be put at greater risk.”

Mind the gap

In fact, gaps have already opened up. Research by the Refugee Rights Data Project found that nearly two thirds of asylum seekers surveyed in Chios in May had been unable to access basic services there.

When IRIN visited Souda, just one doctor, one nurse, and a volunteer with the NGO Médecins du Monde were working shifts at the camp following the withdrawal of another organisation that had been providing medical services.

The Red Cross is still providing healthcare services at Vial, the army-run “hotspot” where new arrivals are identified and asylum applications processed, but other NGOs that had been providing medical services there departed at the end of April. New arrivals now have to wait up to three weeks for their medical vulnerability assessment, which is done by one doctor from the Greek army. Similar delays have been reported at the Moria hotspot on the island of Lesvos, where 10 doctors providing vulnerability assessments to the camp’s more than 2,700 residents were recently replaced by just three.

Pressure on Chios eased slightly in June but shifted to Lesvos, which has received 1,150 people in the past six weeks, according to UNHCR. Moria camp is strewn with uncollected rubbish rotting in the summer heat. Refugees living there told IRIN that the company contracted to do rubbish collection had left three months ago and that a new contractor only collects the rubbish every 10 days.

A lawyer who has provided legal aid to refugees on the islands for several Greek organisations over the past 18 months (and didn’t want to be named) told IRIN he had recently lost his job due to a lack of funding.

“There used to be 14 lawyers in the project I was working for [with a Greek organisation], and that was not enough. Now there are only four left,” he told IRIN.

“The government has not been hiring enough people and has not been giving enough money to organisations to do their job,” he said. “They are ending the collaboration with most NGOs, and they are not organising themselves to provide the services well.”

By Arthur Waldron*

(FPRI) — The reason that negotiations over North Korea have never achieved anything is simple. Their avowed goal is impossible to achieve. It is well-past time to accept that no means, political or military, exists to eliminate North Korean nuclear weapons. Their continued existence is certain, as will be explained. That being the case, it is time for the United States in particular to adopt a new approach.

This approach would be to recognize North Korea diplomatically, as a state, and as one having nuclear capability. Washington and Pyongyang should each build embassies and exchange ambassadors. This is the best alternative now available. It will not restore peace to Asia but it will bring partial progress that is real, rather than the total solution on which all agree, but that is simply impossible.

On June 21. 2017  United States Secretary of State Rex Tillerson stated that Washington and Beijing agreed to “a complete and irreversible denuclearization of Korean Peninsula.” ^[1] Two weeks later, on July 7, 2017 it was reported that Mr. Putin and Mr. Trump had also agreed on such“ a complete and irreversible denuclearization.”^[2] South Korea has already agreed repeatedly to this idea.

But how could such a situation ever be created? No country possessing nuclear weapons is ever again going to give them up. Ukraine did so, trusting to the pledges of the Budapest Memorandum (4 December 2004) in which “The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” That was proven a worthless scrap of paper when Russia invaded (2014-present) and annexed Crimea.

No one could miss the lesson nor will North Korea: keep your nuclear weapons and no one will dare invade you. Give them up and your position is vulnerable.

Suppose, however that North Korea solemnly agreed to denuclearize under treaty provisions, perhaps similar to those of Budapest. Proving that Pyongyang had complied would be impossible. North Korea is 48,000 square miles; under her surface are labyrinths of tunnels, factories, and military facilities of which we have no clue. To hold back and conceal  a substantial nuclear strike force would be easy, nor could any inspection regime, up to and including a military occupation, detect it if the concealment were competently done. Even a military holocaust over the country would not surely eliminate such weapons.

Note too that even a residual North Korean nuclear force would probably range from 49 to 100 (author’s estimate), as compared to 7,000 Russian bombs, China’s perhaps 1,000 (author’s estimate), India’s 130, Pakistan’s 140, Israel’s 80, France’s 300, Britain’s 215, and the United State’s 6,600. Her threat is deeply concerning, but the region is far more worried by China.[3]

At worst North Korea will flatly turn down our offer of recognition, in which case we should state that it remains open. If embassies having secure conference facilities, and able ambassadors are created, then for the first time the United States and Pyongyang will have a secure means of communicating ideas, however sensitive. This too may lead nowhere. But as the advantages of closer ties with the United States and her world of allies become clear, it is equally possible that Pyongyang will come to see that they can offer much more than their current shaky alignment with Russia and China.

No quid pro quo should be offered for this standard diplomatic procedure. Nor should anyone imagine that, if successfully accomplished, it will bring peace to hand. The greatest threat to Asia is not North Korea but China’s illegal expansion and militarization over millions of square miles into territories to which she has no claim, seas to her east and mountains of or near north India.

This fact of Chinese aggression means that the U.S. and her allies must continue to be strong; indeed stronger than they are at present. If a recognized North Korea continues to develop weapons of mass destruction, our only option will be further to increase the armaments and missile defenses of our Asian allies.  My own view is that if South Korea finds the North unresponsive to her peace overtures, she will develop her own nuclear weapons, regardless of American opinion. The same is almost certainly true for Japan, which China is forcing into a remilitarization that she does not want. When the Japanese do things, though, they tend to do them well, so we may assume that, if China does not change the situation radically, she will soon face a Japan possessing a nuclear deterrent—I argue only for minimal nuclear deterrents for our allies, perhaps no more than nuclear tipped torpedoes or nuclear cruise missiles that can be launched near shore—as well as and an air force as good as any.

Finally, what of North Korea? She will no longer be glued in place, attached to China of which she is not fond. With her independent forces she will also be too strong for China to intimidate. lest she cause nuclear attack. By the same token, North Korea will no longer be forced to ally only with  rogue nations.  She will have the option of moving into a more central and multipolar position globally, both diplomatically and economically. The possibility of trading in real world markets may afford her the opportunity to change.

These are only hopes. For now we extend our hand of formal recognition. But we offer nothing in return, nor do we diminish our relations with South Korea and other allies. Not a trail whose terminus is visible. But a rail at least that we can begin to walk.

About the author:
*Arthur Waldron is a Senior Fellow in FPRI’s Asia Program and is the Lauder Professor of International Relations in the Department of History at the University of Pennsylvania.

Source:
This article was published by FPRI

Notes:
[1] http://www.teletrader.com/news/details/39290551?ts=1499882856534

[2] https://koreas.liveuamap.com/en/2017/7-july-tillerson-says-trump–and–putin-had-a-pretty-good

[3] https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat  This is the source for all figures save those labeled “author’s estimate”.

(RFE/RL) — Russia’s Supreme Court has rejected an appeal by the Jehovah’s Witnesses of an earlier ruling that classified the denomination as extremist, effectively banning it entirely from the country.

The Russian court on July 17 turned away arguments by the group, which sought to overturn an initial decision made by the court in April.

“While we were prepared for a negative ruling, it is still very disappointing,” David Semonian, a spokesman for the group, said in a statement. “It is very concerning that, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, powerful elements within Russia continue to frame our organization as extremist.”

The decision means the group will be forced to close its doors at its St. Petersburg headquarters and some 395 local chapters across the country. Its properties, known as Kingdom Halls, will be handed over to the Russian government.

The group, which says it has around 170,000 adherents in the country, has long been viewed with suspicion in Russia for their positions on military service, voting, and government authority in general.

Freedom of religion is formally guaranteed in Russia but legislation sets out Orthodox Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Buddhism as the country’s four traditional religions, and smaller denominations frequently face discrimination.

In recent years, there have been a growing number of reports of worshippers being targeted for harassment.

A home and several cars belonging to a Jehovah’s Witness outside of Moscow were vandalized in an arson attack on April 30, and masked security agents raided a worship service on May 25 in the central city of Oryol.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses are likely to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, but the court has no power to enforce its decisions and Russia may ignore any verdict against it.

When he talks about his efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, President Trump almost always asserts that Obamacare is “exploding.” Republican members of Congress make similar claims, insisting that Obamacare is unsustainable—and that they therefore have no choice but to “repeal and replace” it.

There is some basis for this argument. More than 1,300 counties only have one insurer in their exchanges, meaning there is no competition. But there is a nuance that Republicans willfully ignore: This is a problem of their own creation that is largely confined to red states.

Where Republican governors have sought to sabotage the program, they have largely succeeded. Where Democratic governors have tried to make the ACA work, they too have largely succeeded.

Here are the basic numbers. In states with Republican governors, more than 40 million people live in counties with only one insurer. In states with Democratic governors, there are 10.7 million people who live in such counties.

The difference is far more dramatic if we exclude North Carolina from the Democratic list. While North Carolina does now have a Democratic governor, it had a Republican governor until January, and even now the Legislature is overwhelmingly Republican.

Not counting North Carolina, only 2.1 million people in Democratic states live in counties without competition. Put another way, if someone lives in a state with a Democratic governor other than North Carolina, they have a 1.8% probability of only having a single insurer in their exchange. If they live in a state with a Republican governor, there is a 20.7% probability of the same.

There are two main ways in which Republican governors have been effective in sabotaging Obamacare in their states. The first and most important was by refusing to expand Medicaid.

Governors who chose to expand that program pulled many lower-income people out of the Obamacare insurance pool — people who tend to be less healthy and have higher medical bills on average. By taking this higher-cost population out of the exchanges, they reduced the risk to insurers. Applying this logic inversely, governors who refused to expand Medicaid ended up with a less-healthy mix of people in the exchanges.

The other issue is the extent to which states took the initiative to promote Obamacare. Less healthy people generally don’t have to be prodded to buy insurance, since they know they need it. The issue is whether more healthy people buy into the system. Insurers are going to lose money if all the people they insure have serious health problems.

Democratic governors generally tried to persuade people to buy insurance, while Republican governors were more often neutral, if not openly hostile, to the program. As a result, fewer healthy people bought into the exchanges in their states, making the system less profitable for insurers.

In addition, Republican governors and Republican insurance commissioners were often less cooperative with insurance companies. While Democratic governors cajoled insurers to enter and stay in the exchanges, and met reasonable regulatory concerns, Republican governors had little interest in making their exchanges work.

Now we see Trump and the rest of the GOP boasting about their sabotage. Because Republicans have been so successful in keeping many of their residents from getting insurance, they think the country should trust them to overhaul the ACA.

Sorry folks, it doesn’t work that way.

This column originally appeared in the Los Angeles Times and is reprinted with permission.

Jordan has around 6,000 mosques, 3,000 of which do not have officially assigned imams (Muslim clerics who lead prayers at the mosque), an official source, who preferred to stay anonymous, told The Jordan Times on Sunday.

In some mosques, local residents volunteer to lead prayers, but without the salary an imam is usually paid, the source added.

The Awqaf Ministry is working to reduce the number of mosques that host the Friday prayer, Anas Sweileh, head of the Awqaf Ministry’s media department, told The Jordan Times over the phone.

“The measure is intended to unify people, not divide them,” Sweileh said, adding that, on Fridays, some mosques have less than 10 people attending to perform the weekly prayer.

For Friday sermons, the ministry issues weekly unified topics outlining the main points and verified Hadiths (sayings of Prophet Mohammad), in order to ensure that people leading the prayer do not violate the principles of sermons.

“The ministry does not control what imams say during a sermon, but rather ensures that they are using genuine Hadith and relevant subjects that concern peoples’ lives,” Sweileh stressed.

In light of the shortage of imams, the ministry announced the need to appoint new imams who will be remunerated with monthly salaries, free housing or volunteer imams. However, the number is still much lower than needed.

The construction of mosques in Jordan is usually funded by the government or donors, who do not provide funds for the mosques’ staff.

The ministry is now calling for donations to be directed towards beneficiaries other than mosques, the official said.

Other forms of charity include building complete or parts of schools, hospitals and orphanages, Sweileh said highlighting that Jordan does not have a shortage of mosques.

In light of the Syrian refugee crisis, schools and hospitals are overcrowded, Sweileh said, adding that donors can also help in buying medicine or medical devices and donate them to hospitals, pay for education of underprivileged students, or donate for the Zakat Fund, which supports thousands of families across the Kingdom, by direct aid or by funding income-generating projects.

Original article

Saudi King Salman is said to have personally intervened with top US officials to ensure the reopening of the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem.

According to a report in Elaph online portal, the king spoke with top US officials seeking the holy mosque’s reopening.

The report quotes a senior source as saying that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu promised US officials that he had decided to restore the status quo at the mosque which is what the Muslim world and the residents of Jerusalem have been demanding.

According to Elaph, Netanyahu has invited Saudi officials to visit Al-Aqsa Mosque and to assess first-hand the situation on the ground.

Arab News has sought a response from the White House in order to confirm the report.

Meanwhile, the Saudi Cabinet expressed deep concern over the closure of Al-Aqsa Mosque by Israeli occupation authorities.

It constituted a flagrant offense to Muslim sentiments around the world, said the Saudi Cabinet.
Such an act is a dangerous development that will further complicate the situation in the occupied Palestinian territories, it added.

King Salman chaired the Cabinet session on Monday at Al-Salaam Palace in Jeddah.

The Cabinet called on the international community to shoulder its responsibility and put an end to such practices.

Muslims heeded calls Monday not to enter the holy site and protested outside after Israeli authorities installed metal detectors at entrances to the compound.

Palestinians view the new security measures as Israel asserting further control over the holy site.

The Waqf, Jordan’s Islamic authority that manages religious affairs at the site, was outraged over the metal detectors.

The Waqf, together with other Islamic groups, issued a statement Monday calling on Muslims “to reject and boycott all the Israeli aggression measures, including changing the historical status quo including imposing the metal detectors.”

They called on the faithful “not to enter the mosque through” the detectors.

The statement said that “if the metal detectors continue to be imposed, we call upon the people to pray in front of the gates of the mosque and in the streets of Jerusalem.”

The Haram Al-Sharif compound was largely empty on Monday apart from tourists and Jewish visitors, with Muslims again praying and protesting outside the site instead of entering through the metal detectors.

Several hundred people could be seen praying outside two different entrances to the site around midday on Monday.

There were protests after the prayer, with crowds shouting: “Aqsa mosque, we sacrifice our souls and our blood.” Police later sought to move them back.

“We will not break the solidarity of the people,” said Jamal Abdallah, a Palestinian who now lives in the US state of Arizona and was planning to visit Al-Aqsa, but changed his mind when he was told of the situation.

Israel installed the metal detectors after an attack on Friday near the holy site that saw three people open fire on Israeli police.

They then fled to the compound, where they were shot dead by security forces.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took the decision to install the metal detectors and cameras following a meeting with security officials Saturday. He also spoke by phone with Jordan’s King Abdallah Saturday night.

The king condemned the attack, but also called on Netanyahu to reopen the Al-Aqsa compound and stressed the need to “avoid any escalation at the site.”

Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas conveyed a similar message to Netanyahu when the two spoke by phone on Friday in the wake of the attack.

On Friday the House overwhelmingly approved a massive increase in military spending, passing a $696 billion National Defense Authorization bill for 2018. President Trump’s request already included a huge fifty or so billion dollar spending increase, but the Republican-led House found even that to be far too small. They added another $30 billion to the bill for good measure. Even President Trump, in his official statement, expressed some concern over spending in the House-passed bill.

According to the already weak limitations on military spending increases in the 2011 “sequestration” law, the base military budget for 2018 would be $72 billion more than allowed.

Don’t worry, they’ll find a way to get around that!

The big explosion in military spending comes as the US is planning to dramatically increase its military actions overseas. The president is expected to send thousands more troops back to Afghanistan, the longest war in US history. After nearly 16 years, the Taliban controls more territory than at anytime since the initial US invasion and ISIS is seeping into the cracks created by constant US military action in the country.

The Pentagon and Defense Secretary James Mattis are already telling us that even when ISIS is finally defeated in Iraq, the US military doesn’t dare end its occupation of the country again. Look for a very expensive array of permanent US military bases throughout the country. So much for our 2003 invasion creating a stable democracy, as the neocons promised.

In Syria, the United States has currently established at least eight military bases even though it has no permission to do so from the Syrian government nor does it have a UN resolution authorizing the US military presence there. Pentagon officials have made it clear they will continue to occupy Syrian territory even after ISIS is defeated, to “stabilize” the region.

And let’s not forget that Washington is planning to send the US military back to Libya, another US intervention we were promised would be stabilizing but that turned out to be a disaster.

Also, the drone wars continue in Somalia and elsewhere, as does the US participation in Saudi Arabia’s horrific two year war on impoverished Yemen.

President Trump often makes encouraging statements suggesting that he shares some of our non-interventionist views. For example while Congress was shoveling billions into an already bloated military budget last week, President Trump said that he did not want to spent trillions more dollars in the Middle East where we get “nothing” for our efforts. He’d rather fix roads here in the US, he said. The only reason we are there, he said, was to “get rid of terrorists,” after which we can focus on our problems at home.

Unfortunately President Trump seems to be incapable of understanding that it is US intervention and occupation of foreign countries that creates instability and feeds terrorism. Continuing to do the same thing for more than 17 years – more US bombs to “stabilize” the Middle East – and expecting different results is hardly a sensible foreign policy. It is insanity. Until he realizes that our military empire is the source of rather than the solution to our problems, we will continue to wildly spend on our military empire until the dollar collapses and we are brought to our knees. Then what?

This article was published by RonPaul Institute.

By Michael Lelyveld

China’s state media have reported progress in the government’s struggle against higher home prices, but official surveys suggest that housing costs in most cities have continued to climb.

Over the past year, Beijing has put greater pressure on local governments to crack down on speculation and price growth in housing after restrictions were temporarily eased in 2015 due to fears of an economic slump.

With the approach of the Communist Party’s politically crucial 19th National Congress in the fall, the government appears eager to claim that its policy of restraining prices through local rules has been a success.

Last month, the official Xinhua news agency reported that home prices “have shown signs of cooling,” noting that half of the 70 medium-sized and large cities in a National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) survey showed a month-on-month price drop or a slower price rise in May.

The positive reading of the survey results appears to reflect the importance of showing that the government has gotten the housing problem under control.

Official figures on prices in June are scheduled to be released Tuesday. The NBS said Monday that investment in property development rose 8.5 percent in the first half, slowing slightly from the 8.8-percent rate reported for the five-month period.

Xinhua cited the result as a sign of cooling in the market, but the value of first-half housing sales jumped 21.5 percent from a year earlier, up from 18.6 percent through May.

Price hikes for property have heartened investors but dismayed poorer buyers, who find new housing unaffordable.

“Houses are built to be lived in, not for speculation,” President Xi Jinping said in a frequently repeated statement of government policy last year.

While month-to-month increases have slowed in some cities, an examination of the May data found that average prices fell from a month earlier in only nine cities on the NBS list.

In year-to-year comparisons, only one city recorded a price decline.

In 30 of the 70 cities, average prices rose from a year before at double-digit rates.

Year-to-year increases in the megacities of Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou ranged from 11 to 19.4 percent. Other cities including Hefei, Zhengzhou and Wuxi reported price growth of 20.9 to 26.4 percent.

Eager to buy

With limited options for high returns, investors remain eager to buy real estate even as housing inflation has slowed.

Investment in residential buildings rose 10 percent through May from a year earlier to 1.86 trillion yuan (U.S. $274.7 billion), the NBS said in a separate report, although many apartments remain unoccupied and unsold.

The People’s Bank of China (PBOC) has taken steps to cool property speculation by issuing warnings against mortgage risks and phony divorces aimed at avoiding higher down payment requirements for second-time buyers.

At least eight banks have raised mortgage interest rates, while five have stopped accepting commercial real estate as collateral for loans, the official English-language China Daily reported.

In May, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress agreed to consider a national property tax this year, putting it back on the table after it was abruptly pulled from the agenda before annual legislative sessions in March due to fears of destabilizing the market.

The tax is seen as a major disincentive to buying multiple apartments for investment purposes and leaving them empty and unused.

But so far, the central government has relied largely on measures by individual cities to curb speculation with rules for higher down payment requirements or restrictions on buying second or third homes.

The local limits have created a patchwork of differing regulations, driving investors to some second or third-tier cities to evade tougher rules.

A study released last month by economists at Harvard University and the National Bureau of Economic Research highlights the unevenness of China’s housing boom.

Citing a decade of data since 2003, the study called the surge in China’s home prices “one of the most extreme economic events of the new millennium.”

Prices nearly quadrupled in first-tier cities and tripled in Tier 2 cities, the economists said in the study entitled “What is Special about China’s Housing Boom?” published by voxchina.org.

Unlike the ill-fated U.S. housing boom that sparked the financial crisis of 2008, China’s construction craze was accompanied by major economic expansion and sweeping urbanization.

“Yet, even if a massive scale building boom is warranted, China may be building homes in the wrong places, at the wrong quality levels, and at the wrong time,” the economists wrote.

China has tended to build proportionately more in areas that are “less productive.” While affordable housing is needed in poorer areas, the newly-built properties have been priced too high for former rural dwellers coming into the cities.

The reason is that local projects have been pushed to satisfy demands for increased gross domestic product rather than the market.

“In China, greater construction levels in lower income areas are more likely to reflect aggressive local governments that use construction to bolster GDP growth,” the study said.

Edward Glaeser, a Harvard economics professor and an author of the study, said local rules limiting multiple property purchases for speculation may help in some cases, but they don’t address the underlying and longer-term problems.

‘Difficult, cumbersome approach’

In a phone interview, Glaeser called reliance on the restrictions “a difficult and cumbersome approach” that may eventually have some dampening effect on demand.

“But relative to the power of supply to move the market in the long run and the power of current expectations, it’s hard to imagine that these instruments will be all that effective,” he said.

In some cases, the local restrictions also have the potential to “backfire,” as buyers rush to complete purchases before regulations become “too onerous,” Glaeser said.

The study suggests that the forces of supply and demand will be reconciled over the long term, looking ahead perhaps 20 years.

A bust in the housing market is “not inevitable,” it said, and high prices may be sustainable, if the government “significantly reduces the flow of new construction.”

But the study warns that if the current pace continues, a major price correction is “distinctly plausible.”

“If today’s vast construction levels persist, it seems likely that supply will outstrip demand and that prices will fall,” it said.

China’s state media have focused on signs suggesting that current policies are gradually working to cool off the market without creating a risk of disruption.

The average price of new homes in the southern city of Shenzhen fell slightly in June for the ninth month in a row, dropping 11.8 percent from a year earlier, Xinhua reported on July 2, citing municipal authorities.

Before local restrictions on purchases last October, Shenzhen was the hottest housing market in China. According to apparently conflicting NBS data, average prices rose 5.4 percent in May from a year before and remained 46.5 above 2015 levels.

The average home in Shenzhen costs 44 times the average annual household income, The Wall Street Journal reported last week, citing Zhang Ming, a senior economist at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

Reports of lower prices in Shenzhen triggered a rush of bargain hunting in June, as sales measured in floor area soared nearly 25 percent from the month before despite the restrictions, Xinhua said.

China is planning a “long-term mechanism” to address the problems of the property market, Xinhua reported separately.

The mechanism will entail a “basket of reforms in areas including taxation, finance and land supply systems,” the news agency said.

By Dr Subhash Kapila

China-India military confrontation in the High Himalayas as a consequence of China’s military occupation of Tibet in 1950 and the unprovoked Chinese invasion of India in end 1962 has in 2015 graduated from a boundary dispute to an intense geopolitical tussle in Asia’s geopolitical rivalries. This was the main thrust of my Book last year entitled “China-India Military Confrontation: 21st Century Perspectives” that stands greatly reinforced in 2017.

Geopolitical compulsions seem to be the driving force of China indulging in confrontation with Indian Troops in the Dokalam Plateau after militarily coercing the Royal Bhutan Army border patrols there. China’s military standoff here is aimed at questioning India’s geopolitical and geostrategic Special Relationship with Bhutan. China also is testing India’s political will to militarily sustain this Special Relationship.

Geopolitics seem to be in full play by China relative to the Dokalam Plateau standoff where China has implicitly threatened that China could generate disturbances for India in Sikkim, Bhutan and the Kashmir Valley. Only yesterday, the J&K Chief Minister openly declared in New Delhi that China was involved in the Kashmir Valley unrest. This was foreseen in relation to the CEC alignment. China has therefore now added new dimensions to the China-India military confrontation which so far stood confined to the India-China Occupied borders.

Geopolitical compulsions seem to have forced China’s hands in terms of the location and timing of the Dokalam Plateau military stand-off evolving into a full-fledged military confrontation. This comes contextually in the backdrop of Indian PM Narendra Modi’s geopolitically significant gains during his recent visits to the United States and Israel, which potentially are likely to play a weighty role in the buildup and modernisation of India’s military power in the coming decades and which is likely to tip Asia’s balance of power India lining up with the United States, Japan, Vietnam and Israel, as reflected in my last Paper, is greatly disconcerting for China

Closer home in South Asia where China is an entrenched Major Power courtesy Pakistan, and China actively engaged in promoting a China-Pakistan Russia Trilateral, the situation geopolitically is worrisome for China. Pakistan’s future is uncertain and Chia’s flagship in Pakistan –the much publicised CPEC has come in for public criticism within Pakistan. No less than the current Pakistan Army Chief has recently called for a more open debate within Pakistan on the CPEC.

Geopolitically, if the CPEC flounders under pressure from Pakistani public opinion, a potential that strongly exists, China’s geopolitical standing in South Asia and its ambitions to militarily outflank India and have a direct access to the North Arabian Sea gets seriously jeopardised.

The above coupled with India’s serious objections to CPEC passing through disputed territory and India’s marked reluctance to join China’s One Belt One Road is perceptionaly a serious Indian geopolitical affront to China and its political and military arrogance.

So where does the above contextual geopolitical environment hovering over the China-India geopolitical equations and the balance of power in Asia lead to? The major take here is that China long used to salience and a primacy in Asian affairs conceded in earlier decades by USA and the West face the prospects of India getting more preferential geopolitical and strategic in the global strategic calculus.

China’s options in response to such an evolving geopolitical process portend dangerous political and military implications for India. China flush with its exponential military power at its disposal is likely to resort to war threats against India, indulge in severe military brinkmanship, and generate geopolitical provocations.

All these are aimed at eroding India’s increasing credibility in Asian affairs, denting its stature as an evolving counterweight to China—an endowment by the global community in response to China’s threatening military brinkmanship all over Indo Pacific Asia stretching from the India-China Occupied Tibet birders in the High Himalayas to the seas of the Western Pacific.

China’s war threats to India, military brinkmanship in the Dokalam Plateau for over a month now, China recalling how it humiliated India in the 1962 Sino-Indian War implying that the same humiliation awaits India in 2017 in case it does not back-off from the Dokalam Plateau. Statements synchronised and articulated through China’s official and semi-official organs as available in the media are downright insulting to India’s ‘National Honour’.

India’s Defence Minister Arun Jaitley was right in pointing out to China that the India of 2017 is not the India of 1962. I would like to add further and put China on notice that “India of 2017 is hypersensitive to protect Indi’s sovereignty and India’s National Honour than it was in 1962”, irrespective of the costs. China should remember that the Indian Republic is no longer a captive of the China-appeasement policies characteristic of the Nehru era and even of the previous government in New Delhi.

In relation to the ongoing Dokalam Plateau military standoff a number of pertinent questions are surfacing which are plaguing both Indian and international observers. These are (1) Is a diplomatic resolution possible? (2) Who would blink first in this confrontation? (3) Could this military confrontation escalate iinto a full-fledged China-India War?

Diplomatic solutions do not offer any scope for resolution going by China’s past records. China in the past has not observed I spirit or letter the various Boundary Agreements which past Indian Governments had mistakenly signed, including the one imposed on the previous Government of the Boundary Disputes Cooperation Agreement.

In any case in the Dokalam Plateau standoff, China maintains that Indian troops have aggressed into Chinese Territory and that too behalf of Bhutan. Implicitly, China would like to project that Indian troops withdraw from Dkalam Plateau and that the matter could be decided with Bhutan. In other words India should abandon Bhutan as by continued pressure in the instant case China could drive a wedge between Bhutan and India.

In terms of who will blink first in the China-India military confrontation, it seem that both sides will not blink as this time the question is not one of perceptional boundary alignments but more of high geopolitical stakes. India has to be prepared to have the ‘Political Will’ for a long-haul military standoff.

The most defying speculation is as to whether the Dokalam Plateau China-India Military Confrontation could escalate into a full-fledged war? This seems unlikely going by the global geopolitical environment being heavily stacked against China and its persistent military brinkmanship in the pursuit of its geopolitical ambitions.

In this regard, little seems to be known that in the Chinese invasion of Vietnam, both the United Saes and Russia without active intervention supplied arms and equipment to Vietnam. In 2017, where India figures high in the global strategic calculus and the global community perceives that China is bent on changing the established order, China may be in for active isolation. At least in terms of the Indian Ocean where China plans to open another front against India in tandem with the Himalayan Borders in the event of war, China could face active intervention by the United States, Japan, Australia and West Europe of converting the Indian Ocean into a war zone.

That leaves the possibilities of China resorting to swift ‘limited wars’ not only confined to the Dokalam Plateau but also to divide India’s military attention and military effort by limited war conflicts in Ladakh, Northern Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh. Accompanying these would be a more than proactive China-Inspired intensified disturbances and unrest in Kashmir Valley, Darjeeling and North Bengal, Sikkim and the North East sates.

In conclusion it needs to be stressed that to combat China’s geopolitical and military threats to India, the Indian Republic has now to be prepared to ‘walk the talk’ in terms of proving to China that the India of 2017 is not the India of 1962. Further, more than India’s strong military capabilities, what will count against China as a bigger deterrence is in 2017 India’s stiffened ‘Political Will’.

Terri Moon Cronk

The recent death of a terrorist leader in Afghanistan will further disrupt his group’s plans to expand its operations in Afghanistan, Pentagon spokesman Navy Capt. Jeff Davis told reporters Monday.

The death of Abu Sayed, emir of an Islamic State of Iraq and Syria affiliate known as ISIS-Khorasan, was reported July 14. The U.S. strike that killed him also killed other ISIS-K members and marked the third time in the past year U.S. forces in Afghanistan have killed a sitting leader of ISIS-K, Davis said.

“ISIS threatens America in the west because of its commitment to plot, direct and inspire terrorist attacks and its ability to recruit, move and finance the terrorists who commit these attacks,” he said. “The terrorists have been very clear in their propaganda. … They want to recruit and attack globally.”

ISIS-K members in Afghanistan number in the hundreds, Davis said, noting that the group doesn’t hold any meaningful territory in Afghanistan’s Nangarhar province.

“There are certainly fighters there, but they are mostly spending their time trying to stay alive,” he said. “The Afghan forces partnered with the U.S. forces are keeping constant pressure on them. We assess that they are most active in Nangarhar, Kunar and Nuristan [provinces]. We’ve been putting pressure on them as they try to gain footholds elsewhere.”

Taliban Driven From Nawa

In Helmand province, Afghan forces, advised by U.S. Marines with Task Force Southwest, retook the Nawa district center from the Taliban today, Davis said, supported by F-16 fighter jets and AH-64 Apache helicopters conducting airstrikes in support of the operation.

“Nawa plays a large role in the security of Lashkar Gah, because it is one of the larger towns that is just south of Lashkar Gah,” Davis said. As part of an expeditionary advising package, he told reporters, Marines with Task Force Southwest are advising Afghan forces to improve command and control, battle tracking, intelligence, maneuver, fires integration, and leadership evaluation and development.

Afghan forces plan to set up security checkpoints throughout the district center and on the route to Lashkar Gah to ensure security, stability and quality of life to the people of Helmand province, Davis said.

ISIS in Iraq

Turning to ISIS in Iraq, Davis said the Iraqi security forces announced that coalition forces continue to support them as they carry out detailed clearance operations in Mosul and prepare for follow-on operations in Tal Afar.

Although Iraqi forces now control all parts of Mosul, he said, detailed clearance operations of rubble caves and tunnel systems are still being conducted in the Old City to look for any ISIS fighters in hiding and identify explosive devices that could threaten friendly forces or civilians, he said.

The Iraqi army, emergency response division, counterterrorism service and federal police forces will hold their sectors of Mosul until the hold force takes over security of the area, Davis said. To the west of Mosul, the 15th Iraqi Army Division maintained defensive positions in its offensive toward Kissick Junction and Tal Afar, he added.

ISIS in Syria

Yesterday in Raqqa, Syria, the Syrian Democratic Forces liberated about 2 square kilometers of terrain – about three-quarters of a square mile – within Raqqa as they fought along three axes against stiff resistance and significant improvised-explosive-device belts, Davis said.

On the western axis, he added, the SDF cleared nearly 2 square kilometers on the western edge of the city, isolated and secured a high-rise complex, and improved their defensive positions, despite sniper fire and extensive IED belts.

On the eastern axis, the SDF advanced west along the southern edge of the city, repelled ISIS counterattacks, and initiated offensive operations along four avenues of assault, Davis said.

On the southern axis, south of the Euphrates River, the SDF improved their defensive positions along the forward line of troops, he said.

The east-west de-confliction line south of the Euphrates is holding as regime forces remain south and SDF forces remain north of the agreed-upon line, Davis added.

A hypoallergenic electronic sensor can be worn on the skin continuously for a week without discomfort, and is so light and thin that users forget they even have it on, says a Japanese group of scientists. The elastic electrode constructed of breathable nanoscale meshes holds promise for the development of noninvasive e-skin devices that can monitor a person’s health continuously over a long period.

Wearable electronics that monitor heart rate and other vital health signals have made headway in recent years, with next-generation gadgets employing lightweight, highly elastic materials attached directly onto the skin for more sensitive, precise measurements. However, although the ultrathin films and rubber sheets used in these devices adhere and conform well to the skin, their lack of breathability is deemed unsafe for long-term use: dermatological tests show the fine, stretchable materials prevent sweating and block airflow around the skin, causing irritation and inflammation, which ultimately could lead to lasting physiological and psychological effects.

“We learned that devices that can be worn for a week or longer for continuous monitoring were needed for practical use in medical and sports applications,” said Professor Takao Someya at the University of Tokyo’s Graduate School of Engineering whose research group had previously developed an on-skin patch that measured oxygen in blood.

In the current research, the group developed an electrode constructed from nanoscale meshes containing a water-soluble polymer, polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), and a gold layer–materials considered safe and biologically compatible with the body. The device can be applied by spraying a tiny amount of water, which dissolves the PVA nanofibers and allows it to stick easily to the skin–it conformed seamlessly to curvilinear surfaces of human skin, such as sweat pores and the ridges of an index finger’s fingerprint pattern.

The researchers next conducted a skin patch test on 20 subjects and detected no inflammation on the participants’ skin after they had worn the device for a week. The group also evaluated the permeability, with water vapor, of the nanomesh conductor–along with those of other substrates like ultrathin plastic foil and a thin rubber sheet–and found that its porous mesh structure exhibited superior gas permeability compared to that of the other materials.

Furthermore, the scientists proved the device’s mechanical durability through repeated bending and stretching, exceeding 10,000 times, of a conductor attached on the forefinger; they also established its reliability as an electrode for electromyogram recordings when its readings of the electrical activity of muscles were comparable to those obtained through conventional gel electrodes.

“It will become possible to monitor patients’ vital signs without causing any stress or discomfort,” said Someya about the future implications of the team’s research. In addition to nursing care and medical applications, the new device promises to enable continuous, precise monitoring of athletes’ physiological signals and bodily motion without impeding their training or performance.