On May 14 and 15, China hosted a two-day Belt and Road Forum in Beijing, which was attended by high level delegations from around the world that included 29 heads of state. The discussion, as the name of the forum indicated, centered on President Xi Jinping’s pet project—One Belt One Road (OBOR). OBOR is the 21st century remaking of the fabled medieval Silk Road which connected ancient Asia and Europe and one that was traveled by the legendary Marco Polo. The stated intent is to revitalize international trade.

What is OBOR?

OBOR is a Chinese strategic and economic initiative to connect Eurasia, Africa and Oceania through a combination of an overland and maritime route. The initiative is aimed at resurrecting the ancient Silk Road through infrastructure projects to link the Eurasian economies within a China-centered investment and trade network.

The ‘Belt’ refers to three overland routes originating in China. One, from China, through South-East Asia and South Asia to the Indian Ocean; two, starting in China and going through central and West Asia to the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean Sea; and three, again from China, through central Asia to Europe and Russia. The three routes involve the creation of six economic cooperation corridors involving territories in 25 different nations. The ‘Road’ is the old Silk Road, rejuvenated to fit 21st century purposes by bifurcating the old trade route. First is a maritime route from China to Europe through the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean and second is one that connects China to the Pacific Islands, charted from the South China Sea to the Southern Pacific Ocean.

OBOR is an ambitious project that encompasses trade, energy and transportation projects, which when finished, will connect 64 countries with 15 Chinese provinces. The fundamental premise that underpins the entire initiative is the assumption that China will continue to be the manufacturing hub of the world and that its products will continue to be exported in a global scale. This belief could also prove to be the Achilles’ heel to the entire project, which is enormous in its scale.

China: In a Dominant Position

The May summit was one long spiel of praise for the OBOR initiative and mostly meant to attract Chinese investment and then make it palatable for the smaller economies to accept. There were no debates or questions regarding the Chinese motives to involve itself in this massive economic exercise.

On the other hand, most of the smaller nations involved accept that the huge infrastructural spending being envisaged is essential to shore up their economies. OBOR is based on a Chinese version or concept of economic diplomacy. It does not, at least so far, cater for both the parties to deal with each other in an equitable manner and the model is heavily tilted towards creating economic dependence for the smaller economies involved, leading to Chinese dominance.

There is a lack of transparency from China regarding the details of the projects being proposed in different countries. This opaque position, when combined with the tendency of client governments to shroud the details of the agreements in secrecy, raises questions regarding the China’s ultimate objective in moving forward with this initiative. In turn, the doubts spark popular opposition in the affected nations. Recently a leaked document that purports to be the Chinese long-term plan for the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) was made public. If the document is indeed such a plan, the entire OBOR initiative becomes a questionable venture. The document states the objective of the CPEC to be the first step in bringing economic domination of the recipient nation, in this case Pakistan. It goes on to state that the client nation must be gradually turned into a ‘surveillance state’ where the media is manipulated, democracy undermined and political transition discouraged. Obviously these are not aims that are compatible with peaceful, cooperative and mutually beneficial development. The primary aim of the OBOR initiative, gleaned from available information, is to establish China as the dominant power in Eurasia.

China’s current focus is on agricultural projects in other countries. Analyzing the manner in which it is playing out in Pakistan is informative. The current projects being implemented in Pakistan are focused on Chinese farming consortiums that are financed by the Chinese government creating raw material. In turn the raw material will be used to develop the textile and garment industry in China that would help China soak up the surplus labor force within the nation, especially in the Xinjiang Province. The entire process is reminiscent of the process instituted by the British during their ‘Raj’ in the Indian sub-continent. Holistically viewed, the Chinese initiative in Pakistan provides an uncomfortable sense of history repeating itself in the Indus valley.

The Chinese system of governance is very different to that practised in the Western democracies. The biggest fear of the central leadership is political instability brought about by a restive population which is not gainfully employed. There is a critical need to create infrastructure projects that will utilise some part of the labor force keeping it at least partially satisfied. Currently China is suffering from an overcapacity in all aspects of manufacturing. The situation is exacerbated by the diminishing attraction for investment in China in recent times. Under these circumstances, the fact that large parts of the OBOR initiative do not make economic sense can be attributed to the government’s efforts to ensure political stability by finding an outlet for the Chinese economy to spread.

The OBOR initiative is aimed at achieving two major objectives. The first is political. It is meant to boost President Xi Jinping’s stature by demonstrating his hold over the economy. The need to control the economy is part of the bid that Xi Jinping is making to consolidate power into his hands as the ‘chairman’ or dictator and unquestioned leader of the Chinese Communist Party. From the events that have transpired in the past few years, it is clear that the collective leadership practised in the past two decades is well and truly over. The second objective is purely economic. The leadership has to keep the Chinese economy moving along at an acceptable pace through initiating large infrastructure projects, wherever possible. Since there are only scant opportunities for large-scale investment domestically, foreign infrastructure initiatives are the only means to ensure that the economy continues to be adequately serviced.

From a Chinese viewpoint, therefore, the OBOR initiative makes abundant sense. However, for the client nations, the initiative is beset with an overwhelming number of challenges. It is certain that financial inducements or sanctions do not normally work in changing the attitude of sovereign nations.

The China-South Korea relationship is a clear example. Even though China threatened the South Korean economy with a reduction in Chinese tourism and other punitive measures, South Korea did not back down from permitting the deployment of the US anti-missile systems. The fundamental lesson from this event is that the smaller economies of the region may have enthusiasm for Chinese finances, but that enthusiasm does not equate to acceptance of, or support for unilateral Chinese leadership in economic, political or security matters. Similarly, there is popular resistance in countries such as Myanmar and Sri Lanka to the OBOR projects. There is widespread discontent in the Pakistani province of Baluchistan, where the Baloch Liberation Army has vowed to thwart the OBOR section passing though the province. It is seen that the initiative does not create any benefits for the Baloch people, including the minimum expectations of creating employment for the local population.

OBOR is intended as multi-national enterprise—the success of is built on a foundation of stability. Stability in such ventures is best achieved by having absolute transparency in bilateral transactions, and transparency is currently lacking at the base level of OBOR. For any success to be achieved, China needs popular ‘buy-in’ of the general public in the client states. Currently what it has is the tacit approval of autocratic and even democratic governments that have kept the details of the OBOR proposal and related bilateral agreements with China secret.

The financial burden brought about by loans from China that the client state may not be able to service that, in turn, would lead in the mid-term to financial servitude for the smaller economies and the opaqueness of the details of the scheme are the weak links in the initiative. Both are not easy to overcome.

Even though the OBOR initiative is seen to have many challenges to overcome, there are three economic factors that favour its progress. First, the existing hard currency reserves that China has would be better utilised towards infrastructure projects in the developing world. The loan conditions that are being put forward are fairly benign, although the amounts are large vis-à-vis the domestic economies of most of the recipient nations. Second, improving infrastructure with reduced transactional costs will provide a boost to the slowing economic growth in most of the proposed host nations. So far Chinese loans have proven to be more equitable to developing nations in comparison to US loans that have been confined to few sectors and made available only to a handful of nations. Third, the Chinese financing model has become an alternative to other models that have been used till now. It is cheaper, leaner and more flexible and tailored to suit the requirements of emerging economies.

Meeting the peculiar needs of the developing economies is important to obtain their concurrence. The emerging economies are predicted to account for 59 percent of the world GDP in 2018, upending the fact that between 1980 and 2007, on an average 59 percent of the world GDP was accounted for by the so-called advanced economies. China is attempting to leverage this not so subtle change in global economic progression.

The above are purely economic factors that have not been superimposed by international politics and both bilateral and multi-lateral relations within the comity of nations. Politically, the OBOR initiative is meant to extend China’s sphere of influence, creating a sort of virtual borderland as far as Africa, in an embrace that China will control. China proclaims this as a win-win situation achieved through collaboration that it believes is necessary for progress to be achieved in the post-colonial age. The key point in this explanation is the need for the initiative to be truly collaborative and mutually equally beneficial—two factors that have not yet been demonstrated in a tangible manner. The OBOR initiative so far has been one that is directed at China assuming global leadership as the provider of goods—a further step in its continuing journey along the path to overtake USA as the world’s largest economy, sometime in the next decade.

The skeptical nations, India being one of the larger ones, will wait and watch for demonstration of China’s ability to be collaborative, not unilateral as it has so far demonstrated, in pursuing the stated objectives of the OBOR initiative.

The Smaller Nations in the Game

India has almost boycotted the initiative, although it is yet to state an unambiguous position. However, the smaller nations within the scheme may not have the capacity, or for that matter the self-assurance, to push back on the covert pressure that comes with the Chinese initiative. The OBOR in Sri Lanka is an example. Sri Lanka is a major participant in the initiative and a critical member because of its geographical location at the heart of the Indian Ocean. In Sri Lanka, public discontent with the Chinese project that has not created any appreciable local employment has erupted in violent protests.

The change of government in the 2015 elections in Sri Lanka was no doubt a great victory for democracy. The new government also started the process of renegotiating projects that were quietly accepted by the previous government. China’s strongarm tactics that had worked earlier now seems to be backfiring.

Sri Lanka is the not the only country that is having second thoughts regarding the benefits that is supposed to accrue from this vast project. The public in Myanmar, Thailand and Laos are becoming vociferously hostile to Chinese projects. Similarly Pakistan has deployed more than 50,000 soldiers only to protect the Chinese project. Chinese insensitivity to the client nation’s domestic dynamics has become the Achilles’ heel of the OBOR initiative. The entire project is based on infrastructure development in host nations with Chinese financing delivered though Chinese companies employing only Chinese resources, both human and material. When the reality of the schemes dawn on the general public in recipient nations, the reactions may not be containable.

On the other hand, OBOR is an ambitious and critically essential initiative for the Chinese government. If China feels that its interests are being jeopardised, its projection of being a patient benefactor of smaller nations may not last for long. Domestic push-back from smaller nations that may impede the nation’s forward march will not be viewed sympathetically in Beijing. There are bound to be repercussions for the host nation that becomes a proverbial ‘spoke in the wheel’.

From around the 1950s, China has repeatedly emphasized its benign nature as a growing power. It has touted non-interference in another country’s internal affairs as a core principle in applying its increasing influence on the world stage. At least for the time being, OBOR is being projected as China’s effort to spread its developmental achievements across other nations for mutual benefit. Considering the manner in which China has reacted to the current ruling by the international tribunal on matters related to the South China Sea, it would not be wrong to assume that the benign attitude, so far put forward, is wearing thin. It is only a matter of time before the dragon shows its fire-breathing form.

India’s Objections

There are a number of reasons for India’s obvious unease at the OBOR initiative. First and foremost is the CPEC, meant as a transportation and energy network that will eventually connect the Chinese-built Pakistani port at Gwadar with Kashgar in Xinjiang Province in Western China. This corridor passes through the ‘Pakistan occupied/administered’ part of Kashmir that India claims as its sovereign territory.

Obviously India views the project as directly impinging on its territorial integrity, especially since India has not been consulted before establishing the project. There is a certain amount of wariness on the part of China regarding India’s objections. China has attempted to diffuse the situation by stating that it will not get involved in territorial disputes that must be sorted out bilaterally. It is difficult to envisage how China’s stance will work, if the project is to go forward. The situation is exacerbated by the fact that once China has invested a critical mass in the corridor, it will be a resource-asset that, realistically, China will want to protect.

Second is that India perceives the OBOR as a unilateral initiative being pursued by China, whereas India has followed a multi-lateral approach to building trust and confidence within the region. There is an undercurrent within the Indian policy establishment which thinks that China does not respect or even consider India’s sensitivities and concerns vis-à-vis its relations with the smaller nations of both South and South-East Asia. India believes that peace and stability brought about through mutual trust and steady interactions is the only long term solution to the myriad differences that plague the region. An acceptable level of trust is lacking at the moment and a unilateral initiative will only increase the tensions.

The third reason is that India has grave concerns regarding the ability of the host countries to pay back the large loans that are being given by China for these nations to undertake the huge infrastructure projects that are being envisaged. Further, there is also the methodology of the utilization of these loans, which are at least nominally meant to benefit the host nation.

A clear example, already visible, is the loan that has been given to Pakistan to build their energy infrastructure. The ‘aid’ in terms of loans being given to Pakistan will be used by Chinese companies that employ only Chinese labor to construct power plants that will be owned, managed and operated by Chinese companies. The power generated by these companies will be sold to Pakistan. The benefit for the Pakistan economy or the general population in this equation is difficult to fathom. Simply put, China is creating business opportunities for Chinese companies in the guise of soft developmental loans to other nations. In stark terms this can be labelled economic colonization that leaves no exit route for the smaller economies who are the recipients of such ‘largesse’.

The fourth reason is that China has not considered the sovereignty claims of nations regarding the territories through which the infrastructure projects are being developed. Control of some of these territories are disputed by two or more nations. India’s stand is that all parties must agree on the developmental or construction process through a consultative process and not as a follow-up to an arbitrary decision. India judges that the current situation is one that will fuel increasing competition between nations. Its stated position and advocacy is that the kind of connectivity that China is proposing should diffuse rivalries, not increase the tensions in the region. The OBOR initiative is seen as pitting nations of the region against each other.

Even so, India has to carefully engage in the broader initiative for three very valid reasons. First is that the smaller nations of the region are supportive of the initiative since it provides a guarantee for their own on-going development. Whether or not this will prove to be a double-edged sword cannot be determined at this stage in the development of the scheme. Therefore, India’s unilateral rejection of the scheme will be seen as detrimental to the progress of an initiative that promises to benefit all participants, at least outwardly till now. In turn, such an attitude has the potential to isolate India in the region at a point in time when India is undertaking a concerted diplomatic endeavor to become a regional power by consensus.

Second is based on the fact that the OBOR initiative will not work effectively without India’s participation, primarily because of the size of its economy and geographic location. Therefore, India will be able to engage on its own terms in the scheme and bring to bear positive influence in the development work that will be undertaken. It is always more beneficial to be working for change from the inside rather than being in opposition outside the loop. The third reason stems from the second.

India will be able to bring the necessary transparency to the entire project, something that is lacking at this stage. The client states are in awe of Chinese power, its economic clout and the covert pressure that China can bring to bear to achieve its objectives. India could become the bulwark against the subtle ‘bullying’ that will definitely take place as the initiative matures. This is an opportunity for India to further its ambitions of becoming a regional power. India must engage, but with clarity about the red lines that it must draw regarding the sovereignty of its territories.

Conclusion

The OBOR initiative is clearly oriented towards increased connectivity within Eurasia, and subsequently in Europe, on China’s unilateral terms. So far its primary objective can only be described as opening the land-locked Chinese provinces, which have a surplus of labor capacity, to Central Asia.

The initiative is based on a different style of statecraft from what has so far been practised in modern times by the Western democracies. However, there has been a lack of transparency regarding details of the project and absolutely no multi-lateral leadership in its management. It has remained a Chinese one-way directive for globalization according to its demands.

The globalization that is envisaged looks to be a gradual Chinese encroachment into host nations, one that will, in time, turn into an unprecedented move in both scale and depth of penetration. Holistically, the OBOR initiative is a project of loans that will see China investing and re-investing its surplus capital that has the potential in the long-term to alter the global economic and strategic order in China’s favour. Even though Chinese predominance can be discerned, the ultimate strategic objective remains shrouded in opaqueness. Chinese plans, which include 24-hour surveillance in major cities and other hubs on the OBOR in host nations, have not been formally been accepted. It is highly unlikely that these details will ever be declared officially. These actions can be considered to be the first steps in 21st century colonization. Loans that cannot be repaid invariably become the foundation for economic colonization.

From India’s perspective, the CPEC lacks justification, impinges on its sovereignty, and is completely tailored to suit only Chinese interests. Obviously it is not an acceptable situation. India seems to be convinced that the OBOR initiative is an instrument carefully crafted to ensure Chinese hegemony and does not cater to inclusive and sustainable development of all parties concerned. Whether this assessment is right or wrong is another debate. However, the tug-of-war between India and China for regional power status and global influence only got a bit more complex with India’s boycott of the OBOR summit in May this year.

From the second half of the 19th Century onwards, the Muslim world has been wallowing in a pit of dissension and tumult. For the last 150 years, North Africa, the Middle East and the Near Eastern regions have been ravaged by myriad revolutions, civil wars, conflicts and invasions. Regardless of age or gender, millions of Muslims have been martyred in this environment of violence while millions more have tried to hold onto life in exile, refugee camps, devastated cities or derelict houses.

In this dark period, from Arabs, Kurds, Barbaries Turks, and Turkmens to Azerbaijanis, Afghanis, Iranians and Pakistanis, countless innocent people of all nations have lost their lives in conflicts between brothers. In the second half of the 20th Century alone, over 10 million Muslims were martyred by bullets fired from the guns of other Muslims. While the Muslim world was deeply grieving their lost, the orchestrators of these evils grew richer and politically stronger, allowing them to extend their influence over Muslims

At the turn of the 21st Century, terrorism has fueled the already raging flames of tumult further. Muslims are now routinely bombing mosques in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Egypt and Libya; suicide bombers are wreaking carnage in marketplaces, bazaars, schools, hospitals and streets. A fog of tumult and dissension, the like of which has never been seen in the 1,400 years of Islamic history, has descended upon the entire Muslim community. The Muslim world is suffering from an acute case of lack of foresight. Politicians, state and military officials, intellectuals, opinion and religious leaders are dragging their feet in stifling the tumult. Summits convening with the mission of peace are proving fruitless.

The pleas of aggrieved Muslims are drowned out amidst the uproar of dissension. On the other hand, the fire raging in the Muslim community grows bigger with every passing day, engulfing more and more Muslims in its blazing flames and carving out a permanent place in the Islamic world.

Today, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Iraq and Afghanistan are beset with civil strife, while terrorism has become a part of daily life in Egypt, Lebanon, Pakistan and Algiers. Palestine stands divided in two.

The Western media features new maps every day that display a divided Iran and Saudi Arabia. In such a turbulent climate, Muslims are obliged to give precedence to their commonalities rather than their differences and promote unity instead of conflict. The Arabian Peninsula is already beset by dissent in the west, north and south. As of late, another step has been taken to drag its eastern region into chaos as well.

With Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Libya and Maldives on one side and Qatar on the other, a new division is being incited among the countries of the region.

The fuse of the latest fire was lit prior to Eid al-Fitr by seven countries’ boycott of Qatar. Qatar was urged to close down its embassies, while Qatari citizens were asked to leave these countries. The Saudi border, Qatar’s only land connection, was closed, a decision that prevented food and emergency aid from being delivered to the country. These severe sanctions were followed by an ultimatum requesting the fulfillment of a list of heavy demands. Among the demands were conditions such as the shutdown of Qatar-based media organizations and the discontinuation of military alliances that no sovereign state would ever agree to. At the end of the ten days given to Qatar to comply with the demands, the country responded by flatly rejecting the ultimatum. The meeting in Cairo did not change anything; Saudi Foreign Minister declared that the sanction will continue until the Qatar administration meet the demands.

These developments may spell a raising of the tensions and open the door to the possibility of military activity that could engulf the west of the Arabian Peninsula and Iran on the other shore of the gulf. Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and United Arab Emirates, the countries imposing the boycott, are Sunni countries neighboring the Persian Gulf and on the other side of the Gulf lies Shiite Iran.

Likewise, on the northern coast of the Gulf lies Iraq’s Shiite-predominant region, Basra. It is impossible to make predictions about the potential consequences of an escalating Sunni-Shiite tension in the region.

Furthermore, the Gulf region sits on two-thirds of the global oil reserves and one- third of the world’s natural gas reserves: The Strait of Hormuz, the Gulf’s sole passage to the open ocean, is also the only gateway for Kuwaiti, Iraqi, Iranian, Saudi Arabian, Bahraini, Emirati and Qatari oil exports. 40% of the global oil trade passes through the Strait of Hormuz. This route coming under threat will also lead to the involvement of the international community in the crisis. Today, the Mediterranean has virtually become a naval war zone. The Persian Gulf similarly brimming with aircraft carriers, destroyers, sea-to-land missiles or warplanes will bring the region one step closer to an all-out-war. It is impossible to even imagine what this war might culminate in.

The aggrieved Muslims are once again the victims of the crisis sparked at the end of Ramadan. Qatari citizens being deported from their countries of residence have left many families facing risk of separation. The regional economy is experiencing a rapid collapse while Muslims are growing poorer for no reason. Above all, a sense of discontent and unease is settling in the region due to the atmosphere of uncertainty brought about by the crisis.

Today, those who profit from the ongoing tensions are by no means Muslims. On the contrary, this situation will create further schisms in the Islamic world, which will only serve the ends of certain power groups. Iraq, Kuwait, Turkey, Iran and Oman have not gone along with the boycott on Qatar, preferring to remain impartial in the region. However, remaining silent is not enough.

In this sense, Turkey and Kuwait’s conciliatory efforts are of paramount importance; the rest of the countries in the region too must absolutely partake in this effort. While His Highness Sheik Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah, the Emir of Kuwait, stated that it is “an indispensable duty” to resolve the disputes between the Gulf States, Turkey stepped in right after the onset of the crisis by conducting the necessary diplomatic negotiations and sending food to Qatar, preventing the humanitarian and political dimensions of the crisis from growing worse.

Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti Minister of Foreign Affairs, called for dialogue in resolving the crisis, stressing that the disputes between Muslims should definitely be tackled in unity and “under the Gulf umbrella”, in other words, among themselves. Al-Sabah’s words “Our brothers in Qatar are ready to understand the reality of the qualms and concerns of their brothers and to heed the noble endeavors to enhance security and stability,” in an effort to mediate between the two sides is truly commendable. It is crucial that the Turkish and Kuwaiti governments realize a major Islamic sign by playing a reconciliatory role in the crisis.

This is a behavior that should be supported, appreciated and prayed for its success.
Muslims can usher in an era of peace and serenity in the world only by maintaining friendly relations and joining their forces, not by provoking hostility against each other. Above all, by doing so, they will be fulfilling their Qur’anic obligations. Separation among Muslims is nothing but a trap, and falling into that trap has always cost Muslims dearly and has always resulted in violence and bloodshed. The Muslim community should realize that they are being lured into a trap, and seek out ways to achieve unity, not dissolution.

*Harun Yahya has authored more than 300 books translated into 73 languages on politics, religion and science. He tweets @harun_yahya.

Over the last few years, maritime disputes in the contested waters of East Asia have made global headlines. In the South China Sea, China has faced opposition from Vietnam, Malaysia and the Philippines for its claims to sovereignty over the Paracel and Spratly Islands. In the East China Sea, relations have remained tense between China and Japan over the disputed Senkaku-Diaoyu islands.

Yet another long-standing maritime dispute in the region has continued to exist under-the-radar, and remains unresolved after more than six decades. The dispute concerns a collection of small islands located in the Sea of Japan – or the East Sea as it is known on the Korean peninsula. The contested islands are called the Dokdo Islands by South Korea, yet are known as the Takeshima Islands by the Japanese, and the Liancourt Rocks by many in the West.

The isolated maritime territory – consisting of two larger islands and more than thirty smaller features – is officially controlled by South Korea, yet is also claimed by Japan. The islands sit roughly half-way between the two countries, being located approximately 134 nautical miles from South Korea’s mainland, and around 155 miles from the Japanese coastline.

This article will seek to review the background context and current situation related to the long-running dispute over the Dokdo-Takeshima Islands, before assessing its impact on South Korean-Japanese bilateral relations and asking why the dispute has proved so difficult to resolve.

Both sides claim that their right to sovereignty over the islands stretches back hundreds of years, yet there is a significant degree of historical ambiguity to these claims. Instances of conflicting evidence make a clear and objective timeline of the disputes almost impossible to ascertain.

South Korea argues that the islands were first mentioned in historical literature from as long ago as 512-AD, whilst Japan argues that South Korea has failed to prove their control over the islands prior to their occupation by Japanese forces in 1905, several years prior to the Japanese colonization of the Korean peninsula. Japan’s Foreign Ministry has also stated that its claims originally date back to the mid-17th Century when the islands were used by Japanese sailors.

South Korea insists that the islands were rightfully handed back to the country following the 1951 Treaty of San Francisco, signed between the United States and Japan after the end of WWII. However, the islands had been omitted from the final text of the treaty, leading to confusion over which country was entitled to administer the territory. South Korea established formal administrative control over the islands in the mid-1950s – a move which Japan has described as an ‘illegal occupation’.

Today, the Dokdo-Takeshima islands remain administered by South Korea and the dispute has rumbled on at a relatively low level, albeit damaging bilateral relations between the two countries. South Korea has constructed a coast guard station on one of the two main islands, whilst on the other resides a Korean fisherman and his family – the territory’s only permanent residents.

There are several reasons why the dispute has proved so resistant to a resolution over the past six decades.

Firstly, nationalism remains a key factor on both sides, with the islands holding symbolic importance to both the South Korean and Japanese populations. Many South Korean’s see Japan’s unrelenting sovereignty claim as a neo-colonial attempt to retain a strategically-important territory acquired during Japan’s days as an imperial power. This aspect of the dispute is arguably the most sensitive, with many Koreans still feeling a sense of anger and humiliation over their country’s annexation by Japanese forces in 1910 and the lengthy occupation of the mainland which followed.

Nationalist sentiments have also been a feature of Japan’s continuing claim, with the southern Shimane Prefecture introducing an annual ‘Takeshima Day’ in 2005. In both countries, nationalistic feelings centred on historical animosity between the two regional powers have dominated thinking with regard to the dispute – resulting in occasional street protests by civilians and rhetorical flare-ups from political leaders in the aftermath of sensitive incidents.

Secondly, the dispute has proved even more intractable due to the economic and geo-strategic importance of the islands. The Dokdo-Takeshima islands are located in the middle of an important route for shipping and regional trade, and are surrounded by plentiful fish stocks. In addition, there is significant potential for the unexplored sea-bed around the islands to contain large amounts of oil and natural gas deposits.

Full political control over the islands would enable access to a 12-natuical mile Territorial Sea, along with a 200-nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) stretching out from the coastline, under the terms of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). This international agreement has further entrenched the position of both sides – as has also been the case with claimants in other territorial disputes in the South and East China Seas – due to the potential for large rewards in terms of energy security and economic prosperity, as a result of preferential fishing rights and greater access to natural resources within the legally delimited zones.

Whilst the disputes have continued at a low level for the past six decades, recent years have witnessed several flare-ups and periods of increased friction. In 2012, tensions reached their highest point when Japan recalled its ambassador to Seoul, following a high-profile visit to the islands by then-South Korean President Lee Myung-bak – the first visit by an incumbent Korean leader.

Concerns have also been raised over the impact of the dispute on bilateral relations and security co-operation between the two countries – both of which are allies of the United States. This question is especially important given the rapidly escalating nuclear threat emanating from the hostile regime in North Korea, after it conducted a series of missile tests earlier this year in contravention of a UN ban.

The successful management of this issue will require a unified response involving close cooperation between the United States and its regional allies. This provides a strong imperative for South Korea and Japan to put their long-running maritime dispute to one side, at least for now, and work more closely together to tackle a common threat.

At first glance, the dispute over the Dokdo-Takeshima Islands appears relatively minor in scale, especially when compared to the more complex maritime disputes underway in the East and South China Seas. However, the islands occupy a position of great national importance for many in both South Korea and Japan, a factor which provides a significant obstacle to resolution and has resulted in deeply-ingrained positions on both sides.

Whilst tensions occasionally rise to the surface, the dispute is not one which looks likely to result in military conflict any time soon. For now, with little sign of compromise or willingness to debate the issue of sovereignty on either side, the status-quo over the islands looks set to remain unchanged – especially whilst a serious threat to the entire region looms large on the horizon.

About the author:
*Michael Hart is a freelance writer in international politics, focusing primarily on civil conflict in Africa and the geopolitics of South-East Asia. Hart is currently studying an MA in International Relations at the University of Westminster, undertaking dissertation on the role of political rhetoric in the South China Sea disputes. In 2013 Hart graduated with a BA in Human Geography from the University of Exeter, and has written for online publications including Geopolitical Monitor and World Review, and runs a blog providing news and analysis of conflicts which are under-reported in the mainstream news media: https://geopoliticalconflict.wordpress.com/

By Tsvetana Paraskova

Like many industries today, the oil industry is trying to sell its many job opportunities to the fastest growing portion of the global workforce: Millennials. But unlike any other industry, oil and gas is facing more challenges in persuading the environmentally-conscious Millennials that oil is “cool”.

During the Super Bowl earlier this year, the American Petroleum Institute (API) launched an ad geared toward Millennials, who now make up the largest generation in the U.S. labor force.

“This ain’t your daddy’s oil”, the ad says, in what API described as “a modern look at how oil is integrated into products consumers use now and in the future supported by bold visuals.”

Despite its pitch to speak the Millennials’ language and reach out to the elusive generation, the ad sparked anger with many consumers and viewers.

Millennials continue to have the most negative opinion toward the oil industry compared to all other industries, and they don’t see a career in oil and gas as their top choice of a workplace. The oil industry’s talent scouting and recruiting methods of the past are failing to reach Millennials, who want their work to have a positive impact on society, various studies and polls have found—a rather big ask for the oil industry.

This failure to reach the group that makes up the largest portion of today’s workforce—which now surpasses Generation X—points to a huge problem for the oil sector, as Baby Boomers move into retirement in droves.

Not only are Millennials snubbing oil and gas because of its negative image, they also seek different job perks than previous generations sought, and in this regard, the oil industry will need to do more as it becomes increasingly obvious that Millennials want different things than what oil executives think they want.

A total of 14 percent of Millennials say they would not want to work in the oil and gas industry because of its negative image—the highest percentage of any industry, McKinsey said in September 2016.

Young people see the industry as dirty, difficult, and dangerous, according to an EY survey published last month. EY’s survey polled Millennials—the 20-to-35-year-olds today—as well as Generation Z coming after them, and found that younger generations “question the longevity of the industry as they view natural gas and oil as their parents’ fuels. Further, they primarily see the industry’s careers as unstable, blue-collar, difficult, dangerous and harmful to society.”

In addition, two out of three teens believe the oil and gas industry causes problems rather than solves them, the survey showed.

So ‘not your daddy’s oil’ is not sinking in with Millennials and Generation Z, and with many of them, it never will, despite the oil lobbies’ marketing efforts to try to make it sound like an attractive career path.

According to executives polled by EY, the top three drivers for young people would be salary (72 percent), opportunity to use the latest technology (43 percent), and a good work-life balance (38 percent). But young people—although they are also prioritizing salary—have other views on what they look for in a job. Salary is still the top priority at 56 percent, but a close second comes good work-life balance (49 percent), with job stability and on-the-job happiness equally important at 37 percent.

Executives are underestimating the importance of work-life balance and stability for Millennials, while overestimating the allure of technology as a factor. It’s not surprising that Millennials are not as attracted to the opportunity to use new tech as oil executives believe they are – Millennials generally don’t see technology as a perk, they take it for granted.

Moreover, Millennials don’t see the oil and gas industry as innovative – a major driver of career choice among this generation. According to a recent report by Accenture, “Despite evidence to the contrary, many Millennials believe the sector is lacking innovation, agility and creativity, as well as opportunities to engage in meaningful work. In fact, only 2 percent of U.S. college graduates consider the oil and gas industry their top choice for employment.” Accenture is warning that ‘the talent well has run dry’ and said: “We believe the growing workforce deficit will, in fact, be a greater barrier to oil and gas companies’ upturn success than any deficits that might exist in capital, equipment or supplies.”

The oil and gas industry is losing the competition for talent recruitment to industries that are more appealing to Millennials, and U.S. oil and gas firms will face the talent crunch first, according to Accenture.

“Any mature industry has to think about the fact that there’s a new sheriff in town with new values, new spending habits,” Jeff Fromm, an expert in marketing to American Millennials, told Bloomberg.

And if the oil and gas industry wants to get this ‘new sheriff in town’ on board, it needs to profoundly change recruitment strategies and talent sourcing. But with the negative image that is probably set to become even more negative—despite oil organizations’ marketing efforts—oil and gas has a huge workforce problem looming.

Source: http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Dirty-Difficult-And-Dangerous-Why-Millennials-Wont-Work-In-Oil.html

We commit a big fallacy when we assume that our educational accomplishments are our individual achievements. We like to believe that we were born with a certain innate talent which makes us intellectually superior to all the rest. But the fact of the matter is that our innate talents aren’t all that different. Some people are born with genes that make them grow to being six feet tall, while others have relatively short heights; these are all minor difference of genetics, nevertheless.

The difference of innate intelligence among people belonging to all races is quite similar. It’s our environment, family, culture and educational institutions which are primarily responsible for our cognitive abilities and social values. In this regard, capitalism works like the outdated monarchy: a person born in a rich and educated family is by default a prince; he has access to all the modes of learning: like, parental guidance, best educational institutions, books, libraries and internet; peer pressure as a motivation, and intellectual discussions and debates with well-informed teachers, family members and close friends further hones one’s cognitive abilities.

A poor peasant, on the other hand, lacks the wherewithal to educate himself and his children to that level. Thus, when the neoliberals blame the jahils (the uneducated) for their jahalat (illiteracy), they are actually blaming the poor for their poverty, or the victims for their misfortunes. They ought to blame the structural faults and the capitalist system which engenders social stratification and the consequent jahalat.

It should be kept in mind, however, that I’ve written this post in the context of Third World’s stratified educational systems where we have markedly different educational institutions for the elite and the masses. The public schools of the developed world provide quality education to all the citizens, irrespective of their social class, because in a country like UK the budgetary allocation for public education is $150 for a population of 65 million, while in a Third World country, like Pakistan, the education budget is roughly $5 billion for a population of 200 million. Thus, equality of opportunity, which is directly linked to the equality of education, is ensured in the developed world, but not in the Third World.

In the Third World developing countries, like India and especially Pakistan, there are four distinct types of educational institutions:

Firstly: The elite English-medium schools that offer courses in O/A Levels and Junior/Senior Cambridge. The quality of education in such institutions is quite good, but their tuition fee and other expenses are so exorbitant that only the upper middle classes can admit their children in such schools.

Secondly: The Urdu-medium public and private sector schools that cater to the educational needs of the children of middle and lower middle classes. Though such institutions are often misrepresented as “English-medium,” because the textbooks are in English, but the lingua franca in such schools is generally Urdu; and their quality of education is average, at best.

Thirdly: The government schools that are run by the provincial education departments. The tuition fee in such schools is quite nominal and so is the standard of education that they impart. Such institutions cater to the educational needs of the children of the poorer classes.

Fourthly: The religious seminaries, or madrassahs, that are funded by the Islamic charities and endowments, and that impart religious education to the children of the poorest of the poor. Petrodollars-funded madrassahs offer the kind of incentives which are lacking even in government schools, like free boarding and lodging, meals for the poor students, free of cost books and stationery; some generously-funded madrassahs even give monthly stipends to their students. The poor folk who admit their children in madrassahs, in a way, outsource the upbringing of their children to the madrassahs; because, for all practical purposes, such children are raised by religious clerics.

Notwithstanding, in today’s complex world, without education, people are not equipped to survive. For instance: if I go to China and I don’t know the Chinese language, I’ll be needing a tour guide with me all the time. Similarly, those of us who can’t read and write, they can survive due to their traditional social networks in villages, but not in modern cities. And the innumerate who can’t do math, they cannot succeed in business. If you want to register a property or a vehicle to your name, and you don’t know the law and the understanding of how the system works, you can run into a lot of trouble.

Therefore, education is imperative for survival in today’s complex world. Biological evolution is based on the cardinal principle of natural selection and the survival of the fittest; thus, fitness to the environment is the only law that ensures our survival. But that fitness is bestowed upon us by nature; and like I have said earlier, that in today’s complex, man-made world, every newborn child is unfit until he gets proper education.

More to the point, the lack of fitness of an individual (or a social group) is not their fault, it is the fault of the society as a whole. If you are fortunate enough to have been born in a rich, or an upper middle class family, by default you will be equipped with all the necessary tools that are required for survival and progress; but if you have not been properly educated to understand and deal with today’s complex modern societies, then you will remain an unfit peasant.

Finally and in the nutshell, equality of opportunity, which is the fundamental axiom of the modern egalitarian worldview, is directly linked to the equality of education, or at least, the equality of educational opportunities. In the capitalist neoliberal societies of the Third World, however, only the children of the upper classes get proper education which is essential for upward social mobility, while the children of the masses get barely sufficient education which might be enough for becoming clerks and technicians, but as far as one’s cognitive abilities and critical faculties are concerned, their optimal potential is not realized.

Revelations about two incidents of Gulf-related fake news shine a spotlight on a long-standing psychological war between the UAE and Qatar that preceded the Gulf crisis, as well as the two states’ seemingly repeated and competing interventionist efforts to shape the Middle East and North Africa in their mould.

In the latest incident, US intelligence officials asserted that the UAE had orchestrated the hacking in May of Qatari government news and social media sites in order to post incendiary false quotes that were attributed to Qatari emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani.

The UAE and Saudi Arabia declared their six-week-old diplomatic and economic boycott of Qatar on the basis of the hack despite Qatari denials of the quotes and an investigation involving the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). US intelligence reported that senior UAE officials had approved the hack on May 23, a day before it occurred. The UAE has denied the allegations.

The US allegations came less than 24 hours after Reuters was forced to withdraw a report that six members of the Saudi-UAE-led alliance had asked world soccer body FIFA to deprive Qatar of its 2022 World Cup hosting rights after it turned out to be fake. The story was widely carried by international media and news websites and constituted the basis of an analysis by this author. It was not immediately evident who was responsible for the false report.

The two incidents nevertheless highlight different strategies of the Gulf’s small states, buffeted by huge war chests garnered from energy exports, to project power and shape the world around them, including the current Gulf crisis.

At the core of the differences lie diametrically opposed visions of the future of a region wracked by debilitating power struggles; a convoluted, bloody and painful quest for political change; and a determined and ruthless counterrevolutionary effort to salvage the fundaments of the status quo ante.

The UAE together with Saudi Arabia views autocracy as the key to regional security and the survival of its autocratic regimes and has systematically sought to roll back achievements of the 2011 popular Arab revolts that removed from power the leaders of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen who had been in office for decades.

As a result, the UAE has allegedly backed regime change in a number of countries, including Egypt and reportedly Turkey; supported anti-Islamist, anti- government rebels in Libya; joined Saudi Arabia’s ill-fated military intervention in Yemen; and in the latest episode of its campaign, driven imposition of the boycott of Qatar.

In contrast to the UAE, Qatar has sought to position itself as the regional go-to go-between and mediator by maintaining relations not only with states but also a scala of Islamist, militant and rebel groups across the Middle East and northern Africa. It moreover embraced the 2011 revolts and supported Islamist forces, with the Muslim Brotherhood in the lead, that emerged as the most organized political force from the uprisings.

Qatar’s support for the Brotherhood amounted to aligning itself with forces who were challenging autocratic Gulf regimes and that the UAE was seeking to suppress, prompting allegations that Qatar was supporting terrorism defined as anything opposed to autocratic rule.

The hacking of the Qatari websites in May and the fake soccer story were but the latest instalment in the psychological war between the two Gulf states. The UAE and Qatar have been waging a covert war in the media and through fake NGOs even before Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain first withdrew their ambassadors from Doha in 2014 in a failed bid to get Qatar to change its policies.

The UAE, the world’s largest spender on lobbying in the United States in 2013, sought to plant anti-Qatar stories in American media. To do so, it employed California-based Camstoll Group LLC that was operated by former high-ranking US Treasury officials who had been responsible for relations with Gulf state and Israel as well as countering funding of terrorism.

Under the contract, Camstoll would consult on “issues pertaining to illicit financial networks, and developing and implementing strategies to combat illicit financial activity.”  In its registration as a foreign agent, Camstoll reported that it “has conducted outreach to think tanks, business interests, government officials, media, and other leaders in the United States regarding issues related to illicit financial activity.”

Camstoll’s “public disclosure forms showed a pattern of conversations with journalists who subsequently wrote articles critical of Qatar’s role in terrorist fund-raising,” The New York Times reported.  Camstoll reported multiple conversations with reporters of The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Daily Beast, Dow Jones News Wires, Financial Times, Bloomberg News, CNN and the Washington Free Beacon.

In disclosing the UAE’s efforts to influence US media reporting on Qatar, Glenn Greenwald, a reporter for The Intercept, argued that “the point here is not that Qatar is innocent of supporting extremists… The point is that this coordinated media attack on Qatar – using highly paid former U.S. officials and their media allies – is simply a weapon used by the Emirates, Israel, the Saudis and others to advance their agendas… What’s misleading isn’t the claim that Qatar funds extremists but that they do so more than other U.S. allies in the region (a narrative implanted at exactly the time Qatar has become a key target of Israel and the Emirates). Indeed, some of Qatar’s accusers here do the same to at least the same extent, and in the case of the Saudis, far more so.”

Qatar’s response to the media campaign against it was illustrative of its ineptitude prior to the current Gulf crisis in fighting its public relations and public diplomacy battles, clumsiness in developing communication strategies, meek denials of various accusations, and failure to convincingly defend its controversial policies. In a bid to counter its World Cup critics, Qatar contracted Portland Communications founded by Tony Allen, a former adviser to Tony Blair when he was prime minister, according to Britain’s Channel 4 News.

The television channel linked Portland to the creation by Alistair Campbell, Blair’s chief communications advisor at Downing Street Number Ten and a former member of Portland’s strategic council, of a soccer blog that attacked Qatar’s detractors. Britain’s Channel 4 reported that the blog projected itself as “truly independent” and claimed to represent “a random bunch of football fans, determined to spark debate.” The broadcaster said the blog amounted to “astro-turfing,” the creation of fake sites that project themselves as grassroots but in effect are operated by corporate interests. The blog stopped publishing after the television report.

Qatar also thought to undermine UAE efforts to tarnish its image with the arrest in 2014 of two British human rights investigators of Nepalese origin who were looking into the conditions of migrant labour. The investigators worked for a Norway-based NGO, the Global Network for Rights and Development (GNRD), that was funded to the tune of €4.2 million a year by anonymous donors believed to be connected to the UAE.

Founded in 2008, GNRD was headed by Loai Mohammed Deeb, a Palestinian-born international lawyer who owned a UAE-based consultancy, and reportedly operated a fake university in Scandinavia, according to veteran Middle East author and journalist Brian Whitaker who took a lead in investigating the group.  GNRD said it aimed to “to enhance and support both human rights and development by adopting new strategies and policies for real change.”

In 2014, GNRD published a human rights index that ranked the UAE at number 14 in the world and Qatar at 97. Heavy criticism of the index persuaded the group to delete the index from its website. GNRD, moreover, consistently praised the UAE’s controversial human rights records with articles on its website on the role of women, the UAE’s “achievements in promoting and protecting the family, environmental efforts, care for the disabled and its protection of the rights of children.

GNRD was closed following police raids in 2015, the confiscation of $13 million in assets, and charges of money laundering that have yet to be heard in court.  Norwegian investigators said that UAE diplomats had fought hard to prevent the case going to court.

The Koran is the only book of revelation that includes within itself a theory of prophethood which includes the prophets of other religions. There have always been (since the days of Adam) people inspired by Allah who urged their society to avoid destruction by turning away from its corrupt and unjust ways and turning to the One God who created all humans.

The Koran mentions 25 prophets by name (most of them known to non-Muslims too) and Muslims believe there were one hundred twenty four thousand others, whose names are now unknown.

Of the 25 mentioned by name in the Koran only five revealed books of sacred scripture, and only Moses, David, Jesus and Muhammad revealed books of sacred scripture that are the bases for the three monotheistic religions that still flourish today.

According to the Koran, every nation in the world receives at least one prophet who speaks to them in their own language. However, one nation, the Children of Israel, has received a great many prophets. The Koran doesn’t explicitly tell us why so many prophets arose within the Children of Israel, but a careful reading of the Koran reveals the answer.

This was what I learned from a profound and enlightening essay by Irfan Ahmad Kahn in a book entitled Jewish-Muslim Encounters edited by Charles Selengut (Paragon House 2001).

Almost all prophets, according to Kahn, are like Hud who was sent to Ad or Salih who was sent to Thamud; to warn them of their impending destruction due to their corrupt and immoral ways and to call them to repentance. However, the prophets of the Children of Israel are different..

First , Abraham is the only prophet we know of whose two sons, Isma’il and Ishaq, are also prophets. Indeed, Abraham’s grandson Ya’qub and great grandson Yusuf are also prophets.

Thus starting with Abraham Allah established a family dynasty of prophets. With Joseph and his brothers (the tribes) the extended family became the 12 tribes of Israel or as they are usually called the Children of Israel/Ya’qub.

The Children of Israel were blessed with many prophets inviting them to stay firm in their faith to God; this is expressed in various places in the Qur’an “When death approached Ya’qub, he said to his sons, ‘Who will (you) worship after I am gone?’ They answered, ‘We will worship your God, the God of our forefathers, Abraham, Ishmael, Issac, the One God. Unto Him we will surrender ourselves.’” (2:132)

Second, when Moses/Musa is sent by Allah he comes not primarily to warn or rebuke the Children of Israel (his own people) but he is sent “to Pharaoh” ( 20:24, 51:38, 73:15 and 79:17), “to Pharaoh and his chiefs” (al-mala) (7:103, 10:75, 11:97, 23:46, and 43:46) “to Pharaoh and his people” (27:12).

Musa is sent to Pharaoh to warn him of the destruction that will fall on Egypt if he doesn’t stop setting himself up as a God and doesn’t let the Children of Israel go free. Musa comes to rebuke Pharaoh and to rescue the Children of Israel.

Only when the nation is free from Egyptian bondage do they receive the Torah from God, by the hand of Moses without any mediation of an angel. This very enlightening essay by Irfan Ahmad Kahn stimulated me as a Reform Rabbi to realize that the evidence from the Qur’an shows that Islam praises the unique place of the Children of Israel among other nations; as opposed to the accusations of some who blame the Qur’an as being antagonistic toward Jews.

From Abraham’s descendants comes a religious community based not just on belief but also on family and tribal ties. Converts to Judaism, who usually marry into the Jewish community, are like adopted children. This is why Judaism, although it welcomes converts from any people, has never engaged in a determined large scale missionary enterprise.

The principle that God makes a covenant with a whole people and not just with the faithful believers helps me understand a powerful verse in the Koran. At Sinai, when Allah gives the Jewish People the Torah, He makes a covenant with all the Children of Israel. Allah raises the mountain above the whole people saying, “Hold firmly to what We have given you (the Torah) and remember what is in it.” (2:63)

The whole nation’s fate stands under the shadow of mount Sinai, and this explains the miracle of all Israel agreeing to the covenant. This may be the reason why Musa is the only prophet whose book comes not from an angel but directly from Allah.

Individuals who hear a prophet may choose to believe or disbelieve, but when God Himself makes ‘an offer that you can’t refuse’, everyone is in for all generations to come, and then has to struggle with living up to the deal.

The many prophets that address the Children of Israel are teachers and guides more than rebukers because the covenant between God and the Umma of B’nai Israel is for all generations. Thus the covenant is not just for the community of the faithful but for the whole community of Israel, which includes some whose hearts are like rocks that spring forth streams, while others only yield water when split, and others sink for fear of Allah.(2:74)

It is this last segment of the Children of Israel, and this segment only, that Prophet Muhammad refers to when he rebukes the Children of Israel. The Koran correctly understood doesn’t attack all of Israel. Every community, including the Muslim ummah contains groups of faithful believers, as well as a party who disbelieve.

I have learned many additional insights about Islam and Judaism that can be found in my new book ‘Judaism and Islam as Synergistic Monotheisms’ (a collection of articles by a Reform Rabbi previously published by Islamic web sites ISBN # 978-3-639-79499-1) which was published a few weeks ago and is now on Amazon ($15).

Qatar’s Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani said in a televised speech on Friday that Doha is ready for dialogue to resolve a diplomatic crisis with neighboring Gulf countries so long as his country’s sovereignty is respected.

“We are open to dialogue to resolve the outstanding problems,” so long as Qatar’s “sovereignty is respected,” he said. “The time has come for us to spare the people from the political differences between the governments.”

The Qatari emir valued Kuwait’s mediation and the support of other countries for the efforts, including the US, Turkey and Germany.

He criticized the closure of the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem and expressed solidarity with the Palestinian people.

The Qatari emir claimed that life in his country was continuing as normal since the Anti-Terror Quartet, comprising Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain and Egypt, severed diplomatic and travel ties with it last month.

“As you know, life in Qatar life goes on normally,” he added.

By Trisha de Borchgrave*

Last year, following Britain’s EU referendum result, I wrote that the British “do not have the temperament nor the stomach to claw back some sort of membership of the European Union,” because “the political fight to remain will not match the emotional instinct to leave.”

A year later, growing media coverage about the infinitely complex and largely negative economic impact of Britain’s departure has sown seeds of doubt among some of the electorate who voted to leave. The Telegraph, a pro-Brexit newspaper, recently published the results of a Survation Survey, in which “a clear majority of Britons (54 percent) would vote to Remain in the EU if another referendum was held, while 46 percent would back Brexit.” A similar majority supported stopping the exit talks altogether and working to stay in the EU. Now, the Liberal Democrats’ next leader, Sir Vince Cable, says he is “beginning to think Brexit may never happen.”

However, the June 8 election did not result in a demand to remain in the EU; the Conservatives, with a commitment to Brexit, still won. And Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn only picked up disaffected UK Independence Party (UKIP) voters because of his reluctance to embrace the EU. All the election did was tear off the blindfold imposed by Prime Minister Theresa May’s overworked line, “a bad deal is worse than no deal.”

Having second thoughts is not the same as charting a new course. If Britain chose to shrug its way back into the EU, after a humiliating two-year attempt to negotiate a deal that salvaged its economy and future prospects, its status would be one of atonement. Prodigal but toxic, and simmering with resentment, the next British government would find it difficult to differentiate between being listened to, tolerated, or ignored by its EU counterparts. As a consequence, it would be suspected of blocking tactics at every EU legislative level of decision-making.

In addition holding a second referendum on the negotiated deal before the final “adieu” in March 2019 would pollute British politics for years to come. Some argue that this is already the case, but challenging the June 2016 result would give credence and hope of revival to an otherwise fading UKIP, while leaving British politics forever divided and potentially ungovernable.

And, despite recent comments to the contrary, European leaders do not really wish this upon themselves. There is no love lost today with the UK, and European member states are moving on, dismissively and pragmatically, and with a tad of Macron-inspired muscle flexing.

Short of a catastrophic recession in the next 18 months or a World War III in which Britain puts aside its Brexit agenda to stand in solidarity with Europe, it is no longer whether Britain leaves, but how.

There is a logical answer. Keeping tariff-free access to the EU trading bloc within the realistic constraints of a five- to 10-year transitional framework after the departure date of March 2019 is the only way to slow the pain. It will take at least this long for the UK to put in place the customs, certification procedures and resources to trade functionally and legally. And the compromise that binds it to EU rules under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice will curtail any potential tensions with Northern Ireland and its TBD future status while bringing down the exit bill.

During this transition period the EU itself may evolve fundamentally, especially on movement of labor. President Emmanuel Macron is backing the notion of “posted workers” primarily from Eastern European member states, who would be restricted by “agency contracts” from their home nations. This may help ease the difficult negotiations over future citizens’ rights.

But logic may not prevail. The high turnout of voters who denied the Conservatives their expected majority on June 8, and endorsed Jeremy Corbyn as a potential prime minister, has shone a critical light on the fragility of the Conservative mandate, and indeed of the party’s ability to carry out the exit process when it is crippled by internecine warfare.

Without a trusted coalition for a Plan A for Brexit, with little sense of the UK’s priorities and what it is prepared to lose or win, and seemingly without awareness of the real threats to the country’s economic wellbeing, Britain is running out of options in or out of the EU. A Plan B of sorts has materialized; a collapse of the negotiations so that Theresa May, or whoever wants to jump into the snake pit leadership of a minority government, can blame Labour and hope to win the next election.

When those respecting the “will of the people” are faced with the reality of leaving, it is hard and unbearably sad. It still tastes of betrayal, and the government’s first efforts at disentangling itself from Europe feel like the cutting of an umbilical cord. The tabling of its “Repeal Bill” that will transfer EU legislation into British jurisdiction, is no longer known as “Great”. It has been met with open hostility by Labour, the Liberal Democrats, Scotland and Wales.

Many have turned into reluctant lemmings on that cliff edge, shouting for others to stop pushing from the back. They know they are wedged in a no man’s land where there is no good outcome to staying or leaving.

*Trisha de Borchgrave is a writer and artist based in London. She can be reached at www.trishadeborchgrave.com and through Twitter @TrishdeB

By Terri Moon Cronk

The operation to liberate Mosul from the grasp of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria was difficult because ISIS had two to three years to prepare its defense of Iraq’s second-largest city, an Operation Inherent Resolve task force commander told Pentagon reporters via teleconference from Iraq Friday.

“It was a defense that any army would have a hard time defeating,” said Army Col. Pat Work, commander of the 82nd Airborne Division’s 2nd Brigade Combat Team, who also commands Task Force Falcon in the effort to defeat ISIS.

Work said his task force’s core mission is to advise and assist Iraqi security forces as they pursue their mission of defeating ISIL.

“For three years, it dominated and subjugated a vulnerable population,” he emphasized. “Never-ending expansion and tireless conquests are its organizing principles. It brutally murdered thousands, including scores of women and children.”

ISIS turned Mosul, like much of Iraq, into a battlefield, and the fight against the common enemy continues, he said.

Condolences Offered

On behalf of the coalition, Work extended condolences to the people of Iraq who suffered “so mightily” at the hands of ISIS. “We also offer our sympathies to the families of the brave soldiers, police and commandos who have sacrificed so much to liberate their country,” he added.

The people of Mosul, specifically, endured vast physical injury, sexual predation and psychological trauma under ISIS, he said, adding that ISIS has exposed them to extraordinary violence.

Mosul Residents Resilient

But the people of Mosul are resilient, the colonel said. “The east side — less than six months removed from intense ground combat operations — is thriving in many areas,” he told reporters. “I saw [it] with my own eyes again just three days ago.”

On the west side, many of the areas the Iraqi forces liberated as recently as May already have rebounded, he added. “These people have endured extraordinary hardship, but they repair themselves and they’re moving on, living their lives,” he said.

The task force commander said the coalition also is exceptionally proud of its partners, the Iraqi security forces. “They imposed their will on ISIS, and they continue to root out its remnants,” he pointed out.

Iraqis Accomplished Massive Feat

“They stood strong through some very difficult days,” Work said. “And we congratulate them on this massive feat that matters not only to Iraq, but the destruction of the so-called caliphate also matters to the security of the region and our world community.”

That’s why so many countries and unified action partners have lined up against the evil of ISIS, he added.

The Iraqis are liberating Iraqis, and they’re attacking the common enemy, he said.

“They’ve already trounced ISIS in Mosul. They’ve retaken [nearly 29,000 square miles] of their country from ISIS,” Work added. “Nearly 2 million Iraqis have returned to their homes across the country. And in Mosul alone, more than 350,000 children have returned to school.”

In saliva, scientists have found hints that a “ghost” species of archaic humans may have contributed genetic material to ancestors of people living in Sub-Saharan Africa today.

The research adds to a growing body of evidence suggesting that sexual rendezvous between different archaic human species may not have been unusual.

Past studies have concluded that the forebears of modern humans in Asia and Europe interbred with other early hominin species, including Neanderthals and Denisovans. The new research is among more recent genetic analyses indicating that ancient Africans also had trysts with other early hominins.

“It seems that interbreeding between different early hominin species is not the exception — it’s the norm,” said Omer Gokcumen, PhD, an assistant professor of biological sciences in the University at Buffalo College of Arts and Sciences.

“Our research traced the evolution of an important mucin protein called MUC7 that is found in saliva,” he said. “When we looked at the history of the gene that codes for the protein, we see the signature of archaic admixture in modern day Sub-Saharan African populations.”

The research was published on July 21 in the journal Molecular Biology and Evolution. The study was led by Gokcumen and Stefan Ruhl, DDS, PhD, a professor of oral biology in UB’s School of Dental Medicine.

A tantalizing clue in saliva

The scientists came upon their findings while researching the purpose and origins of the MUC7 protein, which helps give spit its slimy consistency and binds to microbes, potentially helping to rid the body of disease-causing bacteria.

As part of this investigation, the team examined the MUC7 gene in more than 2,500 modern human genomes. The analysis yielded a surprise: A group of genomes from Sub-Saharan Africa had a version of the gene that was wildly different from versions found in other modern humans.

The Sub-Saharan variant was so distinctive that Neanderthal and Denisovan MUC7 genes matched more closely with those of other modern humans than the Sub-Saharan outlier did.

“Based on our analysis, the most plausible explanation for this extreme variation is archaic introgression — the introduction of genetic material from a ‘ghost’ species of ancient hominins,” Gokcumen said. “This unknown human relative could be a species that has been discovered, such as a subspecies of Homo erectus, or an undiscovered hominin. We call it a ‘ghost’ species because we don’t have the fossils.”

Given the rate that genes mutate during the course of evolution, the team calculated that the ancestors of people who carry the Sub-Saharan MUC7 variant interbred with another ancient human species as recently as 150,000 years ago, after the two species’ evolutionary path diverged from each other some 1.5 to 2 million years ago.

Why MUC7 matters

The scientists were interested in MUC7 because in a previous study they showed that the protein likely evolved to serve an important purpose in humans.

In some people, the gene that codes for MUC7 holds six copies of genetic instructions that direct the body to build parts of the corresponding protein. In other people, the gene harbors only five sets of these instructions (known as tandem repeats).

Prior studies by other researchers found that the five-copy version of the gene protected against asthma, but Gokcumen and Ruhl did not see this association when they ran a more detailed analysis.

The new study did conclude, however, that MUC7 appears to influence the makeup of the oral microbiome, the collection of bacteria within the mouth. The evidence for this came from an analysis of biological samples from 130 people, which found that different versions of the MUC7 gene were strongly associated with different oral microbiome compositions.

“From what we know of MUC7, it makes sense that people with different versions of the MUC7 gene could have different oral microbiomes,” Ruhl said. “The MUC7 protein is thought to enhance the ability of saliva to bind to microbes, an important task that may help prevent disease by clearing unwanted bacteria or other pathogens from the mouth.”

The controversial Snap Map app enables Snapchat users to track their friends. This is the latest in a series of monitoring tools to be built on social media platforms. A new Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitaet (LMU) in Munich study assesses the benefits and risks associated with their use.

The image messaging service Snapchat is particularly popular among young adolescents, and the recent release of its latest feature – Snap Map – provoked widespread concern among parents, and protests from child protection agencies. Snap Map enables users to monitor their friends’ movements, and determine – in real time – exactly where their posts are coming from (down to the address). Many social media users also expressed their indignation, referring to the app as ‘stalking software’.

“However, Snap Map is just one of a range of apps that allows social network users to be monitored without their knowledge and with pin-point accuracy,” said Professor Neil Thurman of the Institute for Communications Studies and Media Research at LMU. “Indeed some of these apps far exceed Snap Map in their surveillance capabilities, and are able to track individuals over time and across multiple social networks.”

In his latest study, which has been published in Digital Journalism, Thurman lists a range of such apps – including Echosec, Dataminr, Picodash, and SAM. While Snapchat’s Snap Map is aimed at the public, many of the other social media monitoring apps are aimed at professional users, including the security forces, journalists, and marketeers.

Help with verification

Thurman analysed how journalists reacted to these new tools for locating and filtering content on social networks, and monitoring the activities and movements of its authors. It turns out that these apps are particularly useful in verification, enabling journalists to judge whether witness accounts were actually posted from the supposed scene of the action.

“These apps have been welcomed by some journalists who see them as an ‘early warning system'” said Thurman, but they also have consequences for users’ personal privacy, he argues. In the course of his study, he interviewed journalists who were given an opportunity to experiment with some of these apps professionally. One said that being able to track the locations of individual social media users felt “slightly morally wrong and stalker-esque”.

Fear of negative publicity

However, reservations like this are apparently not universal. “One of the apps my report describes, Geofeedia, was used by hundreds of law enforcement agencies, promoted as giving the police the power to “monitor” – via social media – trade union members, protesters, and activist groups, who the company described as being an “overt threat”.” The Geofeedia controversy led to its demise, with social networks refusing to persist in supplying the app with a pipeline of posts for fear of further negative publicity.

According to an article in the business magazine Forbes, cited by Thurman, the sheer number of apps that have been built on their platforms makes it impossible for the leading social media networks to prevent this form of social surveillance.

“As we’ve seen with the launch of Snap Map, social media surveillance is not going to go away,” he warned. “Although we might now know how to go ‘ghost’ on Snapchat, how many of us know that our other social media posts could be betraying our whereabouts to the thousands of organisations around the world using social media monitoring apps most have never heard of?”

My fellow Americans,

On Monday, I signed a Presidential Proclamation declaring this to be “Made in America Week.”

We believe that our country is stronger, safer, and more prosperous when we make more of our goods and our products right here in the USA. When we purchase products Made in America, the wealth, revenue and jobs all stay in our country – to be enjoyed by our people.

Since we first won our Independence, our Founders and many of our greatest leaders have promoted that we should afford a special level of protection to the products and goods manufactured within our borders. They understood that as a nation, we have common bonds with our fellow citizens and common obligations to each other. Making and buying made in America products brings us closer, and strengthens the ties that link us all together.

For too long, our government’s policies have punished production in America while rewarding and encouraging the movement of production overseas, which is totally ridiculous. The result has been the loss of numerous industries, the decimation of entire communities, and years of sluggish growth and flat wages.

Throughout American history, our nation’s best leaders have believed in the importance of protecting our domestic industry. This includes every President on Mount Rushmore.

George Washington encouraged Americans to produce their own goods so that our young nation could become truly independent.

Thomas Jefferson wrote that Americans should choose products made in America whenever possible – and by the way, I’m asking you to do that.

Abraham Lincoln warned that abandoning the policies that protect American industry would “produce want and ruin among our people.”

Theodore Roosevelt stated in his First message to Congress that “Reciprocity must be treated as the handmaiden of protection.”

James Monroe called on our nation to “cherish and sustain our manufacturers.”

James Garfield said of our nation’s manufacturers: “To them the country owes the splendor of the position it holds before the world.”

William McKinley believed that when America protects our workers and industries, we “open up a higher and better destiny for our people.”

And Calvin Coolidge stated that protecting American industry “enables our people to live according to a better standard… and receive a better rate of compensation than any people, anytime, anywhere on earth, ever enjoyed.”

We are now, under the Trump Administration, reclaiming our heritage as a manufacturing nation. We are fighting to provide a level playing field for American Workers and Industries. Other countries will cease taking advantage of us, believe me.

We are going to build works of beauty and wonder – with American hands, American grit, and American iron, aluminum, and steel.

No longer will we allow other countries to break the rules, steal our jobs, and drain our wealth. Instead, we will follow two simple but very crucial rules: We will buy American and we will hire American.

Already, we have created over a million new jobs this year – and doing even better than anticipated. We are just getting started – believe me, we are just getting started.

For every job that comes back to this country, and every factory that reopens, and every town that is revitalized, we aren’t just restoring American wealth, we are restoring American pride. We are restoring America’s future – a future where millions will be lifted from welfare to work, where children will grow up in safe and vibrant communities, and where our nation will stand stronger than ever before.

And most importantly, it will be a future in which you – our citizens – always come first.

Thank you, God bless you, and God bless America – we are truly making it great again.

US President Donald Trump and his Administration are redoubling efforts to bring home all Americans unjustly detained abroad, and in particular those held by Iran, the White House said in a statement on Friday

The Whited House said that President Trump is prepared “to impose new and serious consequences on Iran unless all unjustly imprisoned American citizens are released and returned.”

“For nearly forty years, Iran has used detentions and hostage taking as a tool of state policy, a practice that continues to this day with the recent sentencing of Xiyue Wang to ten years in prison,” the White House said.

The White House stressed that Iran is responsible for the care and well-being of every United States citizen in its custody.

In particular, Trump urged Iran to return American former FBI agent Robert Levinson, who has been held for over 10 years, and demanded that Iran release Siamak and Baquer Namazi, who were taken during the Obama administration, along with all other American citizens unjustly detained by Iran.

By Gabriel García Galano

The Hasely Crawford Stadium in Port of Spain is the largest in Trinidad and Tobago, with capacity for up to 27,000 people.

But only a few hundred have turned up to watch the match between Trinidadian club Central FC and Cibao, a team from the Dominican Republic.

Trinidad and Tobago hosted last month’s 2017 Caribbean Football Championship, organised by the 41-member Confederation of North, Central America and Caribbean Association Football (Concacaf).

However, football is not exactly popular in this part of the world. Trinidad and Tobago’s national sport is cricket, and the Dominican Republic’s football league was created just three years ago.

“Dominican Republic is a baseball nation,” explained Cibao player Ernesto Che Trinidad.

FIFA has spent millions of dollars promoting football in this region of the world, with variable success. Only a very few Caribbean football players have made it as international stars. They include Raheem Sterling, born in Jamaica, and Dwight Yorke, a Trinidadian citizen who became a top player in the Premier League.

In 2013, FIFA’s GOAL project designated around six million dollars to Haiti, while it invested another five million in the Dominican Republic and two million in Cuba and Panama. FIFA also paid five million dollars to build a Centre of Excellence in Port of Spain, although this venue now hosts wedding receptions as much as sport events.

Footballers say they have to struggle with low wages and a lack of interest from the public.

In countries, such as Haiti, where football is loved, players say that they are hampered by poor resources.

The damage caused by the 2010 earthquake, which resulted in more than 220,000 deaths and left most of the country’s infrastructure in ruins, has yet to be repaired.

Paul Edmond Aristide, the coach of Haitian club Racing Gonaïves, explained that the stadium in which his team plays only has a capacity of 1,500.

A Haitian professional football player can expect to make around 2,500 US dollars per year. A player in Mexico’s National League, in contrast, makes an average of 400,000 dollars per year.

Many of Aristide’s players have to get a second job to make ends meet.

“Some of them get jobs at the stadiums. They play and they later clean up,” he said.

Aristide smiles when he remembers one of Haiti’s finest footballing moments, when the national team beat Mexico to qualify for the 1982 World Cup.

“Football is the most popular sport in Haiti, it’s our national sport,” he said, adding that having been eliminated from the Concacaf tournament, “we have to focus on winning in Haiti now”.

Cibao player Trinidad dreams of following in the footsteps of his role model Mariano Díaz Mejía, another Dominican footballer, who now plays for Spain’s Real Madrid.

Having won the match against Trinidadian club Central FC, Cibao will go on to compete against nine regional teams to represent Concacaf in the December 2017 World Club Cup in Abu Dhabi.

Real Madrid will represent Europe in this tournament, so there is a small chance that Trinidad may compete against his hero.

“Football has been my dream since I was a kid, I want to play for a big club, to make money and help my family,” Trinidad said. For now, he is still pursuing his studies to be an accountant.

This article was published by IWPR

Headlines ripped across social media – ‘the Russians admit that Trump and Putin may have met more than 3 times’ – sparking an instant ‘I told you so’ from the ‘left’ proving the conspiracy of collusion is correct.

However, we note that the source of this new story, Russian Foreign Minister Sergie Lavrov, compared these conversations to “children mingling at a kindergarten,” making fun of an NBC reporter, adding “maybe they met in the toilet?”

“When you are bought by your parents to a kindergarten do you mix with the people who are waiting in the same room to start going to a classroom?

I remember when I was in that position I did spend five or ten minutes in the kindergarten before they brought us to the classroom.”

As a reminder, while the White House didn’t use this analogy to explain press reports of a second, undisclosed Trump-Putin conversation at the G20 meeting in early July, it fits.

“There was no ‘second meeting’ between President Trump and President Putin, just a brief conversation at the end of a dinner.

The insinuation that the White House has tried to ‘hide’ a second meeting is false, malicious and absurd,” a White House Official said.

And now it seems Lavrov is piling on to Western media’s constant efforts to paint the relationship one way, adding:

“They might have met even much more than just three times,”

“After the dinner was over…I was not there…President Trump apparently went to pick up his wife and spent some minutes with President Putin…so what?” Lavrov said.

By Bruce Pannier

(RFE/RL) — It has definitely been difficult for Kyrgyzstan to realize construction of the Upper Naryn Cascade hydropower project.

One complication after another has put the project on hold.

On July 10, information was posted on the Kyrgyz president’s website that a Czech company had been found to construct at least part of the Naryn Cascade and several other smaller hydropower plants (HPP).

Celebrations were short-lived as, just a few days after the announcement, a scandal over the deal started in Kyrgyzstan and the Czech Republic that has become more confusing and aggravated with each day.

Since it is so confusing let’s start with some information that is certain.

The plan for the Naryn Cascade project dates back to 1986, when Kyrgyzstan was a Soviet republic.

The project calls for the construction of four HPPs along the Naryn River, in the northern half of Kyrgyzstan, which flows westward eventually joining and providing badly needed refreshment to the Syr-Darya, one of Central Asia’s two great rivers.

The four HPPs are – Akbulun with a planned capacity to generate some 87.4 megawatts (MW) of electricity, Naryn HPP-1 with a capacity of 47.7 MW, Naryn-2 with 47.6 MW, and Naryn-3 with 55 MW.

According to a Kyrgyz government presentation for investors in 2014, the total project should cost some $727.65 million.

The idea to construct the Naryn Cascade, and also the much larger Kambar-Ata-1 HPP (capacity 2,000 MW) along the Naryn River, came to nothing after the Soviet Union collapsed in late 1991.

Lack Of Funds

Kyrgyzstan has never had the funds needed to construct the Upper Naryn Cascade or Kambar-Ata-1, the latter with an estimated cost of some $3 billion.

In 2003 and 2004, Kazakhstan showed some interest in helping construct the HPP projects along the Naryn River (and the Rogun and Sangtuda HPP projects in Tajikistan) but that faded.

In late 2004, Russia started talking about the Naryn River projects and Russian company RusHydro (also seen as RosGidro) became Kyrgyzstan’s partner in the project in the Upper Naryn Cascade project.

In early 2009, then-President Kurmanbek Bakiev announced Russia was providing Kyrgyzstan with a $450-million loan and would later extend an additional $1.7 billion for construction of Kambar-Ata-1.

Unfortunately, Bakiev’s son Maksim, then in his early 30s, had been put in charge of Kyrgyzstan’s economy and chose to use some of Russia’s initial $450-million loan to invest in other projects.

The Kremlin quickly discovered the scheme and launched a soft-power attack on Bakiev using Russian television, which is widely available in Kyrgyzstan, particularly in the north.

Negative coverage of Bakiev on Russian television played a role in Bakiev’s ouster in April 2010.

Plans for Kambar-Ata-1 and as a result, the Upper Naryn Cascade project, were put on hold again.

But Russia was back in 2011 and the Naryn River HPP projects seemed ready to advance.

Work did start but neither RusHydro nor RAO UES, which was the Russian partner in the Kambar-Ata-1 project, were enthusiastic about working in Kyrgyzstan, where the chances of showing a profit on their large investments was unlikely for possibly decades to come.

Falling Oil Prices, Sanctions

When Russia’s economy started to suffer from falling oil and natural-gas prices and international sanctions imposed against Russia in response to the Kremlin’s role in fighting in eastern Ukraine, RusHydro and RAO UES essentially stopped working on Naryn River HPP projects.

Kyrgyz President Almazbek Atambaev said at the end of 2015 that it was clear “our Russian friends would not be able to implement these projects” and, in January, Kyrgyzstan’s parliament annulled the HPP agreements.

Again, the Upper Naryn Cascade project was suspended, and worse, Russia insisted that Kyrgyzstan owed $37 million for work that the Russian companies had done.

That brings us to July 10, and the announcement that Czech company Liglass Trading was prepared to pay the $37 million to Russia, effectively buying out RusHydro’s shares in the Upper Naryn Cascade project, and build Akbulun and Naryn HPP-1.

The seemingly good news did not last long.

Already by July 14, the Czech news outlet Blesk.cz reported on July 14 that Liglass was an “unknown company with little turnover.”

The report said in 2014 that Liglass “had sales of only 345,000 crowns (about $15,000) and the loss of 1 million crowns.”

Bankruptcy Claims

Later reports in Czech and Kyrgyz media would claim Liglass was bankrupt in 2016.

Kyrgyz website 24.kg reported on July 17 that the Kyrgyz embassy in Austria had sought information about Liglass.

A March 10, 2017, letter from the embassy said that, despite claims on Liglass’ website that it had implemented hydropower projects in Slovakia, Italy, Great Britain, and cooperated with China, “the Kyrgyz Republic’s Embassy in Austria could not find any facts confirming the successful realization of [Liglass] investment projects abroad.”

On July 18, Liglass representative Jiří Vojtěchovský offered assurances that the company was prepared to invest some $500 million in the Upper Naryn Cascade project.

On July 17, the Czech news-site Neovlivni.cz posted a September 8, 2016, letter purportedly from Vratislav Mynar, the head of the office of the Czech president, which says Liglass had “successfully finalized the project of construction of solar and hydroelectric power plants” and “is well-established not only to our Czech but also in the European market…”

Some reports say banks are prepared to help Liglass with financing of the Kyrgyz HPP project, other reports say banks turned down or never received any requests for financial help from Liglass.

The Czech newspaper Hospodarske Noviny provided RFE/RL’s Kyrgyz Service with photographs of Liglass’s main office in Železny Brod which do not inspire much confidence in the company’s financial state.

The chairman of Kyrgyzstan’s State Committee for Industry, Energy, and Exploration, Duyshenbek Zilaliev, said on July 17 that Liglass has 50 days to start fulfilling its financial obligations or the deal with the Czech company will be scrapped.

Zilaliev also called for an end to the hysteria that is already surrounding this deal.

Whatever the outcome of this latest development, it is another example that construction of the Upper Naryn Cascade project, which is an important project for Kyrgyzstan, seems fated to be accompanied by complications.

RFE/RL Kyrgyz Service Director Venera Djumataeva and freelance correspondent in Kyrgyzstan Ryskeldi Satke contributed to this report. The views expressed in this blog post do not necessarily reflect the views of RFE/RL.

The widow of late Chinese Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo has been taken on an enforced “vacation” by state security police in the southwestern province of Yunnan, as rights activists held memorials for the dissident a week after his death.

Liu Xia, who has been under continual police guard and house arrest since her husband’s Nobel award was announced in October 2010, is now “on vacation” along with her brother Liu Hui, the Hong Kong-based Information Center for Human Rights and Democracy in China said in a statement on Wednesday.

Both are incommunicado, and have been unable to make direct contact with friends and relatives in Beijing, it said, citing sources close to the family.

Their enforced disappearance coincides with the traditional Chinese memorials made one week after a person’s death, which were observed in secret by activists in mainland China, and more openly in the former British colony of Hong Kong.

Activists visited beaches and shorelines, making offerings in memory of the burial of Liu’s ashes in an urn at sea last Saturday in defiance of attempts by Chinese officials to prevent democracy and rights activists from making a shrine to him after death.

Event organizers the Freedom for Liu Xiaobo Action Group called on supporters around the world to hold memorials on the seventh day of Liu’s death.

Activists used candles, flowers, portraits of Liu and empty chairs as a focus for their offerings, in a reference to the empty chair that represented him at the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize awards ceremony in Oslo.

But most of Liu’s supporters in China were unable to join in, Beijing-based activist Hu Jia told RFA, adding that he is under constant surveillance by the state security police.

“They pull over wherever I pull over, and if I get out of the car, they follow me,” Hu said. “I have been under house arrest since June 27 to stop me going to Shenyang.”

Police block dissidents

When he died, Liu was receiving treatment for late-stage liver cancer at the No. 1 China Medical University Hospital in the northeastern city of Shenyang, but was under close police guard at all times, and was denied visits from all but a select few family members.

“But whether they are stopping me from going to the seashore, or whether they were stopping me from going to Shenyang makes very little difference, I still can’t go anywhere,” Hu said.

“Of course I want to commemorate him, so as I am a Buddhist, I lit some incense for him at the shrine in my home, and I hope he attains to the Pure Land,” Hu said.

Hu said he was unable to confirm reports that Liu Xia is in Yunnan under police guard.

But he said security police are currently guarding Liu’s former residence in Dalian, and keeping journalists at bay with a “military cordon” around the area.

The couple’s Beijing home is under similar lockdown, he said.

A Beijing academic who asked to remain anonymous said she had been warned off participating in the event.

“They didn’t want me to take part, because they are thinking about the overall reaction of the population,” she said. “They want to snuff it out before it even takes hold.”

Tight surveillance and censorship

In the southern province of Guangdong, rights activist Jia Pin said he was unable to leave his home, which is currently under police guard.

“I took an empty chair, and placed a photograph of Liu Xiaobo on it, and I read out a few words I had prepared,” Jia said. “Then I made the three-finger gesture [for resistance, freedom and hope] which Liu Xiaobo invented.”

“Then I posted photos online to commemorate him,” he said.

Zhejiang-based rights activist and close friend of Liu Xiaobo’s Wen Kejian, indicated that he is also under close surveillance.

“It’s not convenient for me to talk about anything specific right now, OK?” Wen said when contacted by RFA on Wednesday.

Outside mainland China, where ruling Chinese Communist Party censors operated real-time censorship of Liu-related images on social media, supporters posted photos of empty chairs by the seashore to Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

Germany-based dissident author Liao Yiwu, one of the Freedom for Liu Xiaobo Action Group organizers, said many activists there had marked the memorial day in a number of different ways.

“I will commemorate Liu Xiaobo at home, with about a dozen friends,” Liao said. “I will recite Charter 08, which we wrote together, the parts about there being no moral giants in a democracy. Other friends will be reading out his poems.”

“Other people have been holding a vigil outside the Chinese embassy since his death, and have been chased away by embassy staff,” he said.

Current affairs commentator Chen Pokong said Liu had “died in the cruelest possible way, witnessing the revival of Nazism in the form of a corrupt Chinese elite.”

“Liu Xiaobo’s death made no waves in China,” Chen wrote in a commentary aired by RFA’s Mandarin Service. “The Chinese Communist Party had succeeded in blocking all news of him.”

“Domestic media didn’t show the questions asked by foreign journalists of the foreign ministry spokesman, which shows you … just how much the party fears the name of Liu Xiaobo.”

Reported by Wong Lok-to for RFA’s Cantonese Service, and by Qiao Long for the Mandarin Service. Translated and edited by Luisetta Mudie.

During the recent World Agricultural Forum (WAF) 2017 Conference, jointly organised with RSIS in Singapore, the role of cross border trade on food security was examined. Another related but under-discussed topic, is food safety.

By Christopher H. Lim and Vincent Mack Zhi Wei*

Despite the recorded high in total global population and food production there are 800 million people world-wide suffering from hunger. One of the critical limiting factors for the paradoxical mismatch of supply and demand in food is barriers to international trade. For more than a decade, despite the tremendous amount of resources and time spent by WTO members, negotiations in agriculture trade have been to no avail.

To further advance trade negotiations, perhaps trade negotiators – be they in WTO, bilateral or regional platforms – could borrow a page from the ASEAN-China Free Trade Agreement, where all Parties have committed to make the agriculture sector the Early Harvest Package, based on the comparative advantages of ASEAN and China. If trade policy makers are serious about making real progress in international trade, especially when there is increasing trade protectionism since 2007/2008, then bold new approaches should be introduced.

“Manufactur-ising” Agriculture

To date, the agriculture sector has progressed and transformed in recent years beyond recognition especially with more investment allocated and use of technologies ranging from precision farming to data analytics to internet of things, gene editing etc. In short, agriculture production process has become increasingly systematised and had evolved into an industry parallel to the manufacturing sector, especially where scientific and technical knowledge coupled with precision equipment and sensors are used, as observed in urban farming.

It is evident that goods and services are closely integrated and intertwined. Increasingly, information and communication technology (ICT) is forming part and parcel of many tangible products. Similarly, sensors and ICT are also integral parts of services.

In contrast, under the WTO framework, agriculture, goods and services are treated under three different and separate agreements. With such framework, negotiators in WTO may directly or indirectly adopt a silo approach. Given the long and protracted nature of WTO negotiations, one could expect the likely outcome of such agreements to be obsolete and out of sync with the commercial reality.

Now is the time for the global community to push for the changes in business models and technologies by having an integrated single agreement covering goods and services for WTO, bilateral and/or regional trade deals. Such bold agreement should include agriculture so that food supply can be unlocked through free trade to address the challenge of food demand and food security.

Two Trade-related Issues

Moreover, two other trade-related issues must be considered. For example, selling price of New Zealand avocado in Singapore could be cheaper than in New Zealand purely as a result of bulk discount. Trade policy makers therefore need to re-examine the treatment of by-products and volume discount for bulk purchase in both manufacturing and agriculture sectors within the context of the current WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement, ie whether the existing agreement is indeed trade-facilitating or trade-limiting factor in international trade.

The next issue for trade policymakers and negotiators to ponder is the Country of Origin (COO). Many tangible products have embedded proprietary knowledge and technologies. However, to incorporate these unique features, such products need not be physically shipped from or routed through the original country where these unique knowledge and technologies are created during the production processes. Thus, the attribution of which is the COO for the product becomes an issue especially in the case of preferential trade.

Likewise, all the trade issues discussed above are equally important and applicable to agriculture trade if the global community is serious to unlock agriculture trade to address the challenge of global food security.

Beyond Trade: Antibiotics

At the recent WAF conference, James Bolger, Chairman of the WAF Advisory Board and former prime minister of New Zealand, had articulated that “we (humans) need the earth to live but the earth does not need us to live”. Such timely advice on the needs for the global community to focus our attention on the health of our planet earth triggers us to share our concern on another issue equally important and critical to the existence of our human civilization, viz antibiotics.

Following the invention of antibiotics, they have been selectively used in livestock farming. Initially, antibiotics were utilised for therapeutic purposes such as treatment of animals detected with sickness.

Since the 1950s, it was reported that antibiotics were added to animal feed to increase and promote the growth rate of livestock in the United States. Increasingly, such practice is found almost globally. Today, it is estimated that around 70% of all antibiotics administered are used for livestock.

Furthermore, it is estimated that around 80-90% of all antibiotics ingested by both humans and livestock are not broken down in the passage through the body and enter the environment as waste. Even as a waste product, these antibiotics retain most of their potency and are able to affect bacteria and promote antibiotic resistance even after they enter the soil or water.

Implications of Genetic Changes

Over time, the extensive use of antibiotics in both livestock and human creates genetic changes in bacteria and other microbes, leading to the elimination of the effectiveness of drugs to cure or prevent infections. This has severe consequences as antibiotic resistance is known to pass from bacterium to bacterium; and resistant bacterial infections can also pass from person to person. In essence, every person could potentially become a “terrorist within each of us” as the antimicrobial resistance (superbug) is taking root in our society.

Without effective antimicrobials for treatment and prevention of infections, this implies that infections from surgical procedures such as transplants, caesarean sections or hip replacements and infection in immunocompromised patients following chemotherapy for cancer treatment, will likely result in prolonged illness, disability, and death.

While addressing food security through free trade is critical for human survival, we should not forget the “terrorist within each of us”. As a global community, we should work in parallel to limit the usage of antibiotics in both human and farms; and commit to share information gathered in different countries relating to antimicrobial resistance. Such an initiative would facilitate the creation of a global database of DNA sequences for microorganisms to enhance food safety and global public health.

*Christopher Lim is Senior Fellow in the Office of the Executive Deputy Chairman and Vincent Mack is Associate Research Fellow in the Centre for Non-traditional Security (NTS) Studies, both at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. This is part of a series on WAF 2017.

Many have forgotten that in May 1987, Boris Yeltsin, then head of the Moscow city committee of the CPSU, received representatives of the chauvinist and anti-Semitic Pamyat organization, thus sending a signal that he was someone the KGB and its allies could count on to defend their interests, Vitaly Portnikov says.

Today, 30 years later, the Ukrainian analyst says, Aleksey Navalny is playing a similar role by taking part in debates with Igor Strelkov, “an employee of [Russia’s] special services and the new face of ‘the Russian world’” (liga.net/opinion/343329_eltsin-nashego-vremeni-komu-nuzhen-proekt-navalnyy.htm).

That the debate occurred “is not important.” Instead, what is important, Portnikov says, “is to show the public, including the openly chauvinist and reactionary, that the future ‘leader’ is capable of talking with everyone,” just as Yeltsin did three decades ago. For that segment of Russian opinion, “the debates are the same signal: here’s their man, a Russian one can talk with.”

Portnikov stresses that he isn’t asserting that “Navalany is an FSB agent. Navalny rather is a project of the special services in a much broader sense of the world. Yeltsin too waasn’t an agent of the KGB,” the organs then recognized that it was “categorically prohibited” from recruiting someone that senior in the party.

“But they were not prohibited from talking, cooperating and seeking common interests,” the commentator says. “Yeltsin needed power, a lot of power, indeed all power. And the chekists needed access to financial flows and the preservation of control over the country, total control without the interference of ‘party people.’” They got that in 1991 and then again in 1993.

Portnikov continues: “Navalny, although he too criticizes Yeltsiin, says precisely what Yeltsin said earlier, what the average Russian, a chauvinist and obscurantist but at the same time a little man with a childish psychology wants to hear.” Navalny just like Yeltsin is someone who can be counted on to be a strong hand and hold things together.

“If Navalny came to power in a crisis, he would agree not only with a withdrawal from the Donbass and Crimea but even with the independence of Chechnya or Tatarstan.” For him, “the question will be only this.” Does he and those is allied with have control over the remaining territory.

“Of course,” Portnikov acknowledges, “the figure of Navalny is incomparable to that of Yeltsin. Even at the first stage of his career, Yeltsin was a real political and looked to be the leader of the masses. Navalny doesn’t.

“But the possibility of the collapse of the regime today is not so evident and close for the Chekists as was the case at the end of the 1980s,” he continues. “They prepared Yeltsin to replace Gorbachev who had lost control over the state and didn’t want to change anything in the economy.”

The current Kremlin ruler “is not Gorbachev. Rather, he is a slowly aging figure who is losing his grip on reality and living in his own world like Brezhnev or Andropov. But if the calculation of the chekists is correct, in place of this Brezhnev will inevitably come a new Gorbachev from his immediate circle.”

“A Gorbachev who will try to reform an un-reformable system without changing anything in a serious way. And the system, just as at the end of the 1980s is beginning to fall apart in a real way, all the more so because citizens won’t fear this new Gorbachev as they do Putin.”

For the chekists and bandits, Navalny is a real find, a reserve in case things go really wrong, Portnikov says, and before that happens, they may be able to “grow” him into “a new Yeltsin,” someone with whom they will have agreed about everything well in advance.”