By Elmira Tariverdiyeva

The new US bill on sanctions against Russia will also affect the Russian pipeline project known as the Nord Stream 2.

The Senate has approved a bill toughening the US sanctions against Russia, Iran and the North Korea. The document is to be signed by US President Donald Trump.

According to the bill titled Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, the US government is required to counteract the construction of the Nord Stream 2 as the project has a harmful effect on the energy security of the European Union, the development of the gas markets in Central and Eastern Europe, and energy reforms in Ukraine.

Another project, the Southern Gas Corridor, which should provide Europe with Caspian gas, despite the equity of Iranian and Russian companies there, is not mentioned in the document. The gas to be supplied through the Southern Gas Corridor will be produced at Azerbaijan’s Shah Deniz Stage 2. Russian Lukoil owns a 10 percent stake in the project. National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), exempted from sanctions by a special amendment to the US law on Iranian energy companies, also has a share there.

There was enough speculation over this project. Former US Ambassador to Azerbaijan Richard Morningstar said that the US bill tightening the anti-Russian sanctions may harm the development of Shah Deniz Stage 2 and the supply of the gas extracted there to Europe.

However, sanctions against Russia or any other country will unlikely prevent the West from implementing such a strategically important project as Southern Gas Corridor.

As for the Nord Stream 2, the political component of the project plays a big role here, which gives Moscow the leverage to exert influence upon Europe. However, the Caspian gas, which can help the EU to ensure energy independence and security bypassing Russia, is in the US interests.

Therefore, lobbying for the project that will supply the Caspian gas to Europe has been centerpiece to Washington’s long-term policy of European energy security.

The new US administration apparently understands that realization of Shah Deniz Stage 2 and Southern Gas Corridor will change not only the world’s energy map, but also its political map, as it will contribute to ensuring Europe’s energy security and weakening Moscow’s influence in the region, which is strategically important for the US.

Taking into account the aforementioned, the US is unlikely to jeopardize such an important project as the Southern Gas Corridor.

The truce in the Syrian Arab Republic, which was agreed during the negotiations between Russian leader Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump at the G20 Summit in Hamburg, became one of the central topics discussed by world analysts.

According to a number of experts and politicians, the ceasefire agreement could be an important step on the way to resolving the Syrian crisis. For example, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson called the first meeting of the two presidents constructive, noting that the agreement on Syria was the first success.

“This is our first indication of the US and Russia being able to work together in Syria,” Rex Tillerson said.

Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel opposes the cease-fire agreement, which, in his view, would allow Iran to increase its military presence in the country.

“Israel opposes the ceasefire agreement in the south of Syria reached by the US and Russia because it perpetuates the Iranian presence in the country,” he said after meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron.

In turn, the leader of France noted that the removal of Bashar Assad from power is not an obligatory condition for any further initiatives on Syria.

“We shouldn’t say that it is necessary to change any leader. We did this in Iraq, in Libya. In five or ten years we woke up in much worse conditions,” he said at a press conference following the G20 Summit.

At a meeting with US President Emmanuel Macron also drew attention to France’s new position on the Syrian issue.

“We have changed the French doctrine with regard to Syria, our fundamental task now is to eradicate terrorist groups, no matter what they are,” he said and added that the contact group, which will outline a roadmap for the post-war future of Syria must include – among others – Bashar Assad’s representative.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump said that the current truce in Syria became possible thanks to the contacts of the United States and Russia.

Commenting on the situation, Michael O’Hanlon, senior fellow at Brookings University and author of several publications for The National Interest magazine positively assessed the work of the US and Russia leaders in an attempt to establish a ceasefire in Syria.

“A system of ceasefires is much more realistic than the Geneva process, especially since in my view neither Assad nor Putin was serious about the latter, and the Syrian opposition was disorganized and weak, and Washington placed too much faith in a process that never had a realistic chance,” he told PenzaNews.

However, from his point of view, the ultimate goal will not be reached soon.

“But we are a long way from where we need to be because a ceasefire needs to lead somewhere to be durable and no one has agreed on what that destination should be. I favor some sort of confederal model with several zones of autonomy, Assad gradually leaving over time and handing power to a government that he and Russia along with the US and others all have some say in creating,” Michael O’Hanlon explained.

He also shared the view that the removal of the current Syrian president from power should not be a prerequisite for further steps to resolve the crisis.

“I agree [with Emmanuel Macron’s statement], but over time, Assad must no longer govern Sunni-majority areas of Syria,” the analyst said and added that he supports devolution of authority and autonomy.

In turn, Itamar Rabinovich, Israel’s former ambassador to the United States, former chief negotiator with Syria between 1993 and 1996, professor emeritus of Middle Eastern History at Tel Aviv University, distinguished global professor at New York University, foreign member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, reminded that Israel is concerned by recent developments in the Syrian arena and specifically by the Russian American agreement on cease fire arrangements in Southern Syria.

“Israel worries that neither power will be a scrupulous defender of its interests in that part of Syria. Iran through Hezbollah and other Shiite militias has been trying to establish itself north of the Golan Heights and extend the current confrontation line with Israel along the Lebanese Israeli border. More profoundly Israel is worried by the expansion of Iranian presence and influence in Syria. Through its cooperation with Russia Iran helped Assad’s regime to recapture Aleppo. The regime with this external help is pursuing its effort to reestablish control over most if not all the national territory,” the expert explained.

“It is expected that with the fall of Raqqah, the capital of ‘the Islamic caliphate’ the main effort will be to take over the large territory now controlled by ISIS [the Islamic State, Daesh; banned in Russia]. Deir al-Zour is more important than Raqqah in this context. Iran’s ambition is to create a land bridge all the way to the Mediterranean.US forces in Eastern Syria clashed recently with both Iran and Syrian forces but it is doubtful whether the Trump Administration will be ready to make the huge investment required in order to check Iran’s takeover of Eastern Syria. This is Israel’s principal concern,” Itamar Rabinovich stressed.

Meanwhile, in his opinion, President Macron’s statement regarding Assad’s position is not surprising.

“Many in Europe see no real alternative at this phase. What is not stated is that they expect Assad to be in practice the ruler of a truncated Syria,” he explained.

In addition, he drew particular attention to the information that appeared in the Media about the decision by President Trump to stop CIA program of arming and training anti-Assad rebels in Syria.

“This publication in the US Press is dramatic. If it is not reversed, it would indicate Trump’s decision to collaborate with Russia in Syria and to comply with Assad’s staying in power,” the expert said.

In turn, Gal Luft, Co-director, Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, suggested that the situation in Syria may soon be aggravated again.

“Israel concerns that a cease fire agreement that is not properly supervised together with the US lacking a coherent Syria strategy will lead to a win for Iran, enabling the Islamic Republic to establish land and maritime bases in Syria and further its ambition to encircle Israel. Yet, valid as this concern may be it is not likely to materialize as the chances of the agreement to last are slim. An unsupervised cease fire cannot hold and we are likely to soon witness a new outbreak of violence. Furthermore Israel may resort to more intrusive military measures to prevent Iranian proxies from changing the status quo along its border and this in itself can cause an escalation,” the analyst said.

According to him, the truce is only one of the steps to resolve the crisis, which may not lead to the desired result.

“While Putin has a clear agenda for Syria – perpetuation of the Assad regime – Trump has not yet developed a strategy. Macron’s announcement that the removal of Assad is not mandatory provides Assad some respite from his isolation. Without American leadership the deck will be increasingly stacked in Assad’s favor and Russia will be increasingly recognized as the main power broker in the region,” Gal Luft said.

According to Ilgar Velizade, Head of the Baku-based South Caucasus Club of Political Scientists, the contribution of Russia and the United States to the settlement of the Syrian conflict could be decisive if both countries develop acceptable approaches to solving the problem.

“According to the experience of last year, we know that attempts to reach a long-term truce turned out to be a failure because of the actions of the third forces, which sometimes openly torpedo the truce process. Today, everything will depend on whether the third forces will sabotage this process,” the expert said.

He also reminded that Israel is concerned about Hezbollah strengthening.

“After the allies of this pro-Iranian organization came to power in Lebanon, the strengthening of Hezbollah in Syria looks even more threatening. The truce does create opportunities for the respite of the pro-Iranian forces and the replenishment of their military potential. This is exactly what Israel is worried about, because the ultimate goal of Iran’s strengthening in the region is to weaken the position of Israel,” Ilgar Velizade explained.

At the same time, in his opinion, the positions of the West and Russia on Syria are gradually beginning to converge.

“Emmanuel Macron’s statement shows that the position of Western countries – in particular, France – on the Syrian crisis evolves. At the same time there is a convergence of the positions of Russia and the West towards Syria. But we should not overestimate this process. The countries are still too far from the complete unanimity and do not intend to abandon their current priorities. Today, the situation in the conflict zone is changing dynamically, and the course of these changes will itself dictate situational decisions to the parties involved in the conflict. The future will show what these decisions will look like,” the analyst concluded.

Source: https://penzanews.ru/en/analysis/64314-2017

The “Russia hacking” flap has nothing to do with Russia and nothing to do with hacking. The story is basically a DNC invention that was concocted to mitigate the political fallout from the nearly 50,000 emails that WikiLeaks planned to publish on July 22, 2016, just 3 days before the Democratic National Convention. That’s what this is really all about. Russia didn’t hack anything, it’s a big diversion that was conjured up on-the-fly to keep Hillary’s bandwagon from going down in flames.

Put yourself in Hillary’s shoes for a minute. She knew the deluge was coming and she knew it was going to be bad. (According to Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, DNC contractor Crowdstrike claimed to find evidence of Russian malware on DNC servers just three days after WikiLeaks announced that it was about “about to publish “emails related to Hillary Clinton.” Clearly, that was no coincidence. The plan to blame Russia was already underway.) Hillary knew that the emails were going to expose the DNC’s efforts to rig the primaries and torpedo Bernie Sanders campaign, and she knew that the media was going to have a field-day dissecting the private communications word by word on cable news or splashing them across the headlines for weeks on end. It was going to be excruciating. She knew that, they all knew that.

And how would her supporters react when they discovered that their party leaders and presidential candidate were actively involved in sabotaging the democratic process and subverting the primaries? That wasn’t going to go over well with voters in Poughkeepsie, now was it? Maybe she’d see her public approval ratings slip even more. Maybe she’d nosedive in the polls or lose the election outright, she didn’t know. No one knew. All they knew was that she was in trouble. Big trouble.

So she reacted exactly the way you’d expect Hillary to react, she hit the panic button. In fact, they all freaked out, everyone of them including Podesta and the rest of the DNC honchoes. Once they figured that their presidential bid could go up in smoke, they decided to act preemptively, pull out all the stops and “Go Big”.

That’s where Russia comes into the picture. The DNC brass (with help from allies at the CIA) decided to conjure up a story so fantastic that, well, it had to be true, after all, that’s what the 17 intel agencies said, right? And so did the elite media including the New York Times, the Washington Post and CNN. They can’t all be wrong, can they? Sure, they goofed-up on Saddam’s WMDs, and Iran’s imaginary nukes program, and Assad’s fictional chemical weapons attack, but, hey, everyone makes mistakes, right? And, besides, have I told you how evil Putin is lately and how much he reminds me of Adolph Hitler? (sarcasm)

In any event, they settled on Russia mainly because Russia had rolled back Washington’s imperial project in both Ukraine and Syria, so the media was already in full demonetization-mode and raring to go. All the DNC needed to do was utter the words “Russia meddling” and they’d be off to the races.

Does any of this sound even remotely believable? Former CIA analyst, Ray McGovern seems to think so, because he expounded a very similar scenario about a month ago in an interview on You Tube. Check it out:

Ray McGovern– “What did Hillary do? …Hillary gathered her war council together and one fellow says, “I know what we can do. We’ll blame it on the Russians.”

And someone else says, “But it wasn’t the Russians it was WikiLeaks.”

(Guy number 1 says)”Well, that’s a twofer. We hate them both equally , so we’ll say WikiLeaks is working with the Russians.”

(Ray McGovern) That was two days before the convention.

And someone else says, “What would the rationale be?”

(Guy number 2 says) “C’mon, the Russians clearly want Trump to win.”

(Number 1) “But what about the major media?”

(Number 2) “Well, the major media really want Hillary to win, so if we get the major media on board, well, we really got it wired.”

(Ray McGovern again) “And if you watch the coverage since the WikiLeaks leak, two days before the convention, the media content was not ‘how did Hillary steal the election’ but ‘How did the Russians do it?”’

(“Ray McGovern: The Deep State Assault on Elected Government Must Be Stopped“)

He’s right, isn’t he? Hillary and Co. pulled off the whole ruse without a hitch. The media focused on the “Russia meddling” angle, and the calculating Ms. Clinton slipped away with nary a scratch. It’s amazing!

But there was one glitch to the ‘Blame Russia’ scheme. There was no hard evidence of Russian involvement. And, now, 10 months into multiple investigations of Russian hacking, there’s still no evidence. How can that be?

Well, for one thing, the FBI was never given access to the DNC computers.

Let me repeat that: In the biggest and most politically-explosive investigation in more than a decade, an investigation that has obvious national security implications– alleged cyber-espionage by a hostile foreign power, alleged collusion by high-ranking officials in the current administration, alleged treason or collusion on part of the Chief Executive, and the possible impeachment of a sitting president– the FBI has not yet secured or examined the servers that may or may not provide compelling forensic evidence of cyber-intrusion by Russia.

Why? Why would the FBI accept the analysis of some flunky organization that no one has ever heard of before (Crowdstrike) rather than use all the tools at their disposal to thoroughly investigate whether or not the hacking actually took place or not? Isn’t that their job?

Yer damn right it is. The reason the FBI never insisted on examining the DNC servers, is because they knew the story was baloney from the get go. Otherwise they would have kicked down the doors at the DNC, seized the computers through brute force, and arrested anyone who tried to stop them. Those computers are Exhibit A in the Trial of the Century. They should be under lock and key at FBI Headquarters not collecting cobwebs in the basement of the DNC-HQ. The fact that the servers have not been seized and examined just proves what a joke this whole Russia-deal really is.

You see, when a law enforcement agency like the FBI fails so conspicuously in carrying out its duties, you have to assume that other factors are involved, mainly politics. It’s all politics, right? There is no rational explanation for the FBI’s behavior other than it is following a political script that coincides with the agenda and ambitions of the DNC and other power players behind the scenes. Investigative journalist Gareth Porter summed it up perfectly in a brilliant article titled Foisting Blame for Cyber-Hacking on Russia. He said:

“…the history of the US government’s claim that Russian intelligence hacked into election databases reveals it to be a clear case of politically motivated analysis by the DHS and the Intelligence Community. Not only was the claim based on nothing more than inherently inconclusive technical indicators but no credible motive for Russian intelligence wanting personal information on registered voters was ever suggested.” (“Foisting Blame for Cyber-Hacking on Russia“, antiwar.com)

Right on, Porter. Facts don’t matter in the Russia hacking case. They never have. The whole approach from Day 1 has been to drown the public with innuendo and baseless accusations, while the MSM Carnie barkers pretend that “Russia meddling” is already settled science and that only “Putin puppets” would ever doubt the veracity of the media’s loony claims. Got that?

But facts do matter and so does evidence. And on that score we’re in luck because McGovern’s group, the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), released a blockbuster report last week that produced the first hard evidence that Russia most certainly DID NOT hack the DNC servers. It was a DNC insider. Here’s an excerpt from the VIPS article titled “Was the “Russian Hack” an Inside Job?”

“Independent cyber-investigators have now …come up with verifiable evidence from metadata found in the record of the alleged Russian hack. They found that the purported “hack” of the DNC …was not a hack…(but) originated with a copy …by an insider. The data was leaked after being doctored with a cut-and-paste job to implicate Russia….

Key among the findings of the independent forensic investigations is the conclusion that the DNC data was copied onto a storage device at a speed that far exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack. Of equal importance, the forensics show that the copying and doctoring were performed on the East coast of the U.S.” (“Was the “Russian Hack” an Inside Job?“, CounterPunch)

Capisce? There was no hack. Someone working inside the DNC (a disgruntled employee?) –who had access to the computers, and who worked on the East Coast– copied the data onto a storage device and transferred it to WikiLeaks. That’s what you call a “leak” not a “hack”. There was no hack. Russia was not involved. The official narrative is bullshit. End of story.

Naturally, the MSM has completely ignored the VIPS report just as they ignored Sy Hersh’s brilliant article that proved that Assad DID NOT launch a chemical weapons attack in Syria. That bit of information has been locked out of the MSM coverage altogether as it doesn’t jibe with Washington’s “Assad must go” policy. So too, McGovern’s “verifiable forensic evidence” that the Russians did not hack the DNC servers will likely be consigned to the memory hole like every other inconvenient factoid that doesn’t fit with Washington’s foreign policy objectives.

The fact that the FBI has not seized the DNC computers is just one of many glaring omissions in this farcical investigation, but there are others too. Like this: Did you know that there are two eyewitnesses in the case that have not yet been questioned? That’s right, there are two people who claim to know the identity of the person who gave the stolen emails to WikiLeaks; Julian Assange and Craig Murray.

Murray, who is the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan and a human rights activist, claims he met the person who took the emails from the DNC in a wooded area in Washington DC last year. In other words, Murray can settle this matter once and for all and put an end to this year-long witch-hunt that has consumed the media and Capital Hill, prevented the Congress from conducting the people’s business, and increased the probability of a conflagration with nuclear-armed Russia.

But here’s the problem: The FBI has never interviewed Murray or made any effort to interview him. It’s like he doesn’t exist. In other words, we have a credible witness who can positively identify the person who leaked the emails, gave them to WikiLeaks and set off a political firestorm that has engulfed the Capital and the country for the last year, and the FBI hasn’t interviewed him?

Will someone explain that to me, please?

That’s why I remain convinced that the Russia hacking story is pure, unalloyed bunkum. There’s not a word of truth to any of it.

Warming of the planet by 2 degrees Celsius is often seen as a “tipping point” that people should try to avoid by limiting greenhouse gas emissions. But the Earth is very likely to exceed that change, according to new University of Washington research. A study using statistical tools shows only a 5 percent chance that Earth will warm 2 degrees or less by the end of this century. It shows a mere 1 percent chance that warming could be at or below 1.5 degrees, the target set by the 2016 Paris Agreement.

“Our analysis shows that the goal of 2 degrees is very much a best-case scenario,” said lead author Adrian Raftery, a UW professor of statistics and sociology. “It is achievable, but only with major, sustained effort on all fronts over the next 80 years.”

The new, statistically-based projections, published July 31 in Nature Climate Change, show a 90 percent chance that temperatures will increase this century by 2.0 to 4.9 C.

“Our analysis is compatible with previous estimates, but it finds that the most optimistic projections are unlikely to happen,” Raftery said. “We’re closer to the margin than we think.”

The most recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change included future warming rates based on four scenarios for future carbon emissions. The scenarios ranged from “business-as-usual” emissions from growing economies, to serious worldwide efforts to transition away from fossil fuels.

“The IPCC was clear that these scenarios were not forecasts,” Raftery said. “The big problem with scenarios is that you don’t know how likely they are, and whether they span the full range of possibilities or are just a few examples. Scientifically, this type of storytelling approach was not fully satisfying.”

The new paper focuses instead on three quantities that underpin the scenarios for future emissions: total world population, gross domestic product per person and the amount of carbon emitted for each dollar of economic activity, known as carbon intensity.

Using statistical projections for each of these three quantities based on 50 years of past data in countries around the world, the study finds a median value of 3.2 C (5.8 F) warming by 2100, and a 90 percent chance that warming this century will fall between 2.0 to 4.9 C (3.6 to 8.8 F).

“Countries argued for the 1.5 C target because of the severe impacts on their livelihoods that would result from exceeding that threshold. Indeed, damages from heat extremes, drought, extreme weather and sea level rise will be much more severe if 2 C or higher temperature rise is allowed,” said co-author Dargan Frierson, a UW associate professor of atmospheric sciences. “Our results show that an abrupt change of course is needed to achieve these goals.”

Raftery previously worked on United Nations projections for future world population. His 2014 study used Bayesian statistics, a common tool used in modern statistics, to show that world population is unlikely to stabilize this century. The planet likely will reach 11 billion people by 2100.

In the new study, Raftery expected to find that higher populations would increase the projections for global warming. Instead, he was surprised to learn that population has a fairly small impact. That is because most of the population increase will be in Africa, which uses few fossil fuels.

What matters more for future warming is the carbon intensity, the amount of carbon emissions produced for each dollar of economic activity. That value has dropped in recent decades as countries boost efficiency and enact standards to reduce carbon emissions. How quickly that value drops in future decades will be crucial for determining future warming.

The study finds a wide range of possible values of carbon intensity over future decades, depending on technological progress and countries’ commitments to implementing changes.

“Overall, the goals expressed in the Paris Agreement are ambitious but realistic,” Raftery said. “The bad news is they are unlikely to be enough to achieve the target of keeping warming at or below 1.5 degrees.”

Brexit can disrupt the air travel from Great Britain to the European Union and the US if the UK government does not strike a deal with Brussels.

“We will be cancelling flights. We will be cancelling people’s holidays for summer 2019,” the Ryanair boss Michael O’Leary told Sunday Times and added that advance tickets to Europe bought from March 2018 for flights in 2019 could have small print warnings that they may be null.

According to him, London cannot yet reach an agreement with the EU that would let Great Britain remain part of treaties such as the Open Skies agreement, which allows airlines to fly freely across Europe and to the US.

Meanwhile, Brexit raises a number of other significant issues, starting with the problems of civil rights and financial aspect and ending with the system of nuclear regulation.

Speaking about the difficult situation in the country, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair who held the in 1997–2007, stated the need to stop Brexit.

“I think it’s possible now that Brexit doesn’t happen. I think it’s absolutely necessary that it doesn’t happen because I think every day is bringing us fresh evidence that it’s doing us damage economically, certainly doing us damage politically,” the politician told Sky News TV Channel.

According to ex-premier, public opinion is now moving in favor of maintaining the EU membership.

“This time last year we were the fastest growing economy in the G7, we’re now the slowest. Our savings ratio is at the lowest for 50 years, the investment community internationally has now gone really negative on us, investment in the motor car industry, for example, is down 30%, living standards are stagnating,” Tony Blair said.

Commenting on the UK and the EU negotiation process, Iain Begg, Professorial Research Fellow at the European Institute, London School of Economics and Political Science, said it is too early to speak about the results.

“It is too early to judge much, although the second round has highlighted the difficulties that arise in looking at the detail of the proposals, not least on the rights of EU and UK citizens in each other’s countries,” the expert told PenzaNews.

According to him, the “divorce bill” was always going to be difficult and will be hard to solve.

“The problem is political more than economic. UK voters were promised a big budgetary gain from leaving the UK and those who voted Brexit will be upset if it is not delivered. It will, in the end be solved by haggling – maybe concluding with a payment in the range of 30-40 billion euro,” the analyst suggested.

At the same time, Brexit is unlikely to be canceled, he believes.

“It remains unlikely because there is no obvious political pathway to stopping Brexit, especially with team Corbyn hardening their positions on the EU,” Iain Begg explained.

Meanwhile, in his opinion, the negotiation process will not be easy.

“It is a long negotiation and a mistake to expect early agreements on issues which are unavoidably tricky,” he stressed.

In turn, Neil MacKinnon, Global Macro Strategist at VTB Capital, said he favours a “clean Brexit.”

“If the UK-EU cannot conclude a ‘deal’ then I think the UK should walk away. There is a lot of propaganda that dreadful things will happen to the UK if there is not a deal but this is no more than a variation of the ‘Project Fear’ campaign last summer that proved spectacularly wrong,” the expert said.

“The UK is the fifth biggest economy in the world, was one of the fastest growing G7 economies last year and London is already the world’s number one financial centre. In the global economy, the economic action is in Beijing not Brussels. You do not need a trade deal to trade. In fact, the EU’s main trading partners such as the US, China and Russia do not have trade deals. Any country can have access to the ‘single market’ as long as you pay the EU’s external tariffs. After all, the so-called single market is a customs union that favours producers rather than consumers. Scare stories that the City will move to Paris, Frankfurt and Brussels is complete rubbish,” Neil MacKinnon explained.

According to him, the British primarily expect the restoration of state control over their own borders.

“What UK voters voted for last summer was taking control of UK borders, preventing the type of migrant crisis that is creating tensions in Italy, Austria and Hungary, and regaining control of UK sovereignty,” the analyst said.

According to him, people like Tony Blair, considered a discredited politician in the UK after the “dodgy dossier” that took the UK into a US-led coalition into war with Iraq, is typical of those who want to thwart the result of the referendum.

“In my view Brexit is a positive opportunity rather than a negative uncertainty. The Eurozone has not been an economic success story. It’s been a story of low growth, high unemployment with many countries stuck in a debt trap,” Neil MacKinnon said.

Meanwhile, Anthony Glees, Director, Centre for Security and Intelligence Studies (BUCSIS), the University of Buckingham, shared the view that Brexit, in theory, presents the British state with a number of very serious problems.

“Far from producing a government which would be ‘strong and stable’ and capable of advancing a Brexit agenda, the Election of 8 June, took away the government’s existing majority and propelled the opposition inexorably closer to power. Evidence that the government is divided over the Brexit process presents itself several times each day and the lack of a clear plan or strategy concerns many voters and commentators. But this is also true of the opposition. A divided Britain is automatically a weak Britain, and a weak Britain is very vulnerable,” the expert said.

According to him, in respect of external threats, Britain seeks security comfort in NATO but above all relies on the alliance with the US and on its own armed strength.

“NATO is clearly in transition and it is not clear to what extent Britain will continue to be taken seriously as a NATO partner [after Brexit]. […] The marked slowing and greater indebtedness of the British state over the past twelve months due exclusively to Brexit means that already substantial cuts in the armed forces have been ordered,” Anthony Glees said.

In his opinion, after Brexit the UK will have to quit several EU organizations, including INTCEN, the Open Source (OSINT) Division, the Counter-Terrorist Group and Europol.

“In practice, one could argue that the importance to the UK’s national security of remaining within these institutions, even just as ‘observers’ is so vital, that some arrangement to do so will have to be found, and indeed will be found. […] Against that, however, is one of the ‘red lines’ set out by the prime minister, namely that Britain will no longer accept the rulings of the European Court of Justice, the ECJ. Since all the above bodies are EU bodies, all rely for their lawfulness on the ECJ. If Britain refuses to accept the jurisdiction of the ECJ, it can have nothing to do with any of these bodies,” the analyst explained.

From his point of view, the UK government and opposition are committed to honouring the decision taken on 23 June 2016 to leave the EU.

“If this is what Brexit means, I believe it will happen. Whether it is inevitable that the UK will also leave the single market and the customs union is less clear. But it is obvious that the powerful forces that shaped public opinion against the EU are still powerful forces. I suspect that Britain will have to experience Brexit for British voters to realise what it is that they have lost, both in terms of their economic wellbeing but also in terms of their security,” Anthony Glees added.

In turn, Simon Lightfoot, researcher of European Politics at the University of Leeds, noted that “the UK officials have adopted a slightly more conciliatory tone” in the second round of negotiations

“The main stumbling blocks are the same issues: money, Northern Ireland and the rights of EU and UK citizens. So the key discussions are how much money the UK should pay into the EU budget post Brexit and if it needs to honour budget commitment up until the end of the budget period 2020 or even beyond,” the expert explained.

According to him, the negotiations let the parties make some progress on the issue of citizen rights.

“On the issue of citizen rights we have some progress with agreement on 22 of the 44 issues under negotiation but anything that suggests ECJ involvement post Brexit is politically difficult,” Simon Lightfoot said.

At the same time, in his opinion, the very fact of Britain’s withdrawal from the EU is beyond doubt.

“I think Brexit will happen. The two main parties are wedded to the notion that they must deliver the will of the people. Therefore the UK will leave the EU in March 2019. Whether that means leaving the single market or the customs union is another matter. Some of the rhetoric around free movement of workers is softening too. The UK government is keen to get some movement on these issues as without that, discussions around future trade agreements can’t happen. Reducing the uncertainty for people and business will be key over the coming months,” the analyst concluded.

Official negotiations between the UK and the EU on the conditions under which Brexit will be implemented began in Brussels on 19 June 2017 – almost a year after the opponents of European integration in the United Kingdom won a referendum with a result of 51.9%.

It is expected that the negotiations will last until November 2018, after which the parties will have six months to ratify the agreements in national parliaments.

Source: https://penzanews.ru/en/analysis/64346-2017

It is evident … that a conflict is always concerned with a distribution of power. Indeed, an exertion of power is prerequisite to the retention of a share in the determination of future relations–as well as for the acquiring or retaining of other benefits perceived as the “reasons” for conflict. — North, Koch, and Zinnes, 1960

The recent events of stone pelting of defence forces in Kashmir and emerging violence backed by separatists and the ISI demand a stringent action from those in power. The political cauldron in Kashmir is boiling and any chances of peace being restored in the valley seem like a distant dream. The alienation of the people and lack of socio political and economic opportunities makes things more difficult for the forces.

Conflict as the quintessential intermittent dissociative social process is often defined as a conscious action, as the deliberate attempt to oppose, resist or coerce the will of another or others. (Green, 1956). Gillin and Gillin (1948) opined that “Conflict is the social process in which individuals or groups seek their ends by directly challenging the antagonist by violence or threat of violence.”In order to understand conflict, social, economic, political and class related, one needs to develop deeper insights into the various dynamics of conflict, its causes, transformation and current manifestations. To put it in Marxist theoretical framework, Conflict simply is the Anti-Thesis of cooperation. It is struggle and opposition involving emotional altitude of hostility and violent interference with one’s autonomous choice.

Conflict is omnipresent. Its degree may vary from society to society. The element of consciousness is very crucial in conflicting scenarios. Those involved are fully aware of the harm they are causing to others and in particular the social fabric of the country where it erupts. There are not one but several triggers such as biological, social, economic, political, religious, ethnic etc.

The fulcrum of conflict in Kashmir is shifting inexorably in favour of the separatists. Statistics reveal a very disturbing picture of the number of Kashmiri men who have disappeared leaving their wives alone to live in perpetual fear. These “Half Widows” as they are called face the flak of both the forces and the government concerned.

The solution to the Kashmir issue is a political one and occasional use of hard force, counter insurgency operations are needed to keep the volatile situation in check. There have been numerous success stories where hard uses of power and force have wiped out all forms of terrorism from the society. There is the Chechnya example, the Sri Lankan example but following a similar tactics in Kashmir won’t work.

The expanding landscape of communication technology and the wide use of social media have made matters worse. After the killing of Hizbul operative Burhan Wani, the valley witnessed violence that takes us back to 1989-90. Several experts on Kashmir have written that a human shield is not the humanitarian form of dealing with stone pelters but what can the army do if the Kashmiris take to the street and attack defence personnel and vehicles.

The victimisation of the people, the alienation of the people and the increasing influence of Pakistan army and agencies on young minds need to be addressed. Opportunities for constructive work need to be created. The valley needs development and only then the conflict will transform itself into something more positive. Autonomy , freedom are all adjectives used to justify violence. It is historically established that Kashmir acceded to India so the question of giving it away to our notorious neighbour doesn’t arise.

Essentially there are four ways to address the issue. One, bring about large scale development, create jobs so that there is no brain drain. Two, involve the Kashmiris in decision making processes and keep them informed. Three, continue with counter insurgency operations to establish some form of peace in the valley and four recognise the rights of the people assuring them of proper action. Disillusionment needs to be done away with. It is a very dangerous term.

The controversial “Armed Forces Special Powers Act” needs to be looked at from a more humane perspective. The Armed Forces need to work in cooperation with the coalition government to seek possible solutions to the issue. Success stories of IIT’s and other academic institutions set a very good example but the Kashmiri youth largely is focussing more on the Radical forces hell bent on tearing the valley apart. The police and the defence forces need some form of reforms to tackle the situation. Kashmir has been the bone of contention between India and Pakistan for far too long. The bloodshed needs to stop and it can be stopped only politically.

The separatists and terrorists are taking undue advantage of the vulnerable sections of the Kashmiri population to further their agenda of “Aazaadi”. The confidence with which Pakistan supplies funds and weapons for the fight in Kashmir is known to the world , yet every time the Indian forces take action, they become the culprits in the eyes of the Media. The Media plays a very powerful role in changing mindsets , mostly against the Indian state. Though the Media in India is largely self regulated some form of control needs to be exercised especially in Kashmir. This is to stop the ongoing psychological warfare.

It is not hidden from the world that Pakistan’s agenda is to destabilise India through disguised aggression and continuous proxy war in Kashmir. A joint action needs to be taken and above all issues of socio economic development needs to be addressed with immediate attention. It is only development that can bring about change.

“An eye for an Eye makes the whole world blind” — M. K Gandhi

Iranian authorities are stalling on an investigation into the violent mob attacks on Saudi diplomatic missions in Iran in 2016, an official source at the Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs said on Monday.

The source told the Saudi Press Agency (SPA) that “Iran authorities have also resorted to blackmail to gain diplomatic privileges inside the Kingdom even though the ties between Saudi Arabia and Iran have been severed.

“They have resorted to fraudulent tactics. Iran, despite an initial approval, has denied a Saudi team entry into Iran as part of the Iranian team investigating the attacks on the Saudi Arabian embassy in Tehran and its consulate in Mashhad. The Saudi team was delegated to work alongside the Iranian authorities to inspect the two Saudi facilities and finalize the processes relating to them,” he said.

In an apparently coordinated effort, Iranian mobs stormed both the Saudi Embassy in Tehran and Consulate in the city of Mashhad on January 2, 2016. They ransacked offices and set the embassy and consulate buildings on fire, and desecrated the Saudi flags.

The attacks came two days after the execution in Saudi Arabia of a Shiite leader, who had been convicted of the crime of terrorism.

Saudi Arabia severed its ties with Iran as a result of the attacks.

Riyadh has sought an investigation into the crime, which had been condemned by the international community.

One and a half years on, the investigation has not prospered, according to the Saudi Foreign Ministry source.

“Such acts of procrastination reflect Iran’s behavior and policy, its disrespect of international laws and conventions, and violation of the inviolability of the diplomatic mission premises, tactics Iran had used for more than 38 years,” the official said.

Iran has also been fomenting chaos in the Mideastern region, sending troops to support Syrian strongman, interfering in Iraq’s affairs, arming Houthi militias in Yemen, and trying to incite sedition in others parts of the Gulf region.

There is no rational explanation for this, even after searching for the coded meanings culture throws up. A not very bright, propelled on a wave of the pre-Kardashian phenomenon of celebrity for its own meaning; a youthful flower, gathered by the Grim Reaper while speeding off with her lover in the Pont de l’Alma tunnel in Paris. That was the fate of the Princess of Wales.

As Christopher Hitchens was to observe, the orgy of sentimentality and reaction to the death of Princess Diana in 1997 was excruciating, dangerous, and debilitating. It silenced dissent about the late princess, reconstituting Britain, however briefly, as a “one-party state” replete with emotive ridden foot soldiers.

It also supplied the new Prime Minister, Tony Blair, the material of naked publicity, a moment to peak ever higher in the opinion polls by feeding the Cult of Diana. New Labour, New Britain, New Sentiment.

Jonathan Freedland confessed on cringing in the aftermath of the princess’s death. “It is our collective moment of madness, a week when somehow we lost our grip.”[1] Outside Buckingham Palace were hundreds of thousands of cellophane protected bouquets, a sort of “floral fascism” made leaf and stem.

The celebrity as pox syndrome persists in the context of the anniversary of Diana’s death, which has been spiced by the debate on whether Channel 4 should release video tape interviews drawn from encounters between the princess and her speech coach and actor Peter Settelen. (Settelen had been retained by Diana between 1992 and 1993.) These form the subject of yet another yawn inducing product of the Princess Industry, a documentary titled Diana: In Her Own Words set to be released on the twentieth anniversary of her death.

The Spencer family, led by Earl Spencer, was determined to assert control over the tapes and foil the use of the private conversations. They had initially found their way into the possession of Scotland Yard in 2001 after a raid on the home of former royal butler, Paul Burrell.

The American broadcaster NBC broadcasted teasing excerpts in 2004, but the BBC, which was considering a commemoration documentary ten years after the event, abandoned the project. Channel 4’s management felt otherwise, wanting to make some mileage on the insipid nature of the whole matter. The unconvincing view, nothing more of a sales pitch, was that the tapes “provide a unique insight”.

Aggressive pots have been calling similarly aggressive kettles black. The original sinner, Burrell, felt that the channel’s decision to broadcast the tapes was a “seedy” gesture akin to “raiding her diary”.[2]

The seediness of his own less than noble history was lost on Burrell, who milked the cash cow of experience after Diana’s death much to the consternation of Princes Harry and William. A Royal Duty (2003) went into the personal drawers and the details with relish. Burrell, in the true bravado of one who betrays, labelled his own effort a “tribute to their mother”.

Rosa Monckton, another touted friend of the princess, tweeted that, “Friend of Diana urges Channel 4 to scrap ‘intrusive’ documentary. If you agree with me, please write to Channel 4.”[3] To The Guardian, Monckton explained that the tapes did not belong to the public domain, featuring those silly confidences that Diana should never have parted with. “It is a betrayal of her privacy and of the family’s privacy.”

The material is hardly incendiary, but accords with the worst tendencies of the pop-fluff market of reality television. (Diana, indeed, would have been a suitable pioneer in the cannibalising disgrace of a Big Brother Household.) “He chatted me up – like a bad rash,” notes Diana in describing her soon to be husband, Prince Charles – “he was all over me.”

Charles had just lost his great uncle, Lord Louis Mountbatten, a high calibre casualty of the IRA. The prince needed companionship, comforting. The emotional raw spot drew sympathy from the Diana, but she had played a false stroke. Charles, sensing a chance “leapt upon me and started kissing me and everything”. How delightful.

The romps and travails of the House of Windsor have become the tabloid link via the people and the monarchy, a trashy reminder that flawed relationships transcend the straightjacket (apt, that) of class. This is vulgarity in its true meaning: the common, the vernacular, the dirt earthy. We can call be dysfunctional together.

For a country like Australia, whose head of state remains the Queen, interest piqued by such revelations remains. Anniversary issues are being released for readers of The Herald and The Courier Mail, if they indeed deserve the name, as issues to keep. Get your copy now! Expect, however, little by way of substance, critique or self-awareness.

The Cult of Diana may have been subjected to a more trenchant analysis in recent years, leaving aside the conspiracy pedlars at The Express who have blamed everybody from the French to aliens for her demise. But in an age of Trump, a revival is being prodded and fanned. As former royal spokesman Dickie Arbiter explained to the BBC’s Victoria Derbyshire, Channel 4 was “laughing all the way to the bank.”[4]

Notes:
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/aug/13/britishidentity.monarchy

[2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4747468/Diana-s-ex-butler-Paul-Burrell-condemns-Channel-4.html

[3] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/30/friend-of-diana-urges-channel-4-to-scrap-intrusive-documentary

[4] http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-40774810

Neither Fatah nor Hamas have been of much relevance to the mass protests around Al-Aqsa Mosque compound in Jerusalem. Nor have US pressure, half-hearted European “concern about the situation” or cliched Arab declarations made one iota of difference. UN officials warned of grim scenarios of escalation, but their predictions were wrong.

The spontaneous mass movement in Jerusalem, which eventually defeated Israeli plans to change the status of Al-Aqsa, was purely a people’s movement. Despite the hefty price of several dead and hundreds wounded, it challenged both the Israeli government and the quisling Palestinian leadership.

Israel shut down Al-Aqsa compound on July 14 following a shootout between three armed Palestinians and Israeli occupation officers. The compound was reopened a few days later, but Palestinian worshippers refused to enter as security  cameras and metal detectors were installed.

Jerusalemites immediately understood the implication of Israel’s action. In the name of added security measures, the government was exploiting the situation to change Al-Aqsa’s status as part of its efforts to further isolate Palestinians and Judaize the illegally occupied city.

Israel’s army occupied Palestinian East Jerusalem in 1967, annexing it in 1981 in defiance of international law and despite strong UN objection. For 50 years, Jerusalem has endured daily battles. The Israelis fought to expand their influence in the city, increase the number of illegal Jewish settlers and cut off Jerusalem from the rest of the Palestinian territories. Palestinian Muslims and Christians fought back.

Al-Aqsa compound, also known as Haram Al-Sharif or the Noble Sanctuary, is the most symbolic element in the fight. It is a microcosm of the fate of the occupied city, in fact the fate of the entire Palestinian land. The compound has been administered by Islamic Waqf through an Israeli-Jordanian understanding. Many Israeli politicians in the Likud Party and the right-wing government coalition have tried to change this.

Palestinians understand that the fate of their mosque and the future of their city are tightly linked. For them, if Al-Aqsa is lost, Jerusalem is truly conquered. This fight between Palestinian worshippers and Israel’s army happens every day, usually escalating on Friday. It is on this holy day for Muslims that tens of thousands of faithful flock to Al-Aqsa to pray, oftentimes met by new military gates and regulations.

Young Palestinians in particular have been blocked from reaching Al-Aqsa, also in the name of security. But the struggle for Jerusalem can rarely be expressed in numbers, death tolls and televised reports. It is ordinary Palestinians’ constant fight for space and identity, and to preserve the sanctity of their holy land.

In the last two years, the fight escalated further as Israel began expanding its illegal settlements in East Jerusalem and right-wing parties issued a series of laws targeting Palestinians in the city. Among them is the call-to-prayer law, aimed at preventing mosques from making prayer calls at dawn, which has been the practice for a millennium.

Palestinian youths, many born after the failed Oslo Accords, are fed up as Israel’s military controls every aspect of their lives, and their leadership grows more irrelevant and self-serving. This frustration has been expressed in numerous ways: Non-violent resistance, new political ideas, art, music, social media and individual acts of violent resistance.

Since the most recent Al-Quds Intifada — Jerusalem uprising — started in October 2015, “some 285 Palestinians have died in alleged attacks, protests and (Israeli) army raids,” reported Farah Najjar and Zena Tahhan. About 47 Israelis were killed in the same period.

But the intifada was contained and managed. Human rights groups protested many of the army killings of Palestinians as unnecessary or unprovoked, but little has changed on the ground. The Palestinian Authority (PA) has continued to operate almost entirely independent from the violent reality faced by its people on a daily basis.

The shootout on July 14 could have registered as yet another violent episode of many that have been reported in Jerusalem in recent months. Following such events, Israel’s official discourse ignores the military occupation entirely, focusing instead on its security problem caused by “Palestinian terror.” Politicians then swoop in with new laws, proposals and radical ideas to exploit a tragic situation and change the status quo.

Considering the numerous odds faced by Palestinians, every rational political analysis would have rightly concluded that Palestinians were losing this battle as well. With the US fully backing Israeli measures and the international community growing distant and disinterested, Jerusalemites could not stand a chance. But such understanding of conflict, however logical, often proves terribly wrong since it casually overlooks the people.

In this latest confrontation, Palestinians of Jerusalem won, presenting an impressive model of mobilization and popular solidarity for all Palestinians. Israel’s army removed the barricades and metal detectors, pushing Israel to the brink of a political crisis involving angry politicians, the army and internal intelligence, the Shin Bet.

The people’s victory was a massive embarrassment for PA President Mahmoud Abbas. He tried to “piggyback off the protests” but failed, reported The Atlantic. Other factions also moved quickly to mobilize on the people’s victory, but their efforts have appeared staged and insincere.

“Today is a joyful day, full of celebration and sorrow at the same time — sorrow for the people who lost their lives and were injured,” a protester told journalists as thousands stormed the gates of Jerusalem armed with prayer rugs, flags and voices hoarse from chanting for nearly two weeks.

“This is very much a grassroots movement — this isn’t led by Hamas or Fatah, the traditional political leaders of the Palestinians,” journalist Imran Khan reported from outside the compound. This movement comprised thousands of women, men and children. They included Zeina Amro, who cooked daily for those who held steadfast outside the compound, was shot with a rubber bullet in the head, yet returned to urge people to stand their ground the next day.

They included the child Yousef Sakafi, whose chores included splashing water over people as they sat for endless hours under the unforgiving sun, refusing to move. They also included many Palestinian Christians who came to pray with their Muslim brethren.

Conveying the scene from Jerusalem, television news footage and newspaper photos showed massive crowds of people standing, sitting, praying or running in disarray among bullets, sound bombs and gas canisters.

But the crowds were made up of individuals like Amro, Sakafi and many more, all driven by their insistence to face injustice with an inspiring display of human tenacity. More violence will follow as the Israeli occupation is relentless, but ordinary Palestinians will not quit the fight. They have held resolute for nearly 70 years.

By Ecaterina Locoman*

(FPRI) — As thousands of Russian soldiers marched through Moscow’s Red Square on May 9 to celebrate the anniversary of Nazi Germany’s defeat in World War II, the only foreign politician that stood alongside Russian President Vladimir Putin in the front row of spectators was Igor Dodon, Moldova’s recently elected president. After Putin’s speech, the two leaders laid flowers at the Tomb of the Unkown Soldier near the Kremlin. Then, Dodon attended a reception, along with military veterans and other Russian officials, hosted by Putin in the presidential palace. Throughout the dinner, he sat to the right side of the Russian leader.

Russian TV stations, which enjoy high popularity among Moldovan viewers, widely reported images of Igor Dodon accompanying Vladimir Putin throughout the festivities. Dodon even posted photos with the Russian president on his Facebook page, writing that he was “proud that here, at the Kremlin wall, the anthem of the Republic of Moldova was sung.”

In June 2017, during the recent St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, Dodon participated in the plenary session panel, giving a speech, along with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and Federal Chancellor of Austria Christian Kern. Announcing his participation in the Forum, Dodon wrote that “for the first time in history, the President of Moldova will be able to voice the position of our country on such a representative international economic platform.”

Domestic Moldovan observers have noted that Igor Dodon passes up no opportunity to be seen in the company of the Russian leader. During the parliamentary election campaign in 2014, Dodon’s Socialist Party widely circulated an election banner that pictured Dodon and Zinaida Greceanîi, then-deputy and now-leader of the Socialist Party, in the company of Vladimir Putin. This strategy is known as “image transfer,” a political marketing tool in which Moldovan politicians associate themselves with powerful foreign leaders to strengthen their image at home. As Vladimir Putin is the most trusted foreign leader among Moldovans—61% of survey respondents claim to trust the Russian leader—Dodon aims to increase his popularity among domestic voters and bolster his party’s success in the 2018 parliamentary elections by co-opting Putin’s image as a strong leader.

“Tell me who your friends are, and I’ll tell you who you are”

Dodon, however, is not the first Moldovan politician to use the authoritative image of foreign leaders to gain domestic political capital. Both pro-Russian and pro-Western Moldovan politicians frequently employ their relations with foreign dignitaries as image transfer and status advancement strategies for political and electoral purposes.

Dodon, for instance, learned his tactics from his former boss Vladimir Voronin, who successfully used image transfer strategies to gain political capital during his tenure as Moldova’s third president. When Voronin fell from Putin’s grace in 2003 following the fiasco of the Kozak Memorandum, a proposal aimed to settle the Transnistrian conflict and transform Moldova into an assymetric federal state, he was quick to seek support from then-Georgian and Ukrainian Presidents Mikhail Saakashvili and Viktor Yushchenko, respectively. At the time, these leaders were considered “revolutionary pro-Western heroes.”

Voronin met with Yushchenko in Kiev just four days before Moldova’s parliamentary elections, and the two issued a joint statement declaring that “Ukraine and Moldova support each other’s efforts to integrate into Europe’s political and military structures.” Voronin then invited President Saakashvili to Moldova, to which Saakashvili responded by saying that his visit would “express solidarity with the people of Moldova in their struggle for independence and choice of Europe.” Lastly, in an effort to demonstrate the authenticity of his pro-European choice and simultaneously sideline the pro-European opposition, Voronin established good relations with the newly elected Romanian President Traian Basescu.

More recently, former Moldovan Prime Ministers Vlad Filat and Iurie Leanca tried to gain political capital by publicizing their meetings with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker. Marian Lupu, former Speaker of the Parliament, similarly used meetings with the leaders of the Party of European Socialists to promote his Democratic Party during the 2014 parliamentary elections.

To regulate electoral candidates’ advertisements during pre-election campaigning, the Moldovan Electoral Code was recently amended to prohibit the use of images with foreign officials for electoral purposes. Article 47, paragraph 6 of the Moldovan Electoral Code reads:

Images representing state institutions or public authorities of the country, other states or international organisations cannot be used for the purpose of electoral advertising. It is   prohibited to combine colours and/or sounds which are associated with the national symbols of the Republic of Moldova or of another state, to use materials which depict historical personalities of the Republic of Moldova or other states, symbols of other states or international organisations or images of foreign officials.

This restriction applies only during the 60 days before a presidential or parliamentary election. During the November 2016 presidential campaign, Igor Dodon’s Socialist Party filed a complaint to the Central Electoral Commission against presidential candidate Maia Sandu, stating that she was featured in the media with Angela Merkel, Jean-Claude Juncker, and Donald Tusk while visiting Brussels. The Central Electoral Commission issued a warning to Sandu, instructing her against using such images as a form of electoral support.

However, because the next parliamentary elections are expected to be held in the summer or fall of 2018, Dodon is not restricted by the law. He appears frequently in the press with Vladimir Putin and other Russian officials, capitalizing on the positive publicity gained from these meetings.

Running on the Hamster’s Wheel

Political discourse in post-Soviet Moldova has been dominated by the question of foreign policy orientation, particularly whether the country should align itself with the East or the West. This issue has become a primary marker for party differentiation. As many voters make electoral decisions using information “shortcuts”—for instance, they will select a party based on whether its leaders are pro-EU or pro-Russia—political leaders often adopt foreign policy orientations for strategic reasons.

By publically participating in events with prominent foreign leaders, Moldovan politicians not only advance their political marketing strategies, but they also simplify the decision making process for domestic voters. When election campaigns feature such a distinguishing issue, voters are exempt from comprehensively reviewing each candidate’s stance on a wide range of topics. As Moldovan politicians consciously make foreign policy orientation the most salient electoral issue—and frame their remaining policies around this sole topic—they obstruct the quality of debate on other important issues.

The November 2016 presidential election offers a good example of how candidates exacerbate differences between pro-EU and pro-Russia orientations to manipulate voters’ sentiments for political gain. Some of Igor Dodon’s central policies as Moldova’s new president aim to reopen debate about the country’s language, history, and identity. These policies shift the focus of political debates away from other relevant topics—for instance, economic, institutional, or social reforms—to issues that amplify civilizational, cultural, and ethnic differences within the country.

While Vladimir Putin generously offers political support and publicity to Igor Dodon, experience shows that this support comes at a price. Moscow provides political backing only as long as Moldovan leaders implement policies that align with the Kremlin’s preferences. Vladimir Voronin’s tenure is again illustrative: after refusing to sign the Kozak Memorandum in November 2003, Voronin faced consequences. For over three years, Putin refused to have one-on-one meetings with the Moldovan president. In addition, Moscow imposed harsh economic sanctions on Moldova; it banned the import of Moldovan fruits, vegetables, and meats; halted gas delivery to Moldova in January 2006; and embargoed Moldovan wines and spirits.

Moldovan observers note that, for all his faults, Voronin was a more seasoned president than his younger disciple, Dodon. He was strategic in forging relations with both Western and Russian leaders. Dodon, on the other hand, is too eager to demonstrate loyalty and obedience in exchange for political support. The highly publicized meetings between Dodon, Putin, and other Russian officials contribute to the political marketing strategy of image transfer. Dodon hopes to be associated with the strength and popularity of the Russian leaders in order to increase his own legitimacy and popularity among Moldovan voters. It remains to be seen how far Dodon is willing to go in implementing Moscow’s favored policies in exchange for Russian publicity and political backing, which will help Dodon maintain an upper hand within the Moldovan domestic political realm.

About the author:
*Ecaterina Locoman is a PhD candidate in Political Science at Rutgers University and her research focuses on foreign policy-making, diplomacy and post-communist transitions with a primary regional focus on Central and Eastern Europe.

Source:
This article was published by FPRI

Ebola virus RNA can persist in the semen of survivors more than two years after the onset of infection researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill have found. The research team, which included investigators from Ohio-based Clinical Research Management and the ELWA Hospital in Liberia also observed the detection of Ebola virus RNA in the semen of men who had previously had a negative test of their semen in some cases.

These findings led the study team to suggest revision of the 2016 World Health Organization guidelines relating to the sexual transmission of Ebola, which calls for men who survive Ebola virus disease (EVD) to undertake measures such as abstinence and the use of condoms for at least 12 months after the onset of EVD or until their semen has tested negative for Ebola virus RNA twice. The study results were published in Open Forum Infectious Diseases.

Male participants enrolled in a longitudinal cohort study of Ebola survivors in Monrovia, Liberia, consented to donating semen. Of the 149 men who provided samples, 13 tested positive for Ebola virus RNA. Of these 13 men, 11 had positive results even two years after the onset of Ebola infection.

“Our finding of long term persistence and intermittent detection of viral RNA in semen suggests we need to change how we think about Ebola as it is no longer only an acute illness, but also one with potential long-term effects,” said William A. Fischer II, M.D., an assistant professor in the UNC Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine and the study’s co-author. “It is becoming clear that in some survivors, evidence of the virus can linger in the male genital tract for long periods of time with important potential implications for transmission.”

Fischer notes that while there has been documented sexual transmission of Ebola earlier after acute infection, it is not known whether the presence of RNA serves as a correlate for infectious virus and if transmission this far out is possible.

The study team also reports that the men whose samples tested positive for Ebola virus RNA were more likely to be older than those with a negative result. Those who had Ebola virus RNA detected in their semen also complained of vision problems at a higher rate than male survivors without evidence of Ebola virus RNA in their semen. The researchers recommend future studies investigate the source of viral persistence and whether the detection of viral RNA signifies the presence of infectious virus.

The large Ebola outbreak in West Africa in 2014 to 2015 was devastating to the people in West Africa and beyond, said David A. Wohl, M.D., professor of Infectious Diseases at UNC and study co-author.

“However, the scale of the epidemic has allowed for researchers to gain better insights into the Ebola virus, including the potential persistence of the virus in certain compartments of the body, such as the genital tract,” Wohl said.

The researchers stress that such studies must be conducted in a way that empowers the Ebola survivor community and avoids further stigmatization.

As long as the Deep State Oligarchs can continue to use the Citizens United supreme court case to bribe the entire U.S. Congress and Senate 100% and shut out completely the American citizen voter with hundreds of billions of dollars to one, President Donald Trump will never be able to accomplish anything for the American People.

It’s truly time to pin the blame on the parties/individuals responsible for, on a near daily basis, bringing the world to the brink of nuclear war in World War III.

Because of the serious nature of their constant provocations, it is no longer acceptable for these mysterious, cowardly, and elusive figures to find peace and solace in the shadows of anonymity – for the sake of humanity, these bastards pushing the world to the brink of death and destruction in World War 3 need to be outed, and identified, now.

They allow the U.S. Congress and Senate to take the blame for such horrific travesties as passing new provocative sanctions against Russia, Iran, North Korea and other nations, which are completely and totally designed to provoke conflict.

They were also behind the provocations in the Ukraine, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Iraq, Africa, Eurasia and Europe resulting in billions of people dead or displaced.

Already the European Union has openly rebelled against these latest American unilateral sanctions, because the USA is supposed to first consult with and obtain permission before engaging in global activity which could destroy the European Economy.

These new sanctions threaten the Liquified Natural Gas industries being cultivated and grown by the Russia/Germany Nord Star 2 pipeline, as well as Turkish excursions relating to oil/gas into Europe.

However the U.S. Government has decided to cripple not only its enemies, but also its “friends.”

“America Firsters” need to also recognize and understand that a certain degree of globalism and international cooperation is absolutely essential for their own National Security, otherwise America is just behaving like a “spoiled kid in the playground,” whose inevitable fate is a bloodied noise by the other kids.

The only problem here is that the proverbial “bloody nose” would in fact be thermonuclear war ending in World War III, and the end of humanity.

Many sage and astute observers and analysts have now traced the latest bout of sanctions passed this week and signed by President Donald Trump today entirely to the massive lobbying and monetary power of the Energy Sector and Military Industrial Complex.

The question is did they collude?

How much money was given to the loathsome members of the U.S. Congress and Senate to bribe their vote for near-certain human extinction?

While the U.S. Congress and Senate members take most, if not all of the blame for pushing the world around, knocking out sovereign governments resulting in tens of millions of innocents dead, cacophony and chaos all over the world, massive human displacement and refugee crises numbering in the hundreds of millions, disappeared children in the hundreds of thousands, and other evil results, the Oligarch “puppet masters” behind the scenes in the United States and around the world continue to go about their business, spending time with their families, living in their luxury homes, driving their elite automobiles, sending their kids to the top private schools and ivy league universities, swimming in limitless amounts of liquid capital, above the law, and generally enjoying complete and total immunity from the people, families, children, cities, civilizations, and countries around the world whom they kill and destroy with sociopathic abandon.

Politicians as a rule are nothing but prostitutes, more so in the United States than in any other country, because “lobbying” is an accepted practice and has been justified as being constitutional in such landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions as Citizens United v FEC which allowed international corporations and international banks to successfully overpower financially all regular American citizens combined to achieve their lobbying goals, and to pursue their own interests, rather than the citizenry’s interests.

There quite simply is no match, and the American people were rendered powerless and leaderless after this court decision, and their 300,000,000 collective voices were completely and totally blotted out, in one swoop.

A dissenting opinion by Justice Stevens was joined by Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, and Justice Sotomayor stating that the Court’s ruling “threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation…The path it has taken to reach its outcome will…do damage to this institution.”

Justice Stevens concluded his dissent with:

“At bottom, the Court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.”

So quite simply, the fact that the American people overwhelmingly came out to support and vote for Donald Trump to be President, really made no difference anyway, since these mega-corporations/international banks simply only need to buy the hell out of each and every whore-ish member of the U.S. Congress and Senate, and include a provision in the bill disallowing the People’s elected President to veto their bill, and they can then literally shove any and all of their anti-American and pro-World War 3 bills and legislation down the American people’s collective throats, exposing them all to death, destruction, and nuclear obliteration.

This all the while these bastard Oligarchs have hundreds of multi-billion dollar homes/underground bunkers scattered throughout the world that they can jet off to, at the first sign of nuclear war.

Scientists say that only cockroaches would survive a thermonuclear holocaust – well maybe the Oligarchs within the Energy Sector, Military Industrial Complex, and International Banking Industries, using the Citizens United case decision to completely and totally bypass the American People’s will (and the will of the people of the European Union, Russia, Eurasia, Middle East and Africa) share more in common with the cockroach than most people recognize.

These Deep State Oligarchs will simply rinse, lather and repeat each and every time President Donald trump ever tries to do anything that he promised for the American People, that the Oligarchs either don’t like, or that they wish to use as a “bargaining chip” in order for him to get their support on something else.

This is a clarion call to the world’s people, to identify and out these craven Oligarch sociopaths once and for all, for being the enemies of humanity that they are.

By Terri Moon Cronk

Syrian Democratic Forces continue to progress every day in their fight to retake Raqqa, Syria, from Islamic State of Iraq and Syria control despite the enemy’s fierce and suicidal tactics, the spokesman for Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve told reporters at the Pentagon Thursday.

“Fighting in Raqqa continues to be intense as fanatical ISIS dead-enders and foreign terrorist fighters left to die use the dense urban environment to try to cling to territory,” Army Col. Ryan Dillon said from Baghdad by teleconference.

ISIS continues to use the closely spaced buildings and tight streets of the city to hide large improvised explosive devices, attempting to slow the advances of the SDF, which is clawing away at remaining hiding places, the spokesman said. More than 80 percent of the ISIS attacks against the SDF stem from hidden IEDs, he added.

Small Gap Between Two Axes

The SDF is advancing from three axes from the east, the west and south of the Euphrates River, Dillon said, adding that as of this morning, a 250-meter gap, about 820 feet, remains between the east and west axes.

“That can be covered by fire, but it’s only a short amount of time before there’s an actual, physical linkup there,” he added.

In cleared sections of the city, the volunteer Raqqa internal security forces are making sure terrorists neither escape from nor return to Raqqa, Dillon said. The force is about 800 strong, with 230 newly trained members added this week, he noted.

Mosul Clearing Continues

In Iraq, the coalition continues to support Iraqi security forces as they clear Mosul and prepare for offensive operations in Tal Afar, the spokesman said. “[The] Iraqi Army Emergency Response Division and Counter Terrorism Service will transition security to hold forces in West Mosul here shortly,” he added. “The [Iraqi forces] are firmly in control of Mosul.”

As areas in Mosul become more secure, the colonel noted, humanitarian aid and multiple projects can get underway in the hardest-hit neighborhoods following the collapse of ISIS control.

“There was a surge this week of engineers that assessed some 200 schools, 20 electrical substations, seven sewage treatment plants, two hospitals and several police stations in West Mosul,” Dillon said.

Schools have reopened in cleared parts of the city, and electricity has been connected to a water treatment facility that is expected to soon provide clean drinking water to several hundred thousand Moslawis in West Mosul, he noted. “And these are just a few of the many projects decided by local governments to return to life after ISIS,” he added.

The enemy poses a global threat because of its commitment to plot, direct and incite terror attacks and its ability to recruit, move and finance the terrorists who commit those attacks, Dillon said.

“The coalition will not stop targeting ISIS terrorists in Iraq and Syria until this threat is removed, the region is secure, and our homelands are safe,” he told reporters.

By Greg Wilcox

The Saudi Embassy in London has warned nationals and residents of the Kingdom to be careful in the city after a huge rise in the number of acid attacks, with the mayor saying he is “deeply concerned” by the increase.

The embassy’s advice comes as crimes using corrosive substances in the UK capital jumped in 2016 to 431 from 261 in 2015, a rise of 74 percent, Metropolitan Police figures show. So far this year, there have been 282 attacks.

That has resulted in increased public awareness and fear of the new scourge on London’s streets.

The latest attack came on Monday evening in the upmarket Knightsbridge area, popular with Gulf tourists when they visit London. The Metropolitan Police said a 47-year-old man was attacked by two men on a moped, who attempted to steal the man’s watch.

With the rapid rise in attacks, the Saudi Embassy has now urged its citizens to watch out while in the UK capital.

A statement issued by the embassy noted the increasing number of attacks using corrosive liquids by “professional thieves” in London’s tourist hotspots.

“We call upon visiting citizens and residents to exercise caution and avoid walking in alleys and dark places,” the embassy said.

The embassy reiterated the importance of avoiding carrying valuable items, and to tell the police and embassy in the event of an attack.

But while undoubtedly concerned, the mayor of London’s office insisted the capital remained “one of the safest cities in the world,” and as welcoming to visitors as ever.

A spokesperson for Mayor Sadiq Khan told Arab News: “London is the most open, welcoming and cosmopolitan city in the world. Last year, the capital attracted a record 19.1 million overseas visitors who come here to enjoy our unbeatable array of museums, restaurants, shop and theaters.

“London is also one of the safest cities in the world, and acid attacks are rare. The mayor is deeply concerned about the recent increase in these crimes and has been clear that they will not be tolerated.”

The mayor’s office went on to say that the Metropolitan Police is working hard to make the streets hostile territory for the criminals who use mopeds, motorbikes and bicycle. This includes dedicated operations, building intelligence about offenders and ongoing prevention work.

The recent spate of acid attacks has resulted in Deliveroo riders refusing to work in certain areas or past a certain time.

On July 13, a moped rider sprayed acid at six people during a 90-minute rampage. One of the victims was seriously injured, and two were Deliveroo riders.

The food-delivery company has said it will hire 50 staff dedicated to ensure the safety of its riders, as well as fit GoPro cameras on their drivers’ helmets as protection against attacks.

These moves come on the back of medics calling for the public to be educated on what to do in the aftermath of an attack.

Intervention by bystanders could “substantially improve the outcome” of acid attacks, senior figures from the Royal College of Emergency Medicine (RCEM) and Barts Health NHS Trust said.

Qatar is even stronger than it was before the siege, Qatar’s Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani said on Wednesday, expressing confidence at the country’s future.

“To us and to everyone, Qatar after June 2017 is unlike what it was in the past,” al-Thani said during a cabinet meeting in Doha.

“We are proud of our history, but what happened in June 2017 made us stronger and has allowed us to work harder for the country,” he added.

Qatar has achieved a boost in morale after proving its resilience to the blockade, especially after the four blockading countries fell flat in a press conference in July.

Saudi Arabia and its allies have been boycotting Qatar since June 5, over unsubstantiated claims Doha has backed extremists, in the region’s worst diplomatic crisis in years.

They sealed the emirate’s only land border, ordered its citizens to leave and closed their airspace and waters to Qatari flights and shipping, calling for Doha to fall in line with Saudi-led policy in the region, particularly towards Iran.

The blockading countries also demanded that Qatar break its longstanding ties with the Muslim Brotherhood, blacklisted as a “terror group” by the four governments although not by the international community, while seeking for the closure of broadcasting giant Al Jazeera and a Turkish military base.

Qatar has dismissed the demands as a violation of its sovereignty and has received significant support from its ally Turkey.

Original source

By Marian Chiriac

Moscow took retaliatory measures against Romania and Moldova after Chisinau declared Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin persona non grata and Bucharest refused to allow him to use its airspace.

The Russian Federal Service for Veterinary Surveillance, Rosselkhoznasor on Thursday banned imports of some 20 tons of plums from Moldova, while also introducing a temporary ban on pork and pork meat imports from Romania.

Moscow’s decision came a day after the Moldovan government declared Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin to be persona non grata and barred him from entering Moldova.

Rogozin is also Russia’s special representative to Transnistria, a breakaway region of Moldova that has remained close to Moscow since the fall of the Soviet Union.

Russia maintains a 1,200-strong military force in Trannistria although Moldova has repeatedly called for it to be replaced with international peacekeepers.

The government in Chisinau explained the decision by citing Rogozin’s controversial public statements about Moldova, its people and its leadership on July 28.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry summoned Moldova’s ambassador to Moscow on Wednesday to protest about the ban.

“Such precarious actions are irresponsible steps aimed at a deliberate undermining of bilateral Russian-Moldovan relations and may have a serious destabilising effect on the general situation in the region and in Europe as a whole,” the Russian ministry said in a press release.

Analysts believe more sanctions against Moldova are likely to follow.

The Romanian authorities on July 30 also banned a commercial flight that Rogozin was on from entering their country’s airspace.

Romania said that its decision to ban Rogozin from using the country’s airspace was based on EU sanctions against the Russian deputy premier.

Romanian Foreign Minister Teodor Melescanu said on Tuesday that Rogozin wanted to prove that EU sanctions against blacklisted Russian officials don’t work, which he described as “a big error”.

After Romania barred Rogozin’s overflight, the Russian deputy premier threatened Bucharest with retaliatory measures.

Rogozin has been targeted by US and European Union sanctions over his public support for Russia’s annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea. Under these sanctions, he is banned from entering EU countries.

Moscow also decided to ban fruit, cattle, beef and wine imports from Moldova in 2014, soon after the former Soviet country signed a deal making closer ties with the European Union.

Moldova was part of Romania before the Soviet Union annexed it during World War II. Before World War I, it was part of Tsarist Russia.

A landlocked country lying between Romania and Ukraine, most people in Moldova speak Romanian, although the country’s constitution calls the language Moldovan. Russian is also widely spoken.

Russia and neighbouring EU member Romania are vying for influence in Moldova, where reforms are needed to end corruption and depoliticise key institutions like the judiciary and police.

Moldovan politics is currently divided between a pro-Western government, which has run the country since 2009, and pro-Moscow President Igor Dodon, who wants Moldova back in Russia’s orbit.

Despite opposition President Barzani is standing firm on his decision to conduct the referendum as scheduled, hoping to realise Kurds’ dream.

By Ketan Mehta*

Iraqi Kurds are nearing a watershed moment. The President of the Kurdish regional government, Mr Masoud Barzani, has declared to conduct a referendum on September 25 to decide the fate of Iraqi Kurdistan. This is going to be watched closely by the world.

This great moment, however, seems to be dividing the Kurds, who make up for 16 percent of Iraq’s total population, on political lines. While Barzani’s Kurdistan Democratic Party wholly supports the referendum, other important Kurd political parties, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) and Gorran (change) are not so enthusiastic about the referendum. Though the PUK hasn’t unequivocally rejected the referendum call, it has instead put conditions before Barzani. While Gorran has asserted that the referendum does not represent the ambition of all the Iraqi Kurds.

Importantly, the referendum is also being opposed by Baghdad as well as regional powers — Turkey and Iran, while the United States and the European Union are yet to take a clear position, isolating Barzani further. After the US invasion in 2004, Baghdad had made a special constitutional arrangement to give Kurds region substantial autonomy. Since 2005, the region has experienced good economic boom. However, the Kurdish national aspiration was recently challenged by the zealous IS.

In fact, such a referendum could have been a huge success during the tyrant rule of the Ba’athists under Saddam Hussein or even post 2004 US invasion. But the situation began to change after Barzani’s KDP came to power in June 2005. As Barzani strengthened his grips on power and began to behave in dictatorial way, political opposition to him also started increasing and this too has resulted in the present opposition to the referendum.

In fact, the political scenario underwent a major change even as PUK and Gorran — the two prominent parties — united against the dominant KDP. The PUK was earlier an ally of the KDP, while Gorran was formed by Nawshirwan Mustafa, who was himself part of the PUK leadership. Though both the KDP and the PUK espouse Kurdish nationalism, the latter parted ways largely due to the growing authoritarianism of Barzani. This kind of political alliance has dealt a major blow to Kurdish political unity and divided Kurds in the referendum.

While the KDP has called for the referendum to decide the fate of the Kurdish nationalism, both the PUK and Gorran seem to prefer reconciliation with Baghdad. Iraq has had a history of turbulent relations with Kurdistan over issues like sharing of oil revenues, control over the territories liberated by the Kurds and now with KDP’s demand for referendum.

Contours of Kurdish nationalism

Contrary to the popular rhetoric, Kurds are divided along sectarian lines. Shia Kurds or Faili Kurds have had a hard time in becoming a part of a greater Kurdish Identity. Further, regional and tribal lines deepen existing schisms. That means Kurds are far from being a homogenous group. Their division manifested in the rivalry between the PUK and the KDP who fought for the control of Kurdish identity and territories. The civil war between the rival Kurdish factions in the aftermath of the Gulf war in 1991 had a deep impact on the Kurdish nationalism, which can be called as a modern phenomenon with elements of modernity like Kurdish language and the British Iraqi state playing a major role in its formation. Kurdish nationalism can be divided into three phases which witnessed the coalescing and fragmentation of political unity of the Kurds.

This phase deepened the gulf between the two major nationalistic parties. In 2014, the IS offensive in Iraq unleashed Kurdish nationalism, strengthening Kurdish resistance and the will to fight the IS. At this moment, cooperation (or the lack of it) among the Syrian and Iraqi Kurds seems to be well documented. The PYD (Democratic Union Party) had better relations with the KDP’s rival PUK, making the dynamics of Kurdish resistance complex and scattered. It was only in the historic siege of Kobane that Kurdish factions united and supported each other.

Today, the military operations against the IS have reached the fag end having left a much weaker Baghdad and an economically independent Iraqi Kurdistan. In this situation, the  referendum could again trigger something unexpected. In fact, the demand for independence also varies within the Kurdistan, where political parties might mobilise support against independence just for the sake of opposing the KDP.

Referendum and India

If Barzani and his party KDP goes ahead with the referendum, it would further deepen the schisms between the Kurds who till now had been fighting the state tyranny in Iraq, Turkey, and Syria. Within Iraq, it could augment the marginalisation of the Shia Kurds who are scattered all over the country. It is also wise to question the inclusion and safety of the ethnic and religious minorities residing in the Kurdish territories who today enjoy representation in the Iraqi parliament, post the referendum.

For the unity of Kurds, Barzani should take the PUK and  Gorran in confidence along with other regional and international actors. An independent but isolated Kurdistan would still have to depend upon Baghdad and other regional powers for its existence and security.  So, it is better to delay the referendum and wait for the internationally supported national reconciliation which undermines regionalism and sectarianism helping to construct a pervading Iraqi identity.

Hence, the referendum, if held as scheduled or later, is going to be symbolic and a sovereign Iraqi Kurdistan could trigger a more aggressive campaign by their counterparts in Turkey, Syria and Iran.

However, if a consensus within and outside Kurdistan is reached, it could open the gates for Indian businesses and expertise which would be driven by the reconstruction efforts post IS defeat. New Delhi could then emulate the approach it has taken in helping to rebuild the war-torn Afghanistan.

*The author is a Research Intern at Observer Research Foundation, Delhi

(Civil.Ge) — A large explosion occurred at the Abkhaz “defense ministry” armament warehouse in the area of village Arsauli (Primorskoye), Gudauta District.

Local media reported, citing eyewitnesses, that the explosion happened at around 16:30 on August 2.

Two Russian tourists from Saint Petersburg died as a result, when they were caught by the explosion during a horse trip in the area. Residents of surrounding areas were evacuated.

The Southern Military District of the Russian armed forces, which includes the Russian military base in Abkhazia, established an operational group of 150 troops to deal with the consequences of the explosion.

The region’s Russian-backed leader Raul Khajimba pledged to calculate and compensate for damages incurred, including to those from the Russian Federation.

As of the morning of August 3, 64 people were reported to be wounded as a result of the incident. According to the Abkhaz media, over 30 of them were Russian tourists.

Pew Research Center survey shows marked decline in approval in 35 nations for US President Trump and his policies.

By Bruce Stokes*

Though just six months old, Donald Trump’s presidency has already had a major impact on how the world views the United States. Trump and many of his key policies are broadly unpopular around the globe. And ratings for the United States have declined steeply in many nations, according to a Pew Research Center survey spanning 37 nations. The rare country where confidence in the nation has grown is Russia, while both Russians and Israelis express greater support for Trump than for his predecessor Barack Obama.

Criticism of the United States and its president for stubbornly rejecting trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership or policies that could stem climate change are an indicator of the lack of public will in many countries to have their leaders cooperate with the Trump White House.

A median of 22 percent in the survey has confidence in Trump to do the right thing when it comes to international affairs. This stands in sharp contrast to the final years of Barack Obama’s presidency, when a median of 64 percent expressed confidence in Trump’s predecessor. A median of 64 percent had a positive view of the nation in the last years of the Obama presidency. Today, just 49 percent are favorably inclined toward America.

The steepest decline in confidence in the US president has come mostly in advanced economies. But America’s image has also suffered in emerging markets and developing countries, where some of Trump’s proposed policies – his promise to build a wall on the Mexican border and efforts to restrict entry into the United States from Muslim-majority countries – are particularly unpopular.

A majority of Israelis, 56 percent, of Israelis and 53 percent of Russians – up from 11 percent – have confidence in the U.S, president. In Europe a median of just 18 percent has confidence in Trump to do the right thing regarding world affairs. The Canadians at 22 percent, Japanese at 24 percent and Australians, 29 percent, are barely more confident.

The president is not that much more popular in the rest of the world.

A median of 14 percent in Latin America express confidence in him. This includes 5 percent in Mexico, 12 percent in Chile and 13 percent in Argentina. In comparison, 49 percent of Mexicans had confidence in then Obama in his last year in office, along with 60 percent of Chileans and 40 percent of Argentines. Trump’s ratings are far closer to some of those given President George W. Bush in his last year: 16 percent in Mexico, 7 percent in Argentina.

Such disapproval of the US president in Latin America may, in part, be due to Trump’s policy to build a wall along the border between the United States and Mexico to stem the flow of undocumented immigrants. A median of 83 percent of Latin Americans disapproves of such plans. Not surprisingly, this includes 94 percent of Mexicans along with 89 percent of Colombians and 86 percent of Chileans. Moreover, Latin Americans express harsh judgments of Trump’s personality. A median of 82 percent suggests he is arrogant, 77 percent suggest he is intolerant and 66 percent state he is dangerous.

Low confidence in Trump has marred the US image in Latin America: 47 percent report a favorable view of Uncle Sam, reflecting a 36 percentage point decline in the US image in Mexico since the end of the Obama administration, a 29-point falloff in Chile and a 23-point drop in Brazil. This relationship between the image of the US and confidence in the president is sharply delineated in Mexico.

With the advent of the Obama era, faith in the US president and favorable views of the country rose in parallel. Now they have declined together.

A similar pattern is seen in sub-Saharan Africa, where a median of 50 percent has confidence in Trump. This includes 26 percent in Senegal and 39 percent in South Africa, while overall 56 percent in the region have a favorable view of the United States. Confidence in the US president is down 51 points in Senegal, 33 points in Ghana and 27 points in Tanzania. And although more than half the public in Ghana, Senegal and Tanzania expresses a positive view of America, such sentiment is down 30 points in Ghana, 25 points in Senegal and 21 points in Tanzania.

Much of this decline may be attributed to opposition to proposed Trump administration policies. Only roughly a third of the publics in sub-Saharan Africa favors Trump’s proposals to pull out of international climate change agreements, restrict entry to the US from some Muslim-majority countries and withdraw from major trade agreements. Notably, despite lukewarm feelings about Trump’s policies, a median of 61 percent of sub-Saharan Africans views Trump as a strong leader and 51 percent agrees he is qualified to hold his office.

Views of Trump and the US are low in the Middle East, except for Israel, where 56 percent have a positive opinion, up 7 points over Obama. In most of the region, views of America and its leader declined sharply during the Bush era and did not recover with Obama. Just 9 percent of Jordanians, 11 percent of Turks and 15 percent of Lebanese see Trump in a positive light. This is down 34 points in Turkey and 21 points in Lebanon from assessments of Obama. Much of this may be due to strong opposition to Trump’s proposed restrictions on the entry into the US of people from Muslim-majority countries: 96 percent of Jordanians and 88 percent of Lebanese disapprove of such plans.  But Trump’s image has done little to harm views of the United States in Lebanon and Jordan, where US favorability is low and relatively unchanged compared with the Obama era.

Only in Asia do publics in emerging and developing countries have a mixed view of the United States and its new president. In India, 40 percent have confidence in Trump, down 18 points from their view of Obama last year, and 45 percent voice no opinion, so Trump remains an unknown quantity for many on the sub-continent. Only 23 percent of Indonesians have faith in the US chief executive, down 41 points from their view of Obama, who spent a portion of his boyhood in the country. Views of the US are down 14 points in Indonesia and 7 points in India.

At the same time, Trump is relatively popular in both the Philippines, at 69 percent and Vietnam, 58 percent, both which give him his highest rating among the 37 nations surveyed. However, these assessments are lower than views of Obama, down 25 points in the Philippines and 13 points in Vietnam. Still, Filipino and Vietnamese judgments of Trump may be buoying opinions of the United States: 84 percent of Vietnamese and 78 percent of Filipinos have a favorable opinion of America, the highest rating for the nation in the 2017 Pew Research Center survey.

The nation’s image and global confidence in the US president suffered under the Bush administration after 2000, but recovered during Obama’s tenure. The Trump era began on a sour note throughout much of the world, including emerging and developing nations. During the Bush years, opposition to the United States and its leader often made it difficult for leaders of other nations to work with the United States on issues such as Iraq. So far, possibly aware of their citizens’ wariness of the Trump administration, many leaders are proceeding with their own plans on climate change, trade, and conflicts in Syria, Afghanistan and North Korea.

*Bruce Stokes is director of global economic attitudes at the Pew Research Center. 

By Balasubramaniyan Viswanathan

Kashmir has been on the boil for the past one year. The annals of Kashmiri history have not witnessed a bigger chaos than this; one can see a transition in the color of Kashmiri militancy, from Azaadi to an Islamic Caliphate. This transition is fueling vertical splits in Kashmiri militant groups which could translate into escalating violence levels in the future due to sibling rivalry. The situation appears to be conducive for groups such as Al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent (AQIS) to gain a toehold in Kashmir, and later in India, as there is an alignment of interests between AQIS and other local Kashmiri groups which support an Islamic Caliphate in Kashmir.

AQIS Takes Aim at Kashmir

In June 2017, Al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent released a “code of conduct” for its members to follow. This document, which was released by Al Qaeda (AQ)-linked media arm, As-Sahab Media Subcontinent, was widely circulated through pro-AQ social media platforms.

This latest message, in the form of a report, gives a clarion call to implement Sharia and also to unite other Jihadi groups under one single umbrella in the Indian subcontinent. It calls upon other jihadi groups to pledge allegiance to the Islamic State of Afghanistan. It states: “We will work with jihadi groups (that are independent from intelligence agencies influence) in India, Bangladesh and Arakan (Burma), based on these same principles.” The operational arc as outlined by this document encompasses India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Burma.

The document also lays its main targets which are as follows: “In Pakistan – US interests, military, police, and intelligence officials, the Government of Pakistan, Kafirs (infidels) who suppress Muslims. In India and Bangladesh – police and military officials, heads of Hindu separatist organizations. In Burma – the military and the armed Buddhist groups.”

This newest message is conspicuously different from previous messages released by AQIS. For one, there’s its newfound focus on India, particularly Kashmir. For example, a video message in March 2016 released by AQIS states its main targeting priorities as: “the United States; the military, intelligence, and security agencies in Pakistan; the Pakistani government; persons who extort Muslim businesses and kill Sunni reli­gious scholars and atheists, blasphemers and nonbelievers who actively oppose Islam.” Notwithstanding other direct messages aimed at Kashmir, the above AQIS document stands out as unique as it reflects their objective and purpose for the entire South Asian region. The reason for this focus, AQIS claims, is that the Indian state is the “fundamental obstacle” in the formation of an Islamic India.

Factoring the above, there is an imperative for Indian security planners to understand the timing of this release which would actually be germane to understanding the reasons and the possible impact of this newfound focus of AQIS on Kashmir.

Nationalists versus Islamists

Events preceding this latest release might have played a very important part in shaping the present focus and direction of AQIS.

Firstly, since Burhan Wani’s death last year, Kashmir has been in a state of turmoil. Burhan Wani’s first death anniversary was observed on July 8, 2017, and it was marred by clashes between the security forces and the Kashmiri militants. AQIS has repeatedly tried to leverage the turmoil created by Burhan Wani’s death. AQIS head Maulana Asim Umar has even released an audio recording eulogizing Wani during the anniversary last week.

Secondly, the split in the Hizbul Mujahideen’s ranks created following the departure of Zakir Musa is another important factor. Musa succeeded Burhan Wani as the commander of Hizbul Mujahideen, and he gave a clarion call to enforce Sharia in Kashmir in May 2017. Noticeably, Musa departed from Hizbul Mujahideen’s known position of fighting for Azaad Kashmir to Islamic Kashmir. Musa in his first address on implementing Sharia:

If Hurriyat has to run its politics it shouldn’t be a thorn in our way, otherwise we will chop off their heads. If you will be a thorn in our way, we will leave the infidels and kill you first. These have come to run politics. Our Kashmir war, particularly of the Mujahideen, is only to enforce Sharia. It is an Islamic struggle. The people need not be confused (sic).

Later in June 2017, Zakir Musa floated a new outfit, Taliban-e-Kashmir linked to the Al Qaeda. Zakir Musa on the first anniversary of Burhan Wani’s death in July 2017 stated: “Today the slogan of Shariayat or Shahadat (Islamic divine law or martyrdom) and Caliphate reverberating in Kashmir is because of the mentorship and guidance of Burhan Bhai” (sic). (This message was circulated widely through pro-Kashmiri telegram channels).

This sudden departure from “Azaad Kashmir,” rejecting nationalism to create an “Islamic Kashmir” or “Islamic rectification of the Kashmir struggle,” as the Taliban magazine Nawai Afghan Jihad calls it, has actually found some resonance with local Kashmiri youngsters as well as with AQIS, as it is in alignment with their already stated approach to implementing Sharia in Kashmir.

Against this background, the split in local militant ranks, especially in the Hizbul Mujahideen and the convergence of ideology between the emerging local groups and AQIS, presents AQIS with a window of opportunity to gain entry into India; the group has to date failed to mobilize Indian Muslims to conduct terror attacks within India.

A Wake-Up Call for India

This marriage of convenience would have serious ramifications for India’s internal security:

Integration into the regional jihadi theatre. Firstly, the Kashmiri freedom movement which has largely been relegated among its peer movement in other parts of the world such as the Palestine, Iraq, and Syria in the eyes of the Islamic community, especially the global jihadis, will find its recognition. This is due to the fact that there is a conflation of Sharia ideology between the international terrorist organizations which espouse extremist Islamic ideology and the various emerging Kashmiri militant groups such as those headed by Zakir Musa.

Attempts to highlight the Kashmiri struggle to outsiders on lines similar to Palestine, Sham (Syria), and Khorasan (Afghanistan) are already afoot in social media platforms linked to Kashmiri groups which support the establishment of an Islamic Caliphate in Kashmir. Even the semantics used in the messages appear to have undergone transition. Some of the telegram channels are trying to mimic or imitate jargon used on channels such as “Khilafah News” that propagate Islamic State ideology. Terms such as mushriqe (non-believers, referring to the Indian army as a “Hindu” army) and Kashmir as “Hindu-occupied Kashmir” are being repeatedly used in telegram channels supporting Islamic Sharia in Kashmir. Such channels are using terms such as Rahimullah and Hafizullah (while referring to the Mujahideens who have died or still waging jihad respectively).  This kind of terminology is widely used among telegram chats linked to Islamic State and Al Qaeda; it indicates a changing narrative adopted by emerging Kashmiri groups to appeal to the larger section of the Islamic community outside of India, and more particularly – to the jihadis outside India.

This is where AQIS stands to gain as it will find it less difficult at present to gain traction among the indigenous Kashmiri population compared to earlier occasions. AQIS’ primary focus is to integrate jihadi operations from Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, and Myanmar under one single umbrella in South Asia.

Integration of India, especially Kashmir into such a regional jihadi theatre will have serious consequences. It will ensure movement of men, materials, and money across these countries. Such an integration based on establishing an Islamic Caliphate in Kashmir will also increase patronage and will ensure that there is a steady flow of funds into Kashmir from outside India, apart from Pakistan, which has been the primary financier of militancy in Kashmir to date. Ground realities indicate that the concept of “Islamic Caliphate in Kashmir” has already earned support among other jihadi brethren.

Co-option and institutionalization. Two important things stand out from the AQIS document: the call for unity and the call for Sharia. AQIS’s invitation to other likeminded groups to merge or work with them in South Asia is in line AQ’s original objective of co-opting local terrorist networks. This was also emphasized while formally creating AQIS in September of 2014.  In doing this, AQIS intends to institutionalize the operational mechanisms with other smaller terrorists groups in South Asia.

Autonomous modules. Smaller groups such as Zakir Musa’s which are growing in numbers, will gravitate towards AQIS and act as an extended reach of AQIS in India. In the future, larger groups could be replaced with smaller autonomous modules owing allegiance to AQIS. Smaller modules are more efficient and highly difficult to interdict compared to larger groups such as the Lashkar-e-Toiba and Hizbul Mujahideen, as they tend to enjoy better advantages such as secrecy of operations and self-sufficiency.

These autonomous, self-contained groups could pose serious problems not only in Kashmir but also in other parts of India. There are already ominous signs of things to come in India. Last year, a small self-contained module owing allegiance to Al Qaeda, known as the ‘Base Movement’ was busted in Tamil Nadu. This cell was responsible for a series of bomb blasts in courts in Kerala, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. This cell did not have any direct links key AQ operatives, though it was inspired by AQ ideology. Similar episodes could well play out in the future in other parts of the country.

Spiraling sibling rivalries among jihadi groups. The swing toward Islamic Caliphate in Kashmir could actually intensify jihadi rivalries there. Groups such as Lashkar-e-Toiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed, and Hizbul Mujahideen, which strive for Azaad Kashmir supported by Pakistan, will be pitted against transnational groups such as the Islamic State and Al Qaeda respectively who strive for establishing an Islamic Caliphate in Kashmir. In that sense, AQ-linked Zakir Musa group will also directly take on other larger terrorists networks who fight for the nationalist cause. And add to this the existing bitter rivalry between Al Qaeda and the Islamic State elsewhere globally, both of which share Islamic Caliphate ideology. Each of these groups would try to up the ante against each other which would actually translate into spiraling violence in Kashmir. Groups linked to AQIS support Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, commonly referred to as Tahrir al-Sham, which opposes Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. This rivalry would actually play out in Kashmir as well.

Aggressive progenies. Finally, the nationalists vs. Islamic Caliphate debate is going to create vertical splits in larger groups. According to open source reports, Zakir Musa’s group has already succeeded in poaching a sizable number of recruits from other terrorist organizations operating in Kashmir, with estimated strength of 20 to 25 members. Splinter groups are far more ferocious and aggressive compared to their parents as they would try upstage their former allies by ramping up violence levels, thus attracting new recruits and funds.

Conclusion

Al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent may have just found the opening it has been looking for over the years to gain a foothold in India. Yet, AQIS may also find a bitter enemy in Islamic State and other jihadi groups rather than the Indian state. On one hand, we have groups which espouse a nationalist cause and on the other, groups which espouse the establishment of an Islamist Caliphate. There is no love lost among the groups advocating for an Islamist Caliphate in Kashmir. Thus, there is a vicious triangle of hatred and violence which is bound to escalate as each of these groups attempt to one-up the others.

To summarize, pro-Caliphate graffiti, photos of kids holding jihadist posters, and few armed young men may not mean anything to the Indian security establishment. Yet, if left unchecked, these trends could lead to a groundswell in the future against the Indian government. The Indian government needs to implement various measures in tandem, including the development of approaches such as providing opportunities to youngsters, fine-tuning existing surrender policies as well as organizational approaches such as leader liquidation and restricting funding sources to terrorist groups. In spite of the grave threat that this situation represents, it may also present the intelligence agencies with an opportunity to tap potential fissures among the groups, albeit at high human cost due to the potential for spiraling violence.

In the end, the present turmoil in Kashmir has not been witnessed ever since the militancy broke out. Recent incidents indicate that there is an orchestrated effort to change the color of militancy in Kashmir, i.e., one from Azaad Kashmir to Islamic Caliphate in Kashmir. A clarion call to establish Islamic Kashmir under Sharia may appeal not only to the Kashmiri youngsters but also to other jihadis outside India as well. As the Islamic State in Iraq and Levant is losing territory, the prospect of more and more of the wannabe jihadis looking for greener pastures is growing, and Kashmir could well become one of those greener pastures.

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