How does a pub make up for mistakenly trying to kick out a group of celebrating seminarians? By naming a beer after them and calling it the “Thirsty Priests.”

Tim Lewis is the PR Manager for Brains, the company which owns the City Arms Pub in Cardiff, Wales.

He said that re-naming one of the seminarian’s favorite beers was a small thank you for the group’s good humor in being mistaken as a bachelor party and nearly kicked out of City Arms Pub.

“We wanted to do something as a ‘thank you’ to the priests for taking the misunderstanding in such good spirits,” said Lewis, according to Wales Online.

Described as a “rich, warming ale with a clean, rewarding finish,” The Rev James beer was renamed the “Thirsty Priests,” with the added slogan “saving souls and satisfying thirsts.” It was added to the pub’s tap this past weekend.

While celebrating the July 29 ordination of Father Peter McClaren, a group of seminarians dressed in their cassocks entered the City Arms Pub, only to be turned away by staff members who mistook them for a bachelor party.

“The staff thought they were a stag. We do have quite a few issues on the weekends with parties wearing fancy dress so it is our policy to turn them away,” said assistant manager Matt Morgan, according to the BBC.

But as the seminarians were about to leave the bar, the manager overheard them praying, and, realizing the establishment’s mistake, invited the men back in for a round of beers on the house.

The seminarians took the error in good humor, and were warmly received by staff and customers for the rest of their time at the pub. The whole affair was amusing, noted the seminarians, and the men were encouraged by the positive interaction with the community – which also enabled the locals to engage the seminarians in questions about the Church.

Archbishop George Stack of Cardiff, who is also a fan of City Arms Pub, said he was happy to hear about the seminarians’ interaction with the community, noting that “Priests are of the community and for the community they serve.”

Adding to the amusement of the evening, one member of the group, Reverend Robert James – who was ordained a deacon last June – was partial to a beer resembling his own name. The Rev James, a popular ale on the bar’s menu, is now rebranded at the establishment in honor of the seminarians.

The Archdiocese of Cardiff applauded the pub for its good humor over the viral news, jokingly adding that “a number of our clergy, including the Archbishop of Cardiff, frequent your bar so don’t turf any more out please!”

Researchers from KAUST have been searching locally for plants that have potential for use to combat cancer. Now, three plants used for traditional medicine in Saudi Arabia are shown to be worthy of further investigation for anticancer properties.

Cancer is a leading cause of illness and death worldwide. In 2015, the World Health Organization (WHO) recorded 8.8 million cancer-related deaths, but almost twice as many cases are diagnosed each year. And the WHO predict that the number of cancer diagnoses is likely to continue to increase by about 70% for at least the next two decades due to growing longevity.

Seeking to expand the armory of cancer treatments — especially ones that are simple and inexpensive to manufacture — a team led by Timothy Ravasi and Christian Voolstra from KAUST has investigated the biological potential (bioactivity) of a range of plants used locally in traditional medicine.

Use of herbal medicines is common in Saudi Arabia, explains Ravasi’s PhD student, Dina Hajjar. “However, there are almost no scientific studies,” said Hajjar. “Saudi people tend to use information inherited from their families to decide about these plants without validated knowledge of their biological or chemical activity.”

The team initially investigated 52 plants before they homed in on three plants that showed promise — Juniperus phoenicea (known in herbal medicine as Arar or Phoenican juniper), Anastatica hierochuntica (known as Kaff Maryam or the Jericho rose) and Citrullus colocynthis (known as Hanzal or bitter cucumber).

The team used cell-based phenotypic profiling via imaging-based high-content screening to assess anticancer activity. This approach followed a technique developed in 2016 by Stephan Kremb and Christian Voolstra that uses a comprehensive marker panel with standardized settings — an efficient process that could potentially be easily adopted by other laboratories. This meant the team compared the cytological profiles of fractions taken from the plants with a set of reference compounds with established mechanisms of action.

This enabled the team to show, for the first time, that these three plants contain potent anticancer substances — topoisomerase inhibitors, which are compounds that can block the topoisomerase enzymes that control changes in DNA — that could be used to develop novel anticancer inhibitors.

There are many steps, however, before these compounds are properly tested and available for clinical treatments for cancer. “The active compounds identified in the study will need to be evaluated and better characterized,” said Hajjer. “Also, active compounds need to be synthesized and tested in vivo.”

This study proves the power of using imaging-based high-content screening in revealing information about the bioactivity of unknown natural resources. Hajjar added that it also highlights the opportunity for more exciting discoveries amongst the natural resources of Saudi Arabia.

The rotation rate of the Sun’s core has been accurately measured for the first time. The Sun, which has been remarkably stable for the past 4.6 billion years, is held together by the almost perfect equilibrium between the force of gravity, which tends to cause it to collapse, and the pressure of the thermonuclear reactions in its core.

Now, researchers working together with a team at the Laboratoire Lagrange (CNRS/Observatoire de la Côte d’Azur/Université Nice Sophia Antipolis) have determined that the Sun’s core makes a complete rotation once per week. Using the GOLF instrument, orbiting around the Sun on board the SOHO space observatory, to measure solar oscillations, they developed a novel approach that enabled them to unambiguously detect gravity oscillation modes within our star. This work, which will certainly stimulate a new era of research into the physics of the solar core, is published in the journal Astronomy & Astrophysics.

The Sun, which has been remarkably stable for the past 4.6 billion years, is held together by the almost perfect equilibrium between the force of gravity, which tends to cause it to collapse, and the pressure of the thermonuclear reactions in its core. The GOLF instrument, orbiting around the Sun on board the SOHO2 space observatory, measures solar oscillations, which carry information about the physical properties of its different layers.

Every ten seconds, GOLF, which has been orbiting our star for over twenty years, records an integrated signal of oscillations of the solar surface. Various teams analyze this flow of data with the aim of identifying the many oscillation modes exhibited by the Sun.

Now, researchers have successfully detected the Sun’s gravity modes. These are similar to waves in which gravity is the restoring force, such as waves on the surface of the sea, although in the Sun they can only exist in its very deepest layers. Since these oscillations are particularly difficult to observe, the researchers used the GOLF data in a novel way, by making use of a differential parameter of the acoustic oscillation modes, which are observable at the surface. This parameter measures the round trip time of acoustic waves traveling through the center of the Sun. The researchers detected the impact of gravity modes on them, thus demonstrating their existence.

The first result of this detection is that the researchers were able to accurately measure the mean rotation rate of the Sun’s thermonuclear core, about which little was previously known. The core makes a complete rotation in one week, which is 3.8 times faster than the outer and intermediate layers.

This work should stimulate much research in solar physics, making it possible to further refine models of the Sun’s birth, evolution, structure and chemical composition. In particular, the gravity modes indicate that there is a region at the boundary of the thermonuclear core where the speed varies enormously, which is not predicted by the standard model of the Sun. It will also stimulate discussion about the nature of a possible magnetic field in the Sun’s center.

Washington and Brussels’ response to foreign affairs challenges, as they face their own political and economic disasters and decline, has been to impose economic sanctions, boycotts and issue increasingly reckless military threats against rival nations. The ruling and main opposition parties in the US and EU have taken over the major media, turning ‘news programs’ into propaganda campaigns promoting violent power grabs (‘regime change’) and self- defeating trade wars.

Washington’s belligerency amounts to merely pounding on empty oil drums on behalf of the US oil giants. Overt hostility prepares for trade wars, military confrontations and possible regional conflagrations . . . where the US and EU will likely face even greater defeats.

Economic warfare is designed to impoverish nations and create a pretext for sowing internal discord and sabotage, especially through buying political candidates, organizing street mobs and recruiting military vassals.

Washington, hampered by its current internal divisions, is stumbling backwards and forwards towards major catastrophes. The oligarchs in Brussels face complex internal splits and even open rebellion, especially from the EU’s new members.

The referendum around ‘Brexit’ revealed a popular rebellion against decades of deepening class inequalities and the blatant financial power grab by the speculator-banker elite.

Central and Eastern European authoritarians are challenging the Brussels oligarchy. Powerful national bosses in Poland, Hungary and Slovakia have embraced Israel’s thuggish Prime Minister Netanyahu in a common move to weaken Brussels.

The break-up of internal cohesion in Washington and Brussels has led to more frantic efforts to externalize their problems, through warfare, in order to retain state power – a kind of ‘building capitalism for a few countries’.

In summary, the on-going break-up of the US-EU bloc has led to increasing reliance on economic warfare, with sanctions, boycotts and tariff walls to confront international trade competitors and regional rivals.

Washington and Brussels have targeted four major countries: Russia, China, Iran and Venezuela. The build-up for waging economic warfare includes daily hysterical demonization of these nations in the mass media, accompanied by the recruitment of regional clients, in order to buttress economic sanctions. The campaign of economic and ideological warfare is designed to provoke internal political divisions in the targeted country in the lead-up to a violent seizure of political power.

Russia: Economic Sanctions and Peripheral Wars

Washington and the European Union have pursued a two-pronged strategy against Russia: On the one hand, they have encircled Russia with NATO and US bases, ships, missile installation, cyberwar centers and communications/spy outposts and troop exercises from the Baltics to Ukraine, Georgia and beyond. On the other hand, they slapped draconian trade sanctions on Russian import and export of military and civilian technology, energy and mining companies, machine goods, agriculture and other commodities, as well as sanctioning individuals, their family members and confiscating Russian property. The openly stated strategic goal is to create such chaos and deprivation that the Russian people will violently overthrow the Putin presidency and restore Russia to vassal status. With a new pliable set of puppet oligarchs in the Kremlin, the West would resume pillaging the country’s resources and wealth, as it did so brazenly during the 1990’s.

The sanctions and military threats have so far boomeranged back onto the West, with the possible exception of the US-EU organized coup in the Ukraine. Economic sanctions have convinced the Russian government and people to redirect their resources to reindustrialize and diversify the economy, substituting local production and increasing agricultural self- sufficiency: In other words, expanding and stabilizing the internal market.

Furthermore, Russia increased its trade and strategic linkages to China and Iran, while retaliating against the EU by cutting off agricultural imports from Poland and Georgia, thereby punishing those farm export sectors. The US-NATO effort to encircle Russia boomeranged: Moscow incorporated the ethnic Russian-majority Crimea (with its strategic Black Sea naval bases) back into Russia via a well organized popular referendum and expanded its military bases and strategic cooperation with the government of Syria, leading to Damascus victory over the terrorist Wahhabi mercenaries. The EU’s own energy companies, especially in Germany and Italy, where millions are dependent on cheap Russian oil and gas imports, have repeatedly violated the US-imposed sanctions.

The brutal power grab in Ukraine brought a weak, decadent oligarch-regime to power, surviving on Western handouts. The putsch-regime in Kiev oversees an increasingly fractured nation – the new face of ‘Western Democracy’.

The resort to weird propaganda ploys, accusing Vladimir Putin of ‘rigging’ the US Presidential elections, has paralyzed US domestic policy, turning Washington into an insane asylum of continental dimensions. Major domestic crises, like the opioid addiction epidemic, which has killed over 500,000 Americans since 1999, go unaddressed, as the politicians and media froth at the mouth in a display of synchronized Russophobia.

US and EU Sanctions and China: Biting the Hand that Feeds

Washington and the EU have repeatedly threatened to impose sanctions on China’s manufacturing exports and retaliate harshly for Beijing’s state policy of financial controls.

Under Obama and Trump, Washington installed anti-missile radar systems in South Korea, clearly aimed at China. The Pentagon sent a naval armada to harass Chinese vessels in the South China Sea. They sold a billion dollars worth of offensive military hardware to the government in Taiwan, while backing separatists in Hong Kong and Tibet, as well as the violent jihadis in western China. US planes have flown over Chinese military airbases and port installations on the islands claimed by China in the South China Sea. Currently, Washington is threatening to invade North Korea, one of China’s trading partners.

Economic sanctions and saber rattling notwithstanding, China continues to advance with giant steps: expanding its economic links through its global investment agreements with sixty countries. It has successfully launched the multi-hundred-billion dollar ‘Silk Road Economic Belt and Maritime Silk Road’ project of railways, roads, ports and other vital infrastructure linking China with its markets in Southeast and Central Asia through to the Middle East, Russia, Europe and beyond. This massive project is currently transforming entire regions and creating millions of jobs and thousands of markets.

Despite Obama and Trumps’ threats, hundreds of US and EU multi-nationals, especially auto manufacturers, are anxious to increase their investments in China and sign lucrative new joint ventures.

Chinese multi-nationals continue to invest and buy firms in the US, EU, South America and Oceania. Chinese imports of the most advanced technology have strengthened its links with Silicon Valley and Germany.

In contrast, the US trade deficits with China are more a result of the parasitic financialization of the US economy, than any lack of Chinese reciprocity.

Faced with US military encirclement, China has doubled its military spending in recent years, building its first-ever overseas base in Africa, while strengthening its military co- operation with Russia – including massive joint exercises.

In a word, the blowback of this sanction mania has mainly damaged US and EU import- export companies and investors while marginalizing UE-EU capitalists from participating in China’s enormous global infrastructure projects and the emerging regional markets.

While the newly elected government in South Korea has made tentative moves toward de-escalating tensions with the North, attempting to freeze the US THAAD-missile program aimed at China and installed unilaterally while South Korea was undergoing a major constitutional crisis, and mend economic fences with China, the US (with the California coast over 5800 miles to the east) is fomenting war on the peninsula.

With China’s estimated annual growth of 6.7% for 2017 (compared to 2% in the US), it is clear that policy of sanctions and military encirclement is failing.

US-EU Sanctions and Iran

The US is openly violating its nuclear agreement with Iran by imposing new economic sanctions despite the absence of any evidence that Iran has been un-cooperative. The US threatened US, EU and Chinese oil and banking interests, and pushed policies promoted by the militaristic Israel Firsters who dictate Washington’s Middle East policy. The US has joined with Israel and Saudi Arabia in labeling Iran and its allies in Syria, Lebanon and Palestine as ‘terrorists’.

The sanctions policy has not worked: Iran continues to sign oil exploration and export agreements with the Chinese, EU and Russian oil companies. It is increasing trade with China and plays a major role in OPEC.

Aggressive Israeli and US-Zionist threats have pushed Iran to expand its long and middle range (non-nuclear) missile program while strengthening its military alliance with Russia and Syria.

Iran’s humanitarian aid for Yemen, working to assist millions of Yemenis faced with mass starvation and a horrific cholera epidemic deliberately caused by Saudi Arabia with US and Israeli complicity, has won worldwide admiration and exposed the barbaric nature of the Saudi monarchy throughout the Muslim world.

US violations of its agreements have strengthened Iranian nationalists and weakened pro-Western, neo-liberal currents. No ‘color revolution’ to install a Persian puppet is possible under the daily threat of attack from the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia.

In sum, Iran has more than overcome US sanctions by forging new alliances while reducing US influence regionally and domestically. Iran’s support for Syria has undercut Saudi-US-Israeli backed Wahhabi-terrorists-mercenaries and strengthened the cause of secular, non-sectarian Arab nationalism. Washington’s hardline anti-Iranian policies have backfired. Iran has diversified its economic ties and strengthened its military defenses. Meanwhile the US remains isolated and subject to the dictates of the Jewish state and its hysterical incompetent agents in Washington.

US and Sanctions on Syria

While US and EU sanctions and proxy-military interventions have devastated Syria with the murder of hundreds of thousands Syrians and the displacement of millions of refugees, it clearly failed to achieve its stated strategic goal – ‘regime change’ and the imposition of a client government in Damascus.

Indeed, millions of uprooted, desperate Syrians have fled to the EU, creating a massive refugee and security problem.

Terrorists, including thousands of EU and US citizens, were recruited and trained by the security forces of the EU-US to overthrow the Syrian government. They have been driven from Syria and are increasingly turning their deadly skills against targets in Western Europe.

Syrian defense ties with Russia have consolidated the long-term Russian presence in the Middle East and strengthened strategic ties with Iran and the powerful Hezbollah Party (Lebanon’s ruling coalition partner).

The miserable defeat and retreat of the US bankrolled Wahhabi terrorists convinced President Trump to cut-off military, financial and training support for such a ‘lost cause’ and seek a viable joint US-Russian sponsored cease-fire agreement in southern Syria. US sanctions inflicted a murderous burden on the Syrian people and society but left the government in Damascus intact. After spending scores of billions of dollars equipping and training ISIS and Al Queda mercenaries, the proxy military intervention has not resulted in its stated goal of regime change – it has extended and expanded Syria’s alliances with Russia, Iran and Lebanon, and exposed the brutal incompetence of US-EU-Saudi-Israeli Middle East policy.

EU and US intervention ruined Syria but failed to rule the targeted nation. Paradoxically, it inflamed tensions with the Turkish government and military by choosing to back the Kurdish secessionist militias on its borders. It intensified domestic anti-immigrant and rightist movements in the EU and US, threatening their own ‘clubby’ governing coalitions.

In the end, military intervention and economic sanctions provoked global nuclear tensions without securing any of the stated strategic goals in the Middle East.

Sanctions and Intervention: Venezuela

For the past 15 years, the US, with support from the EU, has waged covert and overt political and military campaigns to overthrow the Chavista government. Prior to the collapse of the global oil price, this was met with little success. Now, the fall of regional allies, the rise of rightist regimes and the economic vulnerabilities of the Venezuelan mono-economy are threatening the government in Caracas.

In 2002, Washington and the EU backed a failed military-business coup. This was followed by a failed bosses oil lockout in 2003. Washington then supported a failed electoral boycott in 2005 and backed a series of unsuccessful presidential candidates and opposition congressional parties – until 2015.

Meanwhile, US has backed cross-border attacks by Colombian gangster-paramilitary groups against Venezuelan towns and land reform settlements. Its ‘Democracy’ NGO’s have promoted the terrorist sabotage of oil fields, power plants and public transport systems, as well as clinics and police stations.
Repeatedly, the Chavista forces successfully defeated US-backed terrorist sabotage and referendums.

However, the oil price crash over the last three years has changed the socio-economic correlation of forces. Declining income from its oil exports have cut Venezuela’s imports of vital food, medicine and manufactured goods.

The US escalated its special operations, providing financing and training via self-styled ‘non-governmental organizations’ (NGOs) to opposition parties and violent ‘pro-democracy’ gangs.
The private retail, banking and transport sectors have paralyzed production and consumption through artificial shortages (hoarding), black market activity, speculation and massive overseas transfers of foreign currency.

Unlike other successful governments targeted by the US and EU with sanctions and sabotage, Venezuela has remained incapable of substituting production and diversifying its economy. It did not clamp down on hostile NGO groups, nor did it effectively confront violent street protests and capture the terrorists who attacked and assassinated police and military officials, government workers and civilian supporters of the Chavista government.

As the crisis deepened, the US and EU mass media repeatedly called for a military coup or ‘regime change’ backed by ‘strong international (sic) efforts’, thinly coded language for a US-led invasion in collaboration with the far right regimes of Colombia, Brazil and Argentina.

US-funded street thugs have intimidated bus company owners, small business people, and professionals – and especially targeted public employees who lived in neighborhood with a strong opposition presence, forcing them to close businesses or flee.

Economic sanctions have escalated with open US government threats to seize Venezuelan refineries located in the US (CITGO) and freeze its overseas assets.

CIA and Pentagon operatives have attempted to penetrate the military to ‘turn them’ against the constitutionally legitimate government through bribes and threats against their families.
The prospects of civil war is reaching a crescendo in late July 2017, as the government fought back convoking and winning free elections for a constituent assembly to elect representatives, based on class and community interests, to counter the US-business-controlled Congress, which has been at war with the Presidency. The US and its local and overseas collaborators threaten a total blockade with the seizure of overseas assets leading to a possible civil war and invasion.

Any US-backed war in Venezuela will bring the most retrograde racist oligarchs to power and will result in mass slaughter of the poor and lower middle classes who had benefited from the Chavista social programs, the assassination of their leaders, teachers, intellectuals, artists and activists, the destruction of the economy and wide-spread hunger and disease, in other words, a nightmarish ‘Libyan solution on the Caribbean’. The US may turn back social democracy, but Venezuelan revolutionaries will fight on for their very lives.

Conclusion

The US and the EU have launched major economic and military attacks against Russia, China, Iran and Venezuela. With the exception of Venezuela, imperialist aggression has been defeated and overcome, and the three have registered substantial strategic gains.

Sanctions have boomeranged on their imperialist authors and led to new partnerships and alliances, the diversification of these dynamic economies and stronger defense systems.

The US has taxed and spent well beyond the capacity of its own future generations and yet has lost on the key battlegrounds in Asia and the Middle East. China’s monumental Eurasian infrastructure program stands in stark contrast to the spectacle of lonely US battleships circling rock piles in the South China Sea and US fighter jet parked on isolated airfields of northern Australia. We can pity poor schizophrenic Australia, whose chief trade partner is China, kowtowing to the militarists in Washington while hoping Beijing will look the other way.

The US Congress imposed additional economic sanctions against Russia to drive a wedge between the US and the EU (Germany) as Putin’s economic recovery takes off and the vast Russian market attracts Berlin’s industrialists.

The Zionist-dictated Congressional sanctions against Iran may satisfy Israel’s appetites for another US-Middle East war (to be fought with more American blood and treasure), but the US military command and the vast majority of US citizens are staunchly against another quagmire.

It should be crystal clear to any rational observer: Sanctions do not work against powerful global powers with diversified economies, strong leaders, world markets, resources and skilled workers. Military threats of aggression are turned away by developing defensive strength, including nuclear weapons and intercontinental missiles. However the US policy- making elite, especially in the Democratic Party, is anything but rational.

Iran has formidable regional allies and its battle-hardened armed forces possess medium range missiles capable of striking US regional allies, especially Israel and Saudi Arabia and US bases in the Gulf.

None of these three regional or global powers are susceptible to internal subversions via ‘color revolutions’, NGO sabotage, mass media propaganda or thug-led street violence.

Only Venezuela is vulnerable because the Chavista government did not take the opportunity to diversify its oil dependent economy when oil prices were at a historic high. Furthermore, it tolerated the activities of US funded NGO, which worked with violent coup- fomenting ‘political’ parties and gangs. It kept its reserves and assets within the US and failed to take control of the commanding heights of its national banking system. Despite its mass popular support, the Chavista government allowed the entry of corrupt opportunists into the government and saw the rise of a new class of capitalist speculators diverting oil profits to overseas private accounts.

In summary, US sanctions and military threats can be defeated and converted into victories. Vulnerability, when recognized, can be converted into strength, provided the political leadership has the vision, capacity, resources and strategy to do so.

By Dr Subhash Kapila*

Afghanistan’s renewed significance in United States geopolitical calculus in 2017 seems to be impelled by the challenge of Afghanistan becoming the cockpit of global power games with the surfacing of the China-Pakistan-Russia Trilateral.

In the United States with President Trump having assumed office in 2017 and inheriting a legacy of a destabilised Afghanistan largely due to Pakistan Army’s proxies is now set and determined to impart a new significance to Afghanistan in United States geopolitical calculus. This stands noticeably manifested by reports that President Trump in a change of strategy has decided to give US Military Commanders unfettered freedom in execution of US military operations to restore stability and success of operations in Afghanistan.

US President Trump has reportedly rejected a report by a US think-tank suggesting outsourcing US stability operations to private security contractors. On the other hand an initial surge of US Forces has been ordered. Notably, the US National Security Adviser has been able to persuade the President that no change of appointment should take place to replace General Nicholson, Commanding General of US & NATO Forces in Afghanistan. Both these indicators suggest a stiffening of US responses to Pakistan Army’s intensifying proxy war in Afghanistan and any Pakistani derivatives from the Trilateral.

Repeatedly stressed in my past SAAG Papers on Afghanistan that American lack of success in Afghanistan was not due to lack of professional competence of successive US Commanders or the fighting capability of US Forces but due to factors beyond the control of the US Commanders. The first major factor was micro-management of military operations by the Washington political establishment. The second major factor was US political establishment giving disproportionate importance and primacy to Pakistan Army’s sensitivities on Pakistan. This many a time led to United States devaluing Afghanistan’s Presidency and in the process impeding success of US operations.

From 2017 onwards one can expect a resurgence of United States military operations in Afghanistan with a surge of US Forces. In tandem going by recent statements of both the President and his National Security Adviser, we may now witness Pakistan being called to account for its proxy destabilisation operations in Afghanistan.

The United States could have possibly been accommodative to the China-Pakistan-Russia-Trilateral had it been aimed at restoring stability in Afghanistan in tandem with the United States sustained efforts to do so. However, the China-Pakistan-Russia Trilateral attempted to exclude the United States from their so called political intervention in Afghanistan in the first few months of its Summits. The Trilateral also excluded Afghanistan too likewise. This aroused legitimate doubts of the true motives of the Trilateral more focussed on altering the geopolitical balance in Afghanistan than contributing to its stability.

More significantly, if China and Russia had been genuinely interested in contributing to the restoration of stability in Afghanistan then both of these Major Powers, and China in particular, would have come down heavily on Pakistan for not controlling Taliban and Haqqani brothers insurgency and suicide bombings in Afghanistan.

On the contrary as pointed out by me in my previous SAAG Papers on the subject that the incidence of proxy war by Pakistan Army affiliates in Afghanistan increased lately with Pakistan secure in the belief that no restraint would be applied by China and Russia as the three nations of the Trilateral aimed at prompting the exit of the United States from Afghanistan.

Herein lies the challenge for the United States and President Trump as a renewed and reinforced US military effort is put into place to bring about stability and peace in Afghanistan. Once again, as in the past 16 years the challenge posed to US efforts in Afghanistan would emanate from Pakistan.

Pakistan is no longer in the American orbit and in 2017 stands freed from United States strategic and financial strings. Pakistan Army can be expected to now openly and more brazenly oppose United States efforts in Afghanistan. This time with a renewed vigour aided and prodded by China and Russia.

This is something which the United States establishment, both civil and military has to recognise. The United States desire to retain Pakistan’s friendship even though tenuous in 2017 cannot be a pretext to condone Pakistan Army’s destabilising strategies in Afghanistan. This time around the United States has to come down hard on Pakistan Army if the US intends to restore stability in Afghanistan.

The United States cannot overlook that China has had long links with the Taliban and Russia is now providing military supplies to the Taliban additionally. Reports have also surfaced that Iran sensing the vacuum caused by a stalemate in US military operations has commenced links with the Taliban and some suggest Iranian military supplies too.

In conclusion, it therefore it now becomes apparent in 2017 that the US President now has to tackle a military adverse situation in Afghanistan brought about by the China-Pakistan-Russia Trilateral and also US premature declarations in bygone years of its impending withdrawal of US Forces. President Trump has four years of his Presidency to ensure military success of US Forces by delegating operational decision-making freedom to US Commanders and political and military chastening of Pakistan—the fountainhead of destabilisation operations in Afghanistan aimed at prompting exit of US Forces from the region.

*Dr Subhash Kapila is a graduate of the Royal British Army Staff College, Camberley and combines a rich experience of Indian Army, Cabinet Secretariat, and diplomatic assignments in Bhutan, Japan, South Korea and USA. Currently, Consultant International Relations & Strategic Affairs with South Asia Analysis Group. He can be reached at drsubhashkapila.007@gmail.com

By Kazi Anwarul Masud

For the third time Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has been thrown out. In Pakistan where the army has wielded- directly or indirectly- more or less absolute power since the partition of India in 1947 the news of Nawaz Sharif’s ouster is not a tectonic shift in the politics of the country but more or less expected since former cricketer Imran Khan, leader of Tehrik-e-Insaf started his agitation for Sharif’s resignation when his and his family’s name came out in the now famous Panama Papers.

The Supreme Court of Pakistan in its judgment pronounced: Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif is not honest in terms of Section 99(f) of ROPA ( Representative of Peoples’ Act 1976) and Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, therefore, he is disqualified to be a Member of the Parliament;(ii) The Election Commission of Pakistan shall issue a notification disqualifying Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif from being a Member of the Parliament with immediate effect, where after he shall cease to be the Prime Minister of Pakistan.

Nawaz Sharif’s fault was his failure to disclose his un-withdrawn receivables from a UAE registered firm in his nomination papers for the General Elections held in 2013 thus making him dishonest under ROPA and the constitution of Pakistan and consequent disqualification to be a member of Parliament. British paper The Guardian in an editorial mentioned the fate of a few others named by the Panama Papers. The Panama Papers sparked the resignation of Iceland’s Prime Minister within days while David Cameron came under intense scrutiny over his family’s tax affairs. While Malta is dealing with the fallout unofficial estimate puts Nawaz Sharif’s wealth in billions of US dollars. The exact amount, if any, would be revealed by the committee set up by the Pakistani Supreme Court to investigate the allegations.

While corruption cannot be supported on ethical and legal grounds, more so when millions of people in developing countries ( a term popularized by economist Walt Whitman Rostow as underdevelopment signified countries having less money, less literacy rate, less life expectancy etc) live in sub-human conditions, undeniably corruption is an integral part of politics as evidenced by reports of Bretton Woods Institutions, Transparency International and scores of other reputed institutions. Only a few days back Bangladesh Supreme Court declaring the 16th amendment of Constitution as null and void stated : “It is expected in a country run by constitutional democracy that the following indispensable constituents would exist: (a) purity of election, (b) probity in governance, (c) sanctity of individual dignity, (d) sacrosanctity of rule of law, (e) independence of judiciary, (f) efficiency and acceptability of bureaucracy, (g) credibility of institutions like judiciary, bureaucracy, Election Commission, Parliament, (h) integrity and respectability of those who run those institutions,”.

The point to be driven home is that corruption, be it small or big, should not go unchallenged and should be judged under due process of law as one of the constituents of democracy that would make the authorities accountable to the people. The New York Times (July 24 2017) in a piece referred to the way corruption has spread in Pakistan. NYT wrote “Here’s how to get filthy rich in Pakistan: manipulate the law, get bank loans written off, use irregular accounting practices, evade tariffs and taxes and exploit labor. Mr. Sharif and his family are no different from others who are filthy rich, some of whom have joined Mr. (Imran) Khan’s P.T.I.”

One wonders if it rings a bell in Bangladesh. An English language daily reported (Bangladeshis money in Swiss Banks) that Bangladeshi nationals’ deposits in Swiss banks rose more than twenty percent year-on-year in 2016 to 661.96 million Swiss francs or Tk 5,575 crore (10 million is one crore).The Swiss National Bank (SNB) revealed the data in its annual report titled “Banks in Switzerland 2016”.The amount was Tk 4,423 crore in 2015 and Tk 4,283 crore in 2014. The deposits went up in case of Bangladesh despite an ongoing global clampdown on the famed secrecy wall of Swiss banking system. The report, however, does not shed light on the alleged black money held by Bangladeshis. Global Financial Integrity (GFI), a Washington-based research organization, that gives a comprehensive picture about money laundered out of a country stated that Bangladesh lost between $6 billion and $9 billion to illegal money outflows in 2014. In another report GFI stated that more than $57 billion has left the country illicitly between 2004 and 2013., According to the Malaysian High Commission in Dhaka Bangladesh is among the top three countries eligible to avail itself of the “Malaysia my second home (MM2H)” programme and as many three thousand Bangladeshis have so far taken advantage of the offer. According to Malaysian requirements for making Malaysia “my second home” it is estimated that around Tk 35.66 billion (3,566 crore) has been taken out of the country by those who want to settle in Malaysia. The reference to Bangladesh situation is only to highlight the fact that the co-existence of money with power is there in many developing countries all over the world and some developed countries as well.

One could infer that departure of Nawaz Sharif would affect Indo-Pak relations to a significant extent as Sharif decided against the reported wishes of the Pakistani establishment to attend the swearing ceremony of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Modi’s visit to Pakistan. But then the course of improvement, if any, was derailed by Pakistan sponsored terrorism in India and incidents in recent years in Mumbai, the Pathankot and Uri, beheading of Indian soldiers in the front lines, and continuing infiltration by Pak sponsored terrorists across the line of Control in Kashmir. Indo-Pak relations got fresh attention during Narendra Modi’s recent visit to the USA. The official joint statement made several references to Pakistan, notably a call for Pakistan to “ensure that its territory is not used to launch terrorist attacks on other countries,” and to “bring to justice the perpetrators of the 26/11 Mumbai, Pathankot, and other cross-border terrorist attacks.”

The US for the first time designated Hizbul Mujahideen chief Syed Salahuddin as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist. Indian Foreign Ministry termed the US position as “the strongest joint expression of the commitment of the two sides” on fighting terrorism. About a decade back Daniel Markey (Foreign Affairs-July/August 2007) had suggested that the choice facing the US “between supporting Pakistan’s army and promoting democracy has always been a false one. Both are necessary. Only by helping to empower civilians and earning the trust of the army at the same time will the United States successfully prosecute the long war against extremism and militancy”. It has been argued in favor of Daniel Markey’s premise that societies like that of Pakistan burdened with the attributes of tribalism preclude fairness and justice to the people. Added to this feudalistic character of the society is the constant fear of Hindu India overrunning smaller (but nuclear) Pakistan. It has been suggested that the Pakistan army and its intelligence agency-ISI’s- retention of ties with the militants and Taliban sympathizers have been done as a hedge against abandonment by the US in case of an Indo-Pak conflict. Besides given the Pakistan army and its intelligence services’ long standing relationship with the Islamists they were never serious about fighting terrorists.

Despite common belief that the Taliban are still present in Pakhtunkhwa (Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas- FATA) and that Osama bin Laden was(later proved to be false) living in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region, some South Asian experts advised that the US administration to broaden its relations with the army as a constant in the power politics of Pakistan and even if a civilian government were to come to power it will have to negotiate its perilous relationship with the army. Ayesha Siddiqa(Military Inc ) wrote that “the military’s power allows it to define its economic interests and exploit public and private resources, a behavior that increases the organization’s appetite for power”. Siddiqa’s contention was strengthened by the belief that Pakistan military would not accept any dilution of power, however tainted some elements of the army remain of Islamist extremism and Jihadist ideology.

The future of Pakistan would be better served by a choice between the military and the democrats and not the military and the Mullahs as constantly propagated by the vested quarters. According to some the Deobandi ascendancy in Paktunkhwa, Baluchistan and Afghanistan created an Islamist-Pathan belt stretching from Kandahar to Quetta to Peshawar. Does it necessarily mean the ascendancy of the Islamists in Pakistan? Though Pakistan is a deeply religious Islamic country the past elections have shown that the Islamists have not fared well at the polls. Therefore the Western hope of establishing in some parts of Pakistan of a form of secular government may not be ill founded. Obstacles to deliberative and liberal democracy remain in the feudal structure of the Pakistani society and the extent of illiteracy in the country that prevent the general public of knowledge of their rights and privileges written in the Constitution and in various laws. In this case ignorance of the general public is bliss for the military rulers who often regard laws and rules with utter contempt.

Stephen Cohen in his book The Idea of Pakistan grappled with the description that can be given to Pakistan–‘rogue state’, ‘a delinquent nation’, ‘Taliban East’ a ‘failing state’ or just ‘misunderstood but an effective US ally’. Cohen argues that the state of Pakistan today is the unresolved question about Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s secular Pakistan or the Islamist Pakistan that the country is heading. In this quarrel Pakistan army has always projected itself as the only protector of Jinnah’s ideology though effectively their role could not have been further from a secular and democratic state. Apologists have given many reasons for the prominence of the army-the part forming Pakistan- inherited the lion’s share of “martial race” of British India; death of Mohammad Ali Jinnah and first Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan and the armed forces being better organized took over the leadership; hostile relationship with Afghanistan which cast the only vote against Pakistan’s admission into the UN and with India; and the global environment which saw India as a leader of the Non-aligned Movement and Pakistan as member of SEATO and CENTO. In the wake of escalating Cold War the Americans wanted strong military rulers like Ayub Khan to rule Pakistan. Second time the US intervened in the wake of defeat in Vietnam War to take revenge against the USSR in Afghanistan by supporting Zulfikar Ali Bhutto who was not the US’ first choice as Bhutto realized the disastrous potential consequences of the US involvement in Afghanistan resulting in a switch to General Zia ul Huq who hanged Bhutto on trumped up charges. Then in 1999 General Pervez Musharraf overthrew Nwaz Sharif mainly because of Nawaz Sharif’s desire to bring civilian control over the army; army’s dislike of Sharif’s policy to transform hostile relations with India; and no less importantly Sharif’s reneging on his promise to let General Parvez Musharraf leave Pakistan to avoid being found guilty of treason in ongoing trial.

Going back a few years one may recall that Pakistan Supreme Court legalized each of the three successful military coups-1958, 1977 and 1999. The audacity of then Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani’s description of the army being “a state within a state” and for allowing Osama bin Laden to live in Pakistan for several years without keeping the civilian government informed cost him his job. Such boldness by a civilian was difficult to stomach for the army and Yusuf Raza Gilani had to go. Husain Haqqani, a former Pakistani ambassador to the US has argued against Pakistan’s “singular focus on its disputes and problems with India, and looking upon the United States as a source of money and weaponry to pursue its conflict with India. The American interest in Pakistan has essentially been to take advantage of Pakistan’s geostrategic location –primarily a transactional relationship– and there have been many moments when both parties felt that the other had not kept its end of the bargain. After 9/11, says Haqqani,Pakistan had a new opportunity to try and be useful to the United States and received large amounts of economic and military assistance in return for that usefulness. The discovery of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan essentially convinced an overwhelming majority of Americans that Pakistan cannot be a reliable ally.. Haqqani advises that Pakistan needs to reorient its foreign policy and mend fences with India. It is doubtful whether such advice would be heeded by the Pakistani establishment.

Generations of Pakistanis have been sold to the idea that India remains the preeminent enemy of Pakistan which particularly after Bangladesh liberation war has buried into the grave the two nations theory the raison d’être of the existence of Pakistan. While North Korea remains an immediate threat to the world Indo-Pakistan rivalry (both nuclear powered nations though Pakistan does not have the economic strength to pursue a long war with India) remains an existential threat to the peace and progress of the world. The Damocles sword hanging over the head of Nawaz Sharif could, depending on the unpredictability of the Pakistani establishment, could very well be hanging over all of us.

On May 15, 2015, India and China came out with a joint statement acknowledging the simultaneous re-emergence of both the nations as major regional powers. This event was termed as heralding the beginning of the Asian Century in international geopolitics.

The bilateral relationship between India and China influences and has repercussions both within South and East Asia and globally. If their rise to power is achieved in a mutually supportive manner, it would ensure security. These are noble sentiments. However, two years downstream, the status of these opportunistic ideas is dubious.

India-China bilateral relations cannot be judged through the lens of an extended period of equanimity or of superficial bonhomie. It transcends definition, both in context and timeframe, encompasses myriad parts and is almost completely influenced by the past and the present of both the nations. It is obvious that the current trajectory will be projected into the future, where both convergence and divergence of interests is bound to take place. Both the nations are tied down by their individual rich historical and cultural traditions, which cannot be willed away. The past will always be a backdrop for the present.

The present is what is. It cannot be compromised by the government of the day because of real-time consequences of actions that are initiated or carried out in a reactive mode. Both nations are wary of the popular backlash against the leadership to actions inimical to the nation’s interests, actual or perceived, which could have dire domestic consequences. The future is equally contentious. Both the nations aspire to power—regionally and globally—and have growing economic clout. They are on track to soon become the second and third largest economies of the world. These are not aspirational projections, but based on actual figures.

Then came the Belt and Road Forum, as part of China’s One Belt One Road (OBOR) initiative, which India boycotted for its own reasons. The call for peaceful cooperation and simultaneous rise to powerful status and to herald the 21 century as the Asian Century, vanished almost overnight.

The Immediate Past and the Present

This analysis will not go into the details of the Chinese annexation of Tibet or the Dalai Lama having been given refuge in India, both of which are issues of lingering contention between the two countries.
Both India and China face common challenges that could derail their focused march towards economic power that they feel will lead to global status as powerful nations of influence. These common issues are: ensuring a balanced domestic growth that benefits all the people; controlling the rural to urban migrations that is unbalancing the development pattern; providing holistic governance that ensures law and order and justice for all; and issues associated with the deterioration in the environment and climate change.

These common issues should be an impetus for cooperation, since cooperation is a positive step that leads to stability as well as economic development of the region. On the other hand attempts at containment of the other invariably leads to competition that in turn aggravates tensions and hostility.

In the India-China equation the emphasis from both the nations is in trying to contain the rise of the other, by all and any means at their disposal. The mantra of cooperation in some areas and containment in others sounds hollow under these circumstances—cooperation and containment are not two sides of the same coin. Both the nations harbor far too many historic memories to permit wholehearted or even nuanced cooperation. Further, the continuing border disputes, left unresolved for over half-a-century, muddies the waters. The border disputes led to a war in 1962 and a humiliating defeat for India, a factor that stands as a pillar of remembrance, especially for India. The undercurrent of mutual suspicion cannot be wiped clean.

Both China and India also face individual challenges, stemming mainly from the fundamentally different ruling ethos of the two nations. China has a one party autocratic government, a party-state rule. Its economy is based on an investment and credit system that generates surpluses in commodities, which threaten global economic stability.

Although the erstwhile Soviet Union had not reached the level of where China is currently placed, the fate of the Soviet Communist Party that presided over a similar governing system is seen as a salutary example by the Chinese leadership. President Xi Jinping’s attempts to strengthen the Party’s control over all elements of national power—especially the military forces, the final arbiter of power—has to be viewed within this reality.

India’s unique challenges flow out of the other side of the spectrum of governance, the issues that come with an entrenched multi-party democracy, gone viral. Endemic corruption, nepotism and pure hooliganism that directly challenge the rule of law and order has also managed to open visible seams within the economic system. This makes it almost impossible for the nation to move forward with strength, and more importantly, in a focused direction. India suffers from accentuated party politics and regional factions, which makes it difficult for the national leadership to find traction for initiatives that are critical for the nation to emerge as a regional, and subsequently, global power of consequence.

Add to this, the religious schisms that exist across the country, which can and does degenerate into violence very rapidly. The cup of woe for the national government would seem to overflow. The Central Government is unable to institute and enforce remedial measures to counter any of these challenges, since the central writ does not run across the entire country.

While these issues will continue to trouble the national leadership of both India and China, the result of historic and contemporary stand-offs is the current situation in bilateral relations. At an intellectual level there is acceptance in both the nations, at least outwardly, of the need for cooperation to address the common challenges. However, there is an inbuilt inability to put cooperation into practice. At least for the time being, the aspirational cooperative initiatives are on hold. There seemed to have been a glimmer of hope in the past three years or so vis-à-vis cooperation, but these baby-steps have faltered and been overtaken by the events of the past two months. During this period, both nations made some economic gains, with Chinese investment in India increasing in 2016.

The Stumbling Blocks

China’s foreign policies, some of historic origin and some instituted recently, especially in the Indian Ocean region has been inimical to India’s national interests. There are four issues that have always stood out as contentious from an Indian perspective.

The reason for Chinese recalcitrant reactions to these issues remain unexplained. First is China’s stand on Pakistan-based terrorist groups. China has unequivocally stated its opposition to all kinds of terrorism as its national policy. However, its stance on the issue of Pakistan instigated and supported terrorist activities is completely opposite to this. India can only consider this as a direct anti-India stance and finds this bind support to Pakistan inexplicable.

Second is the question of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) where China’s stand is unexplainable. Again China’s position on a nation’s sovereignty and territorial integrity is very clear and formally stated.

However, since the CPEC is being built in disputed territory, India has objected to the initiative. China is completely dismissive of India’s concerns and position, a stance that is totally opposite to its stated policies on territorial integrity. This is also seen as an anti-India position that is deliberately being assumed by China.

Third is China’s attitude towards the border disputes with India. China, at its convenience, brings out border disputes to destabilise the immediate situation and also to create mid to long-term instability in the relations.

China’s renaming of Arunachal Pradesh, indisputably an integral part of India, as South Tibet and claiming it as Chinese territory is such a ploy. If the Chinese claims are to be considered as credible, then it would also become legitimate for India to review its policy towards Tibet, annexed by China in the 1950s.

The Chinese reaction to such a move would be interesting to watch and analyse.

The fourth sticking point in the relationship moving forward on an even keel is China’s unwavering opposition to India’s membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). The only reason that can be attributed to this opposition is a totally negative viewpoint that China assumes and its inherent anti-India position. Containment of India from becoming a more powerful state is written large in China’s repeated refusal to permit India to join the NSG.

Changed and Charged Relationship

In the late 1990s, India and China had a tacit understanding under which both the nations had agreed to ‘manage’ the relationship. Such management involved placing the border disputes, both around Tibet and Arunachal Pradesh that have the potential to escalate rapidly, on the slow burner of protracted negotiations while trade and economic interactions were fast-tracked. At this stage China was pursuing the concept of strategic patience with an attitude oriented to ‘lie low and bide your time’.

However, the notion of strategic patience has always been advantageous to the adversary. It is now clear that under President Xi Jinping, China is projecting its power, underpinned by its growing military might. Initiatives that will entrench China as global economic and military power—the South China Sea disputes and the One Belt One Road (OBOR) initiative—are considered ‘core’ or fundamental and are not open to negotiation.

It is definite that opposition to these ‘core’ issues will invariably lead to the use of muscular power. China has gone a long way away from the concept of biding its time. Under the current president, China is a nation in a hurry. Xi Jinping has also articulated his vision of ‘the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation’. He firmly believes that it is now time to commence the push to make China one of the world’s pre-eminent economic, military and political powers.

Towards this end, the president has moved in a focused manner to consolidate power in order to directly control all organs of the party, government and the military. He has emerged as the strongest leader that China has had in the recent past. Somewhere in this hurried move towards power, China seems to have forgotten that with great power comes great responsibility. China is not rising as a benign and all-encompassing power and its institutions are not oriented towards providing exemplary examples to the rest of the world. Great power status obtained by unrestrained use of coercion is bound to have a short life span.

China is determined to ‘contain’ India’s rising power, since it believes that two rising powers cannot be accommodated in the Asian context. Sharing of power is an alien concept to Chinese thinking. It has therefore initiated a number of actions to achieve this objective. It has established strategic links with Pakistan and some other nations such as Myanmar and Sri Lanka. It has also attempted to browbeat India into accepting unpalatable changes. However, to China’s surprise, India has been unusually unrelenting in its opposition to Chinese actions and has not budged form its stated position in the issue of CPEC and border issues. India’s boycott of the OBOR Forum in Beijing almost immediately led to yet another border dispute at the triangle of India-China-Bhutan border.

The Doka La Pass Stand-off

India and China share a border of more than 3000 kilometres, much of which is disputed and long been a source of friction between the two countries. The recent stand-off between the two nations, following a minor altercation on 16 June, at the mountain pass of Doka La and the adjoining plateau has transformed into a lengthy affair unlike earlier border disputes.

This region, situated at the India-China-Bhutan border triangle is strategically important. The dispute erupted when China refused to stop the construction of a road in territory that Bhutan claims, despite Bhutan issuing a demarche to China.

By continuing to engage in road construction, China violates a 2012 understanding wherein the three nations had agreed that there would be no attempt to unilaterally challenge the status quo of the tri-junction. India had two reasons to act and initiate a push-back. First, it had to honour its commitment to provide external security for Bhutan; and second, it had to prevent further Chinese expansion in the Chumbi Valley that would directly threaten the security of India’s Siliguri Corridor, which is also known as the ‘Chickens Neck’.

The basic issue is that the Line of Actual Control across the long border between India and China has not been finalised or demarcated. Therefore, patrolling is done according to each nation’s perception of where the border should lie, leading to claims and counter-claims of encroachment and ownership.

The current stand-off has turned to be different from earlier minor skirmishes for two reasons—the timing of the Chinese actions; and the sequence of events. At the time that India boycotted the OBOR Forum, China had warned that India would be isolated and also warned that India’s pro-US stance was akin to being a US stooge. China’s reaction to the Indian army’s push-back at Doka La has been incandescent rage, expressed in public in multiple outlets. This is highly unusual.

It is also noteworthy that the current impasse was created almost immediately after the Modi-Trump meeting, which China has perceived to have strengthened the Indo-US strategic partnership.

The meeting highlighted the commonality in thinking and agreement in both India and the US regarding Pakistan harbouring and actively aiding terrorists and the threat posed by North Korea. The recently concluded military exercise between the navies of India, US and Japan seems to have made China uncomfortable. There is a visible sense of insecurity that seems to have made China resort to an unprecedented war of words against India.

On the other hand India asserts that it follows a fully autonomous foreign policy and that it will not be coerced into any action, by any nation.

It is clear that both the nations have taken actions that have pushed the envelope of the border dispute far beyond any previously taken. The stand-off has gradually edged towards a stage where backing down becomes an unpalatable option for both the nations. How did this happen? Delhi is worried about losing the advantage that it has in the contested region and believes that China is initiating actions to negate India’s advantage.

China, on the other hand claims that it is building a road in its own territory. This is a disingenuous argument, since at best the region can be termed ‘disputed land’.

China’s new policy of adopting an uncompromising stand on most issues that are considered essential for its own rise to global power status has become clearly visible. The sharply escalating and threatening rhetoric, although an uncharacteristic development, is in line with China’s recent posturing on all matters where its own position has been questioned by another nation.

With the Doka La Pass stand-off, the modus vivendi that existed between India and China vanished in a flash. The question now is how India will react and adjust or accommodate this position—whether it will in a traditional manner accept the situation or push back with its newfound confidence. If the recent and on-going border dispute is an indication, then India is not going to roll over and let China off the hook as it has done so often in the past. In turn, this change in attitude will have long term consequences not only for the India-China relations, but to the broader East Asian community.

In a subtle manner the Indian establishment did provide an opening for China to diffuse the situation, which was rebuffed without much ado. There is much to lose for both the nations if the stand-off is not contained soon. President Xi, having elevated himself to ‘core leader’ position, is playing a hard game to demonstrate his tough stance that matches the rhetoric spewing out of China. There is speculation that Xi Jinping may seek an unprecedented third term in 2022, when his second, and traditionally last, term expires. In case the Doka La turmoil spirals out of control and China suffers a ‘loss of face’ these ambitions may not materialise. It is clear that any escalation must end in Chinese domination. The recent statements from both the Chinese foreign ministry and military high command point towards an increasing chance of the use of force. However, Chinese domination is definitely not a certainty, at least for the time being.

China insists on Indian troops ‘withdrawing’ as a precondition to initiating talks, an event that is highly unlikely to take place. In the meantime, while this brinksmanship continues, both the nations have started mobilisation and military build-up to support the forward deployed troops in the region. The stand-off has moved on to a situation of a childish game of ‘dare’ to see who blinks first. The result is yet to be determined, but the outcome of this border dispute will also determine the manner in which the rivalry for regional power and influence will play out between the two neighbours. The stand-off cannot continue indefinitely.

Impact on East Asia

East Asia is a vast region, covering the area from India to Australia and Japan. In the past few years, East Asia has come to a cross road—it may not be able to continue to be a region of peace and stability and may be forced into a situation of becoming a region of bilateral and multi-lateral contests, with China on one side and various other nations on the other, individually and at times in groups. Until recently, East Asia was known for its stability and rapid economic growth. The combination of China’s unmistakable rise to regional power and with Xi Jinping’s assertive leadership has changed the equation forever.

Adding to the discomfiture of the region is the uncertainty that has been brought-on in global geo-politics by the Trump Administration, recently come to power in the US. The growing instability has been turned into a muddle. The inward looking ‘America First’ policy has gradually been translated into the US willingly abdicating its position as the Number One global power. This has led to consternation in the East Asian nations. The absence of a clear Asia policy and the conflicting statements emanating from the Administration has rattled the stability of Asia, especially at a time when China is increasingly belligerent with its neighbours.

The meeting between Presidents Trump and Xi Jinping in the US did not discuss the South China Sea (SCS). However, China’s actions in the SCS has been buffeting the region for the past five years, while the two leaders acted as if the on-going struggle in the SCS was not a challenge.

The fact that it is an emerging nightmare scenario is not lost on the Asian nations. The Asian nations have perceived this lack of US focus on what they consider the most important geopolitical crisis in recent times as a willingness to cede space for the growth of a Sino-centric Asia. India is understandably concerned since it is unsure whether the new US President even comprehends the strategic significance of balancing the regional power equation in East Asia.

Unfortunately strong strategic relations have not yet matured in post-colonial East Asia and the US reluctance to engage fully is sending mixed signals. India has its work cut out, if it is to continue to believe in its aspirations of regional power status. Meanwhile, China continues its inexorable march to a trumpet call that only it can hear.

Conclusion

The Doka La Pass stand-off between India and China has given rise to a lot of hyperbole regarding the prospect of a nuclear war. This eventuality is highly unlikely. However, the possibility of a quick diplomatic diffusion of the situation is also very remote. Unfortunately both the nations have moved to a position where backing down would have unforeseen domestic consequences for both the leadership. India-China bilateral relationship is now at a frosty low ebb and will remains so for a long time to come.

Usually a great power crisis in Asia would have involved a US-China or China-Japan confrontation. The current stand-off and the development of a crisis brings out the point that India has emerged as an Asian power of significance. Its relations with other great powers have now assumed global strategic significance. In Asia, old and forgotten animosities are starting to get revived, through a combination of wealth, ambition and an incompetent US policy.

It may not be an exaggeration to state that in the East Asian region, US influence is almost non-existent. In such a scenario, India-China relations, complex and contested, will be the influencing factor in the progress of geo-political manoeuvrings. The manner in which the Doka La imbroglio gets resolved will be an indicator of the willingness of Asia’s great powers to accommodate each other.

What is sure is that the prospects of the region returning to relative stability does not look very bright.
China wants to become the regional hegemon as a prerequisite to claiming global great power status. To achieve this the rest of the nations of the region will have to play the role of virtual vassal states.

This is the Chinese viewpoint and the only possible way forward from its perspective. Post-colonial India has never been submissive, even though in the early stages of its independent rule, foreign policy fiascos were made. Delhi cannot envisage a vassal status to any nation, let alone China. It follows another agenda and a different path to achieve regional power and global influence.

In such a scenario where neighbours are aspiring to achieve the same objectives, skirmishes, confrontations and stand-offs are bound to happen.

More bad news for sharks.

A new study using satellite tracking by researchers from Nova Southeastern University’s Guy Harvey Research Institute (GHRI), the University of Rhode Island and other colleagues shows that the fishing mortality rate of the shortfin mako in the western North Atlantic is considerably higher than previously estimated from catches reported by fishermen. These data suggest that this major ocean apex predator is experiencing overfishing, raising serious concerns about whether the current levels of fishery catches in the North Atlantic are sustainable.

The new study has been published in the Journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

“Traditionally, the data obtained to determine the rate of fishing mortality, a key parameter used to help gauge the health of shark stocks, has depended largely on fishermen self-reporting any mako sharks they may have caught,” said Mahmood Shivji, Ph.D., senior author of the study and director of the NSU’s GHRI. “The challenge is that not all fishermen report the same way or some may underreport or even not report their mako shark captures at all, so the these catch data are known to be of questionable reliability.”

Shivji said that near real-time tracking of mako sharks using satellite tags and directly seeing how many were captured allowed researchers to bypass the dependency on self-reporting by fishermen.

“Using satellite tags for makos and possibly other fished species can be a time-efficient way and a fisheries-independent tool for gathering useful fisheries-interaction data, including answering fundamental questions about the levels of fishing survival and mortality,” said Michael Byrne, Ph.D., the paper’s lead author and postdoctoral fellow at NSU’s GHRI when the study was done. “The tracking data also showed these mako sharks entered the management zones of 19 countries, underscoring how critical it is for countries to work together closely to manage and conserve these long-distance oceanic travelers.” When the researchers began to gather, compile, disaggregate and review the data, the results were startling.

An unexpectedly high proportion, 30% of the 40 satellite tagged sharks, were captured in fisheries. After modelling the probability that a mako shark would survive a year without being captured (a 72% chance) and calculating the fishing mortality rates, researchers determined that the rate at which shortfin makos were being killed in fisheries was actually 10 times higher than previously believed.

“From a conservation and protection point of view, this is huge,” said Bradley Wetherbee, Ph.D., a research scientist from the University of Rhode Island’s Department of Biological Sciences and a member of NSU’s GHRI. “It’s vital that we have the most accurate data possible to aid decision-makers in managing marine life populations sustainably. If they have inaccurate information, it’s much more difficult to make the correct decisions for properly managing populations. Everyone wants the populations managed in a sustainable way.”

The tracks of the tagged mako sharks, including the ones captured, can be viewed online on NSU’s GHRI shark tracking website (nova.edu/sharktracking).

Globally, many shark species have seen significant declines in their numbers, with fisheries overexploitation cited as a major cause. This can happen in many ways — some shark species are specifically targeted while others are captured by accident (called bycatch.) No matter how sharks are taken from the world’s oceans, the fact remains that the current levels of removal for many species are unsustainable.

The researchers stress that the work they are doing has the goal of providing the most accurate information possible to those in positions to take action to manage mako and other shark species. They both say that the goal is create successful fisheries management and conservation – to avoid declining populations, and to do that, we must have as much accurate data as possible.

“We have to have sustainable approaches to fishing,” Dr. Shivji said. “Sharks might get a bit of a bad rap in the media, but these apex predators are vital to the overall health of our oceans. You remove them from the equation and, quite honestly, we don’t know how far those ripples will be felt. One thing we do know is it won’t be inconsequential.”

The Kremlin released Tuesday a transcript of the meeting between Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and the President of the Republic of Abkhazia Raul Khadjimba. Putin is visiting Abkhazia, a breakaway region from Georgia, on during the ninth anniversary of the five-day Russia-Georgia war.

Following is the complete transcript as released by the Kremlin.

*****

President of the Republic of Abkhazia Raul Khadjimba: Mr Putin, we are all honoured to welcome you again in Abkhazia.

Thanks to the support of the Russian Federation, Abkhazia is making progress in socioeconomic development and infrastructure construction, and resolving defence and security issues. All the issues that you and I discussed at previous meetings are being addressed for the good of our people.

We are gradually implementing the provisions of the 2014 Agreement on Alliance and Strategic Partnership. In particular, the Abkhazian side has ratified the agreement on the joint information and coordination centre of internal affairs agencies. We believe that this body will be among the most important tools in the fight against crime. For Abkhazia it is important that we live in comfortable conditions and that our guests are not deprived of this opportunity.

Our foreign policy departments are working to coordinate foreign policy.

Work is underway on activities of the investment programme; the amount of funds this year will exceed 2.5 billion rubles. All design and estimate documents were drafted, examined and approved. I would like to especially note the issues resolved with the help of the investment agency: the volume of lending amounted to 1.2 billion rubles. This is real support for our medium-sized and large businesses.

Today, an agreement on mandatory health insurance will be signed. This is an important event for the residents of Abkhazia – citizens of the Russian Federation.

I am sure that all the issues that we will discuss today will provide even greater opportunities to develop our country. Both Abkhazia and its people are sincerely grateful to you for all the decisions that are being adopted for the benefit of our relations.

Once again, I would like to note that all the issues that will be addressed today and will be resolved would help strengthen our relations. And of course today’s date, August 8, is a memorable one for the Republic of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

On that day, the Georgian army began a large-scale operation, and the decisive actions taken by the leadership of Russia made it possible to preserve the Republic of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and, of course, provided an opportunity for the further recognition of our small states, for which we are truly grateful to you.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Mr Khadjimba, thank you for the invitation!

As we agreed, this time we are meeting here in Abkhazia, on Abkhazian land. It is a pleasure to visit you again.

You mentioned practically all areas of our cooperation. I would probably only add our joint work on ensuring the republic’s defence capability. The joint force is developing on a very good, solid foundation and we have agreements on future steps.

You have just brought up the information centre. Naturally, this is a very important component because the citizens of Abkhazia and guests, no matter from where they arrive, Russia included, should understand and feel that they are reliably protected. I am hoping this joint work will enhance the security of tourists here.

As for the economic work, you have mentioned all these areas and I do not need to list them. Today we will sign an agreement in the social area, which will allow Abkhazian citizens to use not only our medical insurance system but also and primarily Russian medical institutions.

In general, we have things to discuss but the bottom line is that we have very special relations with Abkhazia. We reliably guarantee its security and independence.

I am sure this will continue. We only have to find optimal ways of developing the economy of Abkhazia, creating new jobs and establishing its own tax base. This is what we will speak about today.

(RFE/RL) — Russian President Vladimir Putin has visited Georgia’s breakaway region of Abkhazia and reiterated Russia’s support for the separatists.

The Georgian government condemned the August 8 visit, which coincided with the ninth anniversary of the five-day Russia-Georgia war, as a “cynical action.”

Following the 2008 war, Georgia and Russia broke off diplomatic relations and Moscow recognized Abkhazia and another Georgian breakaway region, South Ossetia, as independent countries. Only a few countries followed Russia’s lead.

“The most important thing is that we have entirely special relations with Abkhazia,” Putin said as he met with the region’s separatist leader Raul Khadzhimba in the Black Sea resort of Pitsunda.

“We reliably guarantee the security, self-sufficiency, and independence of Abkhazia,” he added. “I am sure that will continue to be the case.”

Putin also said that the two sides need to find ways to develop Abkhazia’s economy to create jobs, adding, “This is what we will be talking about today.”

After the talks, the Russian president said that he considers it possible to soon ease controls and customs procedures on the border with Abkhazia to encourage travel and facilitate trade.

The anniversary of the 2008 war was marked in Georgia with the political leaders paying tribute to the Georgian soldiers who died in the conflict.

Following a wreath laying ceremony at a military cemetery in the outskirts of Tbilisi, Prime Minister Giorgi Kvirikashvili told journalists that the Georgian government is “building a united, strong, prosperous, democratic, truly European Georgia in order to make it a common home for Georgians, Abkhaz, and [South] Ossetians.”

President Giorgi Margvelashvili, who also visited the cemetery at Mukhatgverdi, said, “No Georgian will ever tolerate the [Russian] occupation.”

Meanwhile, the Georgian Foreign Ministry said Putin’s visit to Abkhazia “serves for legitimization of forceful change of borders of the sovereign state through military aggression, ethnic cleansing, and occupation.”

The ministry also urged the international community to respond to Russia’s “aggressive steps.”

Russia maintains thousands of troops in Abkhazia and South Ossetia in what Georgia considers an occupation, and Georgian authorities have accused Moscow and the separatists of taking control of additional territory in recent months.

A NATO spokesman said that Putin’s trip was “detrimental to international efforts to find a peaceful and negotiated settlement.”

“NATO is united in full support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia within its internationally recognized borders,” Dylan White said in a statement. “We will not recognize any attempts to change the status of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as regions of Georgia.”

During a visit to Tbilisi last week, U.S. Vice President Mike Pence reaffirmed Washington’s support for Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and denounced Russia’s “aggression” and “occupation” of Georgian territory.

The European Commission approved Tuesday Banco Santander’s acquisition of Banco Popular Español, S.A. The Commission concluded that the transaction would not raise competition concerns in the European Economic Area.

On June 6, 2017, the European Central Bank decided that Banco Popular was “failing or likely to fail”.

Banco Santander and Banco Popular are universal banks, providing commercial, retail investment and wholesale banking services as well as insurance services in Spain and Portugal. The Commission investigated the transaction’s impact on the markets for retail and corporate banking, leasing, factoring and the provision of ATM services in the Portuguese and Spanish national and regional markets.

Its investigation concluded that the transaction would not raise competition concerns. The parties’ combined market shares are generally limited (below 25%) and strong competitors will remain in all affected markets.

The decision is the final step by the Commission clearing the acquisition. It follows the Commission’s approval on June 7, 2017 of the resolution scheme of Banco Popular under EU bank recovery and resolution rules, which was based on a proposed resolution scheme by the Single Resolution Board (SRB).

Companies and products

Banco Santander is the parent company of an international group of banking and financial companies, operating mainly in Spain, other European countries including Portugal and the United Kingdom, Latin America and the United States.

Banco Popular is a Spanish financial entity listed on the Madrid, Barcelona, Bilbao and Valencia stock exchanges.), operating mainly in Spain and Portugal. The resolution of Banco Popular was approved under EU bank recovery and resolution rules. It involved the sale of Banco Popular to Banco Santander.

On June 7, 2017 the Commission approved, in line with the Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation, the resolution scheme of Banco Popular, based on the proposal by the Single Resolution Board. Following the adoption of the resolution scheme, the entire business of Banco Popular and its subsidiaries were transferred to Banco Santander as of June 7, 2017.

The customers of Banco Popular continued to be served with no disruption to the economy. All depositors continued to have uninterrupted access to the full amount of their deposits.

On the same day the Commission also adopted a decision based on Article 7(3) of the EU Merger Regulation granting the derogation from the standstill obligation, subject to certain conditions. Under this decision, Banco Santander could take certain measures to the extent necessary for Banco Popular’s financial stability, pending the Commission’s approval of its acquisition of Banco Popular under EU merger rules. The compliance with these conditions has been monitored by a Monitoring Trustee.

A delegation of leading Hamas members met with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Jawad Zarif in Tehran on Monday, the Palestinian resistance group has said in a statement.

“The visit has opened a new page in our bilateral relations with Iran aimed at confronting the common enemy and supporting Palestine, the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the resistance [against Israeli occupation],” the statement read.

It also quoted Zarif as saying that Iran planned to “maintain relations with the Palestinian factions, led by Hamas, and maintain its support for the Palestinian resistance”.

At Monday’s meeting, the statement noted, Zarif had described his country’s relations with Hamas as “stable”, stressing Tehran’s desire to “overcome all differences with a view to supporting Palestine, the Palestinian people and Muslim unity”.

The Hamas delegation arrived in Tehran this weekend to participate in a Saturday swearing-in ceremony for Iranian President-elect Hassan Rouhani, who beat out hardline rival Ebrahim Raisi in May 19 polls.

Hamas-Iran ties appear to be enjoying a thaw after six years of relative estrangement due to their opposing positions on the conflict in Syria, where Iran supports the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Original source

At least 31 fishermen were killed by Boko Haram jihadists in two separate attacks on islands in Lake Chad in north-eastern Nigeria, AFP cited fishermen and vigilantes fighting the Islamists as saying late Monday, August 7.

Armed jihadists stormed the fishing islands of Duguri and Dabar Wanzam in the freshwater lake Saturday, attacking fishermen working in the area and shooting and hacking their victims.

“Boko Haram attacked Duguri and Dabar Wanzam islands and killed 31 people,” a member of a local militia fighting the jihadists in Maiduguri, Babakura Kolo told AFP.

“They (Boko Haram) killed 14 in Duguri and another 17 in Dabar Wanzam,” Kolo said.

The fishermen had returned to the fishing hub of Baga on the lake’s shores days earlier and had paddled out to the two islands in wooden canoes on Friday, looking for fish, said another militia Musa Ari, who gave a similar account.

News of the attacks was slow to emerge with communication in the area difficult as Boko Haram destroyed telecom masts in the region in attacks over the last few years.

The Boko Haram jihadists first attacked Duguri island where they killed 12 fishermen and injured two others who later died, said fisherman Sallau Inuwa.

“The attackers split into two groups. While the first attacked Duguri the second went to nearby Dabar Wanzam where they laid in wait for those who fled the attack in Duguri. They killed 17 in Dabar Wanzam,” Inuwa told AFP.

Nigerian military banned fishing on the Nigerian side of the lake following accusations that Boko Haram was using proceeds from fishing to fund its armed campaign.

The ban left thousands of displaced residents impoverished, forcing them to rely on food handouts from government and aid agencies.

The lifting of the ban drew many fisherman back to the area.

It continues to confound liberals and conservatives alike: Why would the Left defend Islamists?

The latest victim of this fascinating alliance is Richard Dawkins, the English left-wing atheist who was disinvited by a Berkeley left-wing radio station after it was discovered that Dawkins said Islam is the world’s “most evil” religion.

It did not matter to KPFA that Dawkins has made a career out of bashing Christianity, especially Catholicism—that was laudatory—but it did matter when he ripped Islam. Why did that bother the Left?

On the surface, it makes no sense for the Left to embrace Islamists. After all, the Left counsels a sexual free-for-all, and Islamists want a sexual noose on women and gays. How can libertinism and sharia be squared?

Scratch beneath the surface and it quickly becomes apparent that what unites the Left and Islamists is hate: hatred of the West. They hate America, they hate Europe, and they would like to destroy Israel.

It is that animus that commits the haters to targeting the Judeo-Christian ethos, upon which the West was built. That is why they want to gut it. The Left will support any movement that seeks to disable the West. Even after 9/11, the Left attacked Christianity, not Islam.

Dawkins finds it ironic that a Berkeley radio station is silencing him, noting that Berkeley is home to the Free Speech Movement of the 1960s. If he were an independent thinker, he wouldn’t be so shocked. A closer look at that event reveals how little the activists valued free speech.

Sol Stern was involved in the Free Speech Movement on the campus of Berkeley. Like so many other young activists at the time, he later evolved into a neo-conservative: his writings at the Manhattan Institute, on a range of social issues, are some of the best in the nation. Three years ago, he wrote a splendid piece in City Journal on the 50th anniversary of the Free Speech Movement.

In 1964, the administration at Berkeley made a boneheaded decision to limit student clubs from setting up tables at the entrance to the campus; it should have left well enough alone. Radicals on the campus seized on this infraction and set off the alarms, demanding an expansion of free speech rights.

Today, as Stern observes, Berkeley now “exercises more thought control over students” than ever before. But as he points out, this is less a perversion than a perfection of what the activists actually sought.

Stern says the idea that the students were fighting for free speech “was always a charade.” Indeed, “the struggle was really about clearing barriers to using the campus as a base for radical political activity.” No wonder they cheered the gag orders of Fidel Castro and the terrorism of Che Guevara.

In other words, the Free Speech Movement activists hated liberalism, properly understood: they had no use for free speech—their sponsorship of it was nothing but a useful tool to advance their radical politics.

Dawkins doesn’t get it. He makes the mistake of attributing to his left-wing censors the belief that Islam is a race, not a religion. As he sees it, this allows them to think that critics of Islam are racists. Wrong—they are not that stupid—they know the difference.

The Left is the secular wing of totalitarianism; radical Islam is its religious wing. Once this verity is grasped, their apparent differences dissolve. What they both seek is total control, and total decimation of the West.

By Frank Kane*

The ongoing standoff between the members of the Anti-Terror Quartet (ATQ) and Qatar over Doha’s alleged financing of terror groups has already called into question the future of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) as it is currently constituted — but that debate looks set to intensify as the economic, financial and commercial repercussions of the dispute sink in.

Whatever the ultimate outcome of the current confrontation, regional policymakers should take a long, hard look at the GCC in any case, because it is clear that the organization has fallen short of the ambitious targets it set itself in 1981 when it was first set up, and which have been restated by various measures in the period since.

Most notably, these included the establishment of a free-trade agreement between the member states in 1983, a customs union in 2003, and a declaration of commitment to freedom of movement for people and goods in 2008.

The model, never officially stated but always at the back of people’s minds, was the EU, which 10 years ago looked to be sailing serenely toward full economic and even political integration. What a different a decade makes.

Maybe it was unrealistic to expect the GCC states, with economic and business models very different to the Europeans, to advance quickly toward a coherent, integrated bloc, but the strains in the Gulf began to show almost immediately.

Proposals for a GCC central bank and a common currency fell apart in 2010 following disagreements over where the institution should be located, amid other issues. Although there are occasional ritual calls for talks on the common financial structure to be re-established, no real progress has been made. The Qatar situation means this is likely to be on the back burner for the foreseeable future.

However, the obstacles to unity were always there, and were more profound than squabbles over the bank location or the name of the currency. A recent policy paper by Karen Young, a distinguished economist at the Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington, points out that intra-GCC trade, which has increased significantly in recent years, still only stands at 8 percent of total trade. This is in sharp contrast with the EU, where intra-union trade accounts for as much as 60 percent of the total.

The reason, Young concluded, are “self-imposed barriers” to GCC economic integration, of which a prime one is the “protection of local agents in the framework of the GCC customs union.” The system of only allowing foreign companies to operate in the region via a local agent, who must be a national of the country where the outsider hopes to do business, is one of the hallmarks of regional business culture. It goes back to the days of a “rentier” economic structure in which local business leaders farmed income from renting out their consumer markets.

So, a Japanese car manufacturer might see a very profitable potential market in a Gulf country, but could only access that via a partnership with a national citizen, for which the Japanese would have to pay handsomely.

The agent system might have made sense when the GCC countries were at an early stage of development, when nearly all produce was imported, but makes little sense in an era of economic diversification when GCC economies are being reset for participation in the modern global economy.

“The problem now is that the commercial agency restrictions are in conflict with the 2008 GCC efforts to encourage nationals to invest, work, and buy property in neighboring member states. These restrictions continue to privilege nationals over citizens of other GCC states, while also encouraging monopoly practices in the importation and distribution of goods and services,” said Young.

Going back to the Qatar dispute, one of the early measures enacted by the ATQ was restriction on the rights of some citizens to live, work and own property in other GCC countries.

Measures against financial freedom of movement have not yet been imposed, but surely some form of sanctions against Qatar must be a future option. Withdrawal of deposits from Qatari banks, and maybe even seizure of assets held by Qataris in other GCC countries, are distinct possibilities if the confrontation escalates.

There has already been some quite significant capital flight from Qatar institutions, Young notes, with official data from the Qatar central bank showing $30 billion worth of capital outflows from the country’s banks in June alone.

The other potential stumbling block is in the proposal to introduce value-added tax (VAT) in the region by the beginning of next year. This has been intended as a GCC-wide measure, but in the current climate it is difficult to see how this plan can go ahead. Some member states may have to go it alone in the VAT initiative, or at best act in conjunction with a limited number of partners.

It is probably best viewed as an opportunity for a strategic rethink of the GCC strategy. The original model was actually not doing a very good job of encouraging region-wide economic diversification anyway.

• Frank Kane is an award-winning business journalist based in Dubai. He can be reached on Twitter @frankkanedubai

Given Kenya’s generally violent politics, next week’s election has raised considerable anxiety inside the country and throughout East Africa. A lot depends on whether the electoral body will deliver a free, fair and credible poll. Or Kenyans will be well advised to store up some Ugali – the national staple food – in case the post-election period stretches out before things are finally settled.

By Odomaro Mubangizi*

It is almost an understatement to say there is a lot at stake in Kenya’s elections scheduled for 8 August 2017. The country is literary painted blue (for the opposition party National Super Alliance—NASA) and red (for the ruling Jubilee Party). A political carnival is going on in one of Africa’s most prosperous middle-income countries.

The stakes are high and all eyes (national, regional and international) are fixed on the great land of hakuna matata (no problems) and nyama (roast meat). The 2017 elections are like no other in the political history of Kenya for several reasons. First, these elections come after two hotly contested ones amidst claims and counter claims of rigging (some call it stealing of votes or electoral fraud)—particularly the 2007/2008 when the country almost collapsed due to post-election violence.  Second, the main protagonists—President Uhuru Kenyatta and Raila Odinga–have been at it for quite some time, and many observers consider this a “do or die” scenario.  For the incumbent the big issue is the fear of doing one term; while the chief opponent Raila is concerned about his political destiny, this likely being his last chance attempt to occupy State House. What makes the political battle between these two heavyweights very exciting, but also arousing anxiety if not fear, is the elephant in the room. Kenya’s politics has over the years become inextricably linked to ethnicity with a dynastic flavor.

Third, there is a general concern that while the country’s economy is the strongest in the region, majority of citizens affectionately referred to as Wananchi, have limited access to the national cake. It is not surprising that as the election momentum picked up doctors, nurses, teachers and lecturers were out on the streets clamoring for a pay rise and better working conditions, and there was a severe shortage of maize meal—the chief ingredient of the famous Ugali.  The politics of food has finally caught up with the voters and political contenders.

Fourth, there is the regional dimension of Kenya’s elections.  Kenya enjoys some regional hegemony, especially economically – partially ceding political and military hegemony to Uganda.  Indeed when Kenya sneezes, the region catches the cold.  After Ethiopian Airlines, Kenya’s KQ comes next as a regional carrier.  Kenyan manufactured goods flood the regional market.  Kenya’s financial sector is also unrivalled in the region, boasting of the most well-qualified and highly motivated skilled labour force. Kenya’s telecommunications, internet connectivity and media have no rival in the region. Here we are talking of a mini-superpower in the Eastern Africa region or in the Horn of Africa (to use a more fancy concept). Still on the regional front, stakes are high in terms of security.  Kenya has been battling with Al Shabab militants both in Somalia and at home. So, one of the election issues is clearly national security in the context of the Al Shabab threats. Besides, there is South Sudan, where Kenya has played some part, even as the peace protocol collapsed and the country has gone back to the Hobbesian state of nature, where “life is nasty, brutish and short.”

Kenya in regional geopolitics and political economy

To appreciate fully the need to watch closely Kenya’s 2017 elections, it is important to first situate Kenya in regional geopolitics and political economy.  The lens with which to look at Kenya in the region is that of world systems theory. Arguably Kenya enjoys the status of a semi-periphery and easily serves as the entry point of global capitalist penetration in the Eastern Africa and Great Lakes region. No country in the region, except Ethiopia, has as many international agencies as Kenya. The number of multinational corporations with bases in Nairobi is staggering. Most of the countries in the region have experimented with some version of socialism—Uganda’s Move to the Left under Milton Obote, Ujamaa under Julius Nyerere in Tanzania and Ethiopia’s socialist system under Mengistu Hailemariam.  All three have since abandoned the socialist experiment and embraced some form of mixed economy model. Kenya has all along followed a free market economy.  As a result Kenya has attracted a lot of foreign direct investment from rich capitalist countries for a long time.

Among the major foreign conglomerates with their Africa headquarters in Kenya are: Bharti Airtel, General Electric, Mitsubish Motors, Reckefeller Foundation, Standard Chartered  Bank, World Bank, Toyota, Google and IBM. With the ^seventh largest African population and a liberal market economic model, Kenya easily attracts foreign investment. The key income earners are: tourism (Kenya is rated third in Africa in tourism competitiveness), coffee, tea and horticulture. Kenya is the home of M-pesa, the number one mobile money system in the world, used by close to 17 million citizens. Kenya also has a great brand name thanks to its global stature in sports.  When you mention Kenya, everyone thinks of long-distance athletics and gold medals.

But at the same time, Kenya is a land of great inequality.  Amidst the property boom of real estate, there are sprawling slums such as Kibera and Mathare Valley.  These could be hot spots for electoral violence.  The poor cannot afford to rent the very costly flats dotting Nairobi’s skyline. Unemployment is estimated at 40 per cent. Food is a serious issue. The price of maize flour, the staple food, has short up by more than 50 per cent this year. The recently introduced subsidies on the price of maize and the controversial maize importation from Mexico have not considerably alleviated the food shortage. The cost of all other basic commodities is beyond the reach of the majority of wananchi. Voters might look at the ballot through their stomach!

Kenya enjoys a strategic location in the region. It is well located on the Mombasa-Kigali route. Most of the imported goods for the region pass through Kenya on their way to Uganda, South Sudan, DRC, Burundi and Rwanda. This means that Kenya fetches quite a bit of revenue from customs fees. Some countries such as Uganda that have taken advantage of proximity to Kenya have increased regional trade, and it is estimated that Kenya earns about $800 million from trade with Uganda.

But being a regional superpower can also attract some resentment and jealousy. There are whispers that Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and Tanzania are finding an alternative route for transporting goods to avoid Kenya. While it can be argued that such alternatives are purely based on economic calculations, regional politics can not be ruled out entirely.  After all, one cannot separate economics from politics.

South Sudan is also keenly watching what unfolds in Kenya come August 8.  Anecdotal evidence suggests that some of the heavily loaded Southern Sudanese political elites keep their investments in Nairobi.  Some of the big businesses in Juba are linked to Kenya especially the financial sector. Do not forget some ethnic affinities between the two countries.

At the level of political chemistry among the regional leaders, the grapevine has it that one of the key contenders for Kenya’s State House, Raila Odinga, has an ally in Tanzania’s President Mugufuli. Whether this bit of relationship has some political ramifications, we are yet to discover.  Just to show how this relationship may have something in, during the solo presidential debate last week Raila was asked if he had set up a tallying center in Tanzania. He was philosophical and dodged the question by arguing that where tallying centers were situated was not the issue. He astutely, and with humour, concluded that the tallying center will be anywhere in Kenya and in the clouds.  What the moderator did not ask Mr Raila was whether he had any strong political links with President Magufuli. Still, Magufuli’s name came up when, in response to a question about dealing with powerful corrupt individuals, Raila quipped that upon coming to power he would “Magufuli” them.

What of the other regional leaders? The two strongmen of the Northern Corridor—President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda and President Paul Kagame of Rwanda—must be watching intently the developments in Kenya. Kagame has elections this Friday that he will predictably win with a big margin, while Museveni is well settled in. The talk in Kampala is now about age-limit and whether it should be removed so as to allow Yoweri Museveni to have a few more years after he has turned 75.  What do these small details imply for geopoltiics? The future of the East African Community with its grand vision of political federation, free trade and other ambitious plans for infrastructural projects is in the balance if the electoral question in Kenya is not fairly, freely and democratically settled.

Mention should also be made of the regional hot spots that help to situate Kenya’s elections in a broader regional political context. South Sudan is still at it. An influx of refugees has once again engulfed the region with close to a million in Northern Uganda alone.  Nobody wishes to add another headache for the region.  DRC is also boiling with ethnic violence in Kasai amidst President Joseph Kabila’s lack of readiness for elections this year. Burundi (a member of the East African Community) remains under serious political stress.  If elections do not go well in Kenya and a replay of the 2007/2008 violence happens, the economic gains attained so far in this promising region will be squandered.  All the key actors in the current political drama—presidential aspirants, the electoral commission (IEBC), regional leaders, international observers, etc.—should do all in their power to ensure that the electoral process is free, fair, democratic and credible.

The personal is political and the political is personal

A closer look at the manifestos of the two major parties—Jubilee and NASA – reveals that the policy differences between the two are minimal. They both speak of raising income and the standard of living of citizens, state support for the poor and elderly, etc. So if there is no major substantive policy differences between the two main political rivals, what is at stake? Many observers would agree that the majority of voters look at personality and ethnicity.  As the saying goes, in African politics, blood is thicker than the waters of democracy. This should not be the case in 21^st century knowledge-based society, but unfortunately this is the tragic reality.

The personal is indeed political and the political is personal. In politics the subjective takes centerstage, as post-modernism has reminded us. This is why Kenya has ended up with the main political archrivals representing the two most politically motivated families in Kenya’s history—the Kenyattas and the Odingas.  If the two can be a rallying point for resolving the country’s political contradictions right from independence, so be it.  But then can this kind of deeply entrenched ethnicized politics be labeled a democratic?

There is another subtext along the personalist politics of Kenya that has deep historical roots.  It should be recalled that way back in the late 1960s when Jaramogi Oginga Odinga resigned as Vice-President, President Jomo Kenyatta handpicked Daniel Arap Moi as his Vice-president.  This was clearly interpreted as anointing an heir apparent. And sure enough when Jomo Kenyatta passed away in 1978, it is Moi who succeeded him.  Talk has it that the two leaders struck an unwritten deal that their respective sons would continue their respective political dynasties.  It is difficult to establish the veracity of such claims but anecdotal evidence suggests that former President Moi’s son Gideon Moi is slowly rising in his political ambitions, while Uhuru Kenyatta was brought to the political limelight in 2002 when Moi picked him as his successor.  Uhuru lost his presidential bid to Mwai Kibaki, with Raila Odinga widely believed to be the kingmaker in what was then dubbed the NARC coalition.  This raises the question of whether current Deputy President William Ruto is a potential threat to the Moi dynastic scheme. Only time will tell.

Over into the region of the Great Lakes, the personal is still political and the political is personal.  Apart from Tanzania, the rest of the countries still rely heavily on the personal charisma of the leaders.  Think of President Museveni of Uganda who has dominated the political landscape for over 30 years. Then over to President Paul Kagame of Rwanda who has done 17 years, and President Joseph Kabila who has done two terms and wants a few more.  The region has its own brand of politics that gravitates around the person of the president and not a political system that can outlive him.

Electoral trouble shooting

Even as we try to discern the regional implications of Kenya’s elections, we should not loose sight of the big question of whether the August 8 elections will be free, fair and credible.  The tension and fear seems to gravitate around the electoral process.  As soon as the campaigns commenced, the first issue to surface was about tendering for the ballot papers.  Recourse was taken to the courts of law.  Finally the Court of Appeal ruled that the ballot printing could proceed. The opposition NASA coalition had won the case and the tendering process was to be redone, at least for the presidential ballot papers.  Regardless of what the details of this issue are, one thing is clear: there are fears of rigging. The battle is essentially around the ballot box and the tallying process.  Recall that another issue settled by the courts was on how to announce the election results. This too was settled in favour of the opposition that the results declared at the poling station are final.

As the saying goes, the devil is in the detail. What other details are likely to cause trouble? In the past the national tallying center at Bomas of Kenya in Nairobi announced results as they came in, showing on a big screen how each candidate was fairing. Now IEBC has given a new directive that only the final tally will be announced at Bomas. There will be no presidential results. One can guess that this new strategy is to avoid suspense and tension in case a candidate who was seen leading all of a sudden begins to drop drastically – as has happened to Raila in past elections.  IEBC could have other reasons for this change of procedure, but it would be useful to give some clear explanation on this change to remove any room for suspicion.  There is also the question of party agents, election monitors and officials.  The number of those guarding the ballot boxes and the tallying process is also crucial. While the tallying center should not be overcrowded, the various interested parties should have enough personnel to be able to monitor well what is going on.

The other detail to look out for is the voters register and the actual votes cast.  If at any polling station the votes cast go beyond the registered voters, the obvious conclusion is that someone tampered with the voting.  If the voters register is not updated or closely checked, you will end up with “ghost voters.”  If the dead come back to cast their votes, the ghosts of democracy will haunt the nation.

Voter-turn out is also a clue.  Who manages to vote who does not is key.  Circumstances of each situation should be well studied.  If in some polling stations voter turn out gets suspiciously too high or too low, be worried. A point of regional interest is the phenomenon of voters near border areas geting help from their kin to come over and vote—cross-border electoral fraud.  This kind of regional integration from below is very tricky and yet it is common.

Conclusion

Kenya is set for its landmark elections and a lot is at stake both for the country and for the region. All eyes are set on Kenya.  Some few of the regional indicators and implications have been briefly outlined.  Regional leaders have some role to play be it implicit or explicit.  The East African Community, of which Kenya is a regional power broker, is undergoing some serious political stress.  What will happen in Kenya come August 8 will have a huge impact in the region.

It is too early to tell what exactly will unfold as Kenya goes to the polls, but a lot will depend on how the elections will be conducted up to the last act of announcing the presidential winner. At the international level, investors are all on “wait and see” mode.  This is normal for an election that has attracted so much attention but also given the anatomy of past elections.

Some mention should be made on the media’s role.  Kenya has some of the most vibrant and independent media outlets in Africa.  It is hoped that the media will play a constructive role of giving objective and balanced reporting of events as they unfold and, above all, offer sound and critical analysis that will inform all interested parties to make informed choices.  The media should not be seen as adding fuel to inflammatory political tempers, but should rather serve as a voice of sobriety guiding the perplexed and ignorant, to make informed choices.

One last piece of advice: Trust in God but keep some Ugali, in case the post-election period turns out to be a long one before things are clear or sorted out.  Politics is also a game of the unpredictable—a reminder for all those contesting.

* ODOMARO MUBANGIZI (PhD) is Dean of the Philosophy Department at the Institute of Philosophy and Theology in Addis Ababa, where he teaches Social and Political Philosophy and is also Editor of the Justice, Peace and Environment Bulletin.

As the Trump wrecking crew ramps up its destructive campaign against federal health and safety protections and social services for impoverished, disabled and vulnerable people (young and old) the latest targets of their ire are the federal civil servants who faithfully keep our government functioning here and abroad.

Mind you, the Trump wrecking crew is not going after gigantic corporate welfare programs, giveaways, bailouts and subsidies to big business. Nor are the Trumpsters going after wasteful, inflated government corporate contracts or massive billing frauds on Medicare, Medicaid or other government programs. These egregious examples of crony capitalism, so disliked by conservatives and progressives alike, seem untouchable. While disgraceful, this is not surprising; many of Trump’s nominees benefitted mightily from this cronyism before coming to Washington and Trump still benefits due to his refusal to divest.

Given this state of corporatist mayhem, the important question is: Will the federal civil service hold against lawless, dangerous non-enforcement of the laws and arbitrary suspensions of ongoing programs to protect the people from corporate assaults on their safety and economic wellbeing?

These are tough times for career civil servants who have given their all to do the right thing and make government serve the people (If you doubt this, just read the new book American Amnesia by Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson).

Consider civil servants’ anguish. If they keep doing their job, they’re going to be pushed to retire or be marginalized. If they do as they are illegally or wrongfully ordered to do, they are going against their conscience and undermining their oath of office.

The oath of office taken by federal civil servants is not to the president or to their cabinet secretary. It is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution defines the work role for federal employees, (according to the Office of Personnel Management [OPM]) “to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty”.

To further define their obligations, the Code of Ethics for US Government Service has declared that civil servants must “put loyalty to the highest moral principles and to country above loyalty to persons, party or government department.”

Top civil servants are being told to freeze what they are doing or reverse course, suppressing science and take down scientifically informed websites (such as those on calamitous climate change) and suspend law enforcement –  all under the direction of Trump’s cabinet lackeys who are  openly bent on serving the Fortune 500 corporations, not the Constitution. Many of these public servants are quitting rather than violate their code of ethics.

In March, as the EPA wrecking crew chief, Scott Pruitt, moved to let corporations pour more poisons into your air, water, soil and food, the head of the Environmental Justice Office, Mustafa Ali, quit. Last week, the highly-regarded Elizabeth Southerland, the director of science and technology in the EPA’s Office of Water, resigned. She said that Pruitt and Trump, who are pushing a 31% cut in the agency’s already strained budget, are abandoning “the polluter pays principle that underlies all environmental statutes and regulations.”

Former Secretary of State (and Republican), Colin Powell, in an Op-Ed published in May for The New York Times, denounced the disabling proposed cuts that hollow out the work of diplomats and aid workers who advance peace and critical assistance to poor families in underdeveloped countries. He warned about creating “a vacuum that would make us far less safe and prosperous.” Almost certainly, in the coming months, scientists in the Food and Drug Administration will be told to back off and let inadequately tested drugs go to market for the drug industry’s gouging profits. Other civil servants will have their judgments repressed when they recommend recalling defective motor vehicles, prohibiting clear cutting in our national forests, enforcing civil and voting rights, removing certain pesticides from our food, issuing ready-to-go safety standards for travelers, enforcing safeguards for nursing home residents and implementing proper nutritional school meal recipes for children.

The Trumpsters actually want to have the best and most experienced public servants to quit. They are already retaliating against civil servants who speak truthfully of the harm to innocent people being caused by the grisly policies championed by the corporate paymasters.

Fortunately, there are outside groups already challenging in federal court the lawless Trump regime under the Administrative Procedures Act, the Freedom of Information Act and other violated federal laws. They are also defending harassed civil servants who try to bring their conscience to work.

These citizen groups – Public Citizen (see citizen.org), Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (see peer.org), The Government Accountability Project (GAP, see whistleblower.org), and numerous other organizations, including civil service retirees, are working daily to remind Trump’s tyrants that our country remains one under the “rule of law” on behalf of, by and for the people.

Those ideals need the cutting edge of organized citizens and the larger backing of focused public outrage putting heat on members of Congress. Both between and during elections, an organized and motivated public can put a stop to this vast takeover of our government by the avaricious corporate supremacists.

Remember, we vastly outnumber them. It’s easier than we are led to think when “we the people” decide to show up.

While operating in international airspace in the central Persian Gulf, an F/A-18E Super Hornet with Strike Fighter Squadron 147, assigned to the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz, had an unsafe and unprofessional interaction with an Iranian QOM-1 unmanned aerial vehicle Tuesday, U.S. Central Command officials said.

Despite repeated radio calls to stay clear of active fixed-wing flight operations in vicinity of the USS Nimitz, the QOM-1 executed unsafe and unprofessional altitude changes in the close vicinity of an F/A-18E that was in a holding pattern and preparing to land on the aircraft carrier, officials said.

The F/A-18E maneuvered to avoid collision with the QOM-1 resulting in a lateral separation between the two aircraft of about 200 feet and a vertical separation of about 100 feet.

The dangerous maneuver by the QOM-1 in the known vicinity of fixed-wing flight operations and at coincident altitude with operating aircraft created a collision hazard and is not in keeping with international maritime customs and laws, Centcom officials said.

This is the 13th unsafe or unprofessional interaction between U.S. and Iranian maritime forces in 2017, the officials noted.

By Frank Kane

The opening up of Saudi Arabia’s economy is proceeding apace. On Monday, the government took another step along the road to welcoming more foreign investors into the Kingdom with the approval of new measures to encourage outsiders to get involved in the engineering industry, which is expected to become a boom sector as new infrastructure is built under the Vision 2030 strategy.

The Commerce and Investment Ministry, and the Saudi Arabian General Investment Authority (Sagia), have been in consultation for a year or so under the new proposals, and now have decided to allow 100 percent foreign ownership in the engineering business.

There are two conditions: The foreign entity must have a 10-year track record in operations, and it must already have a presence in at least four other countries. So only established multinationals need apply, a sensible measure designed to guarantee the quality of the new entrant.

Sagia has the power to waive these restrictions if an applicant firm’s presence would be considered in the best interests of the Kingdom.

The authority, under Chairman Majid Al-Qasabi, has been pushing for a more flexible approach to foreign investment for the past couple of years, since a 2015 policy initiative that foresaw 100 percent foreign ownership in most sectors in the long term.

That policy was in line with the World Trade Organization’s principles on free movement of investment, which Saudi Arabia signed up to in 2005. But the accelerated pace of opening up has a lot to do with the national transformation plan that aims to reduce the Kingdom’s reliance on the domestic oil industry and government employment. Greater foreign investment is seen as an essential part of that change.

Last year, two big sectors — retail and wholesale distribution — were taken off the “negative list” Sagia maintains for sectors not deemed appropriate for exclusive foreign ownership — like military and other security activities, some aspects for Islamic tourism, media, telecommunications and a few others.

The experience in retail and wholesale must have satisfied the authorities that it was a worthwhile step to encourage greater foreign involvement, which will now be extended to engineering.

Alain Sfeir, Riyadh-based corporate partner with law firm Clyde & Co., said: “It is a positive step forward. Foreign engineers and consultants are looking to get involved in and benefit from the expansion of infrastructure the Kingdom is experiencing, and the new corporate structure will give them more confidence to proceed.”

Details of the new proposals are still being finalized and can be expected to be released in a week or so.

But if they follow the plans for retail and wholesale, you can expect 100 percent foreign ownership, previously limited to 75 percent; no requirement for a Saudi citizen to be a shareholder; and limited liability incorporation.

There will probably also be stipulations on minimum investment levels and employment of nationals in the new corporation, as well as commitments on research and development spending, and training, drawn up in consultation with the Saudi Council of Engineers, the national professional body.

The initiative, in such an important part of the economy, represents a further move away from the traditional model of “commercial agents” identified as a drag on regional economies by Karen Young, an academic with the Arab Gulf Sates Institute in Washington, DC.

Russia is to repay $125 million to Bosnia and Herzegovina on Tuesday, finally resolving the issue of its Soviet-era debt to the former Yugoslav country.

The Russian finance ministry has told its counterpart in Bosnia that Moscow will transfer $125 million to Sarajevo to cover so-called ‘clearing debt’ of the former Soviet Union, the Bosnian finance ministry said on Tuesday.

The clearing debt was debt that the Soviet Union accumulated to the former Yugoslavia from the trade of goods.

Each former Yugoslav state had separate negotiations with Moscow on the repayment of its share.

The payment comes after Bosnian finance minister Vjekoslav Bevanda and Russia’s deputy finance minister Sergei Storchak signed an agreement on March 21 in Moscow to resolve the issue of the old debt.

According to an announcement that Bosnian finance ministry issued in March, the amount will be shared between both Bosnia’s political entities – the Federation and Republika Srpska – and the Brcko District.

The Federation will receive 58 per cent of the sum, $72.5 million; Republika Srpska will receive 29 per cent, $36.2 million; Bosnia’s central institutions will receive 10 per cent, $12.5 million, and the Brcko District will receive three per cent, $3.7 million.

Bosnia was the last ex-Yugoslav country to resolve its clearing debt with Russia.

While the debts to all the other countries were settled in commodities, Bosnia is the only country that will receive a financial payment.