The American war in Afghanistan has entered its 16th year. In the midst of continued externally enabled and resilient insurgency, Afghanistan has also simultaneously entered into its third year of handling the full responsibility of the security of the country by the Afghan National Defense and Security Force (ANDSF).

However, Afghanistan continues to be in a precarious situation, as Taliban has again started gaining control over territory since the beginning of the war. Today, it is in control of more territory than the ANDSF and more than what it held in 2001. Bearing the brunt of this violence is the Afghan civilian. In order to improve the lives of Afghan people, the U.S. has been investing resources to help Afghanistan improve in terms of security, governance, socio-political institutions and economy. Furthermore, for the U.S. government, developing Afghanistan’s security forces into a strong, sustainable force remains their top most priority.

In its press release of June 14, 2017, the Secretary of Defense, Lt. Gen. James Mattis mentioned that President Donald Trump has handed the responsibility to set troop levels in Afghanistan to Department of Defense. According to the Defense Secretary, the DoD remains committed to making progress in dismantling the terrorist groups for Afghanistan to become a safe land.1 There has not been change in the force levels for Afghanistan as per the DoD. The core mission remains the same: providing training, advice and assistance support to the ANDSF.2

Against this backdrop, the paper will study President Trump’s approach towards Afghanistan. Secondly, the paper will critically assess Trump Administration’s new policy in Afghanistan vis a vis the policy of the Obama Administration. Thirdly, the paper will critically analyse immediate challenges before the U.S. in Afghanistan. At the end, the response of Afghan government will be studied in the view of American support and the expectations of Afghan government from the US.

Trump’s Approach towards Afghanistan

President Trump’s approach towards Afghanistan revolves around the U.S. national security interests and objectives in Afghanistan. The U.S. mission in Afghanistan is primarily focused on two fronts: military and reconstruction.

First, on the military side, U.S. troops in Afghanistan, currently numbered at around 8,4003 continue to play a pivotal role in ensuring security and stability throughout the country by working alongside the Afghan Security Forces to combat threats posed by the Taliban, the Haqqani network, the Islamic State (ISIS), and other insurgent groups. To prevent Afghanistan from devolving back into a terrorist safe haven, the U.S. will almost certainly have to maintain units in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future.4 It is likely that, a total U.S. troop withdrawal could provide conditions for a civil war. History shows the withdrawal of Soviet troops did lead to the—1992 Civil Wars, and further the rise of Al-Qaeda and Taliban.

Both of President Trump’s predecessors had hoped to win the war. President Bush attained a quick success, by ousting the Taliban shortly after the 9/11 attacks. However, soon after the success, American focus shifted to the Iraq war leading to a resurgence of Taliban by 2005. In refocusing attention on Afghanistan, President Obama was successful in eliminating much of the country’s al-Qaida network and authorized the mission that killed Osama bin Laden however Obama Administration failed to oust the Taliban’s insurgence. In 2009, President Obama had authorized a surge of 30,0005 troops into Afghanistan, bringing the total number of troop to more than 100,000, before drawing down over the rest of his presidency. President Trump on the other hand barely spoke about Afghanistan as a candidate or post his inaugural, concentrating instead on crushing ISIS in Syria and Iraq.

In trying to understand President Trump’s Afghanistan approach based on his public statements and policy proposals, he seems markedly different from the Obama Administration’s focus on nation building and strengthening Afghan political institutions.

In addition, President Trump’s characterization of Afghanistan as a nexus for terrorism could allow the U.S. to build a new policy that aims at completely dismantling the terrorist factions from Afghanistan. Defense Secretary Mattis has told, “We’re not looking at a purely military strategy. All wars come to an end. Our job is to end it as quickly as possible without losing the very mission that we’ve recognized, through several administrations, that was worth putting those young Americans on the line for.”6 Hence, President Trump’s approach towards Afghanistan till the time being indicates that the purpose of deploying more troops is none but providing training, advice and assistance to ANDSF who are now responsible for the security of Afghanistan.

Trump and Obama on Afghanistan

President Trump’s approach to Afghanistan is divergence from the Afghanistan policy of President Obama. President Trump is committed to deploying the U.S. military forces for a long-term and open-ended deployment in Afghanistan.

President Obama had surged tens of thousands of additional troops in Afghanistan, however, it was simultaneously marked with an ambitious timetable for the withdrawal of the U.S. forces starting from July 2011.7 It had a counterproductive effect of encouraging the Taliban to wait for the Americans to move out of their country to slowly increase their control of Afghan rural territory. In context with these challenges, the Trump Administration is determined not to replicate the mistakes of the past; hence no announcements of withdrawal dates have been made yet. After President Trump handed Defense Secretary, James Mattis the responsibility to set troop levels in Afghanistan, he said, “This administration will not repeat the mistakes of the past. We cannot allow Afghanistan to once again become a launching point for attacks on our homeland or on our allies.”8

In June, 2017, the decision of the number of additional American troops going to Afghanistan was bequeathed to Secretary Defense James Mattis by President Trump. The US Secretary of Defense has put the number of new troops that is expected to deploy to Afghanistan at 3,800, adding to the 8,400 that are already there. The U.S. troop levels that Trump Administration plans to deploy in Afghanistan are far lower than they were under President Barack Obama and President George W. Bush. At the time when President Obama had left office on Jan. 20, 2017, there were 8400 U.S. troops; and there are 6941 U.S. soldiers under the NATO-led Resolute Support (RS) Mission in Afghanistan.9

As understood from the above statements, it is implied that for the U.S. to get a meaningful strategy in Afghanistan, it is equally important to consider the broader regional dynamics of South Asia. The war is important because al Qaeda has not been defeated and is still a threat to the U.S. national security.  Pentagon is understandably concerned about the Islamic State and the war in Syria, which has come to overshadow al Qaeda and the war in Afghanistan since 2014.10 But the rise of the Islamic State does not make the Al-Qaeda less dangerous. Al Qaeda and its affiliates remain dedicated to attacking the U.S. interests.

Furthermore, the table below highlights the chief objectives of the Obama and Trump administrations.

Challenges before the Trump Administration

Extremist Groups: Trump Administration is also facing many of the same dilemmas on Afghanistan as the Obama and George W. Bush Administrations: internal security a challenge—including the Taliban insurgency needs to be reduced to a level where the Afghan government could adequately cope on its own. The Bush administration shifted its focus to Iraq, under-resourcing Afghanistan to resolve its structural problems. The Taliban had found refuge in Pakistan and regrouped as the American focus shifted. During Obama Administration—Taliban insurgency was robust and terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and Islamic State were growing. The Obama administration also tried to get Pakistan to cooperate. However, the effort did not yield much result.

The Trump administration has inherited an Afghanistan still critically challenged by terrorism, ISIS has established a branch, al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups remain active inside Afghanistan, and the Taliban continues to pose a challenge to the democratically elected Afghan government, that remains weak and critically dependent on foreign support: military, economic, and political.

Internal Afghan Politics: The problems that soured U.S. support for the Afghan government (then led by PM Hamid Karzai) persist. The huge civilian casualties in Herat province due to violence in 2007 turned things very difficult between Afghanistan and U.S. This incident left a huge impact on then PM Karzai and gave an impression that the American interests to keep American land safe and secure were a priority. However, the National Unity Government (NUG), President Ashraf Ghani remain supportive of the American assistance in Afghanistan. Despite this support, there are some powerful figures that object to the U.S. military presence. Among the most vocal is former Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who remarked in April 2017 that he is committed to “ousting the U.S.”, from Afghanistan.1 The difference of opinions among Afghan leaders is a major disparity that has led to internal political conflict posing further challenge for the Trump Administration.

Regional Politics: At present, Afghanistan is facing dangerous violent insurgency, debilitated by corruption and crime, and struggling with fractions domestic politics and difficult neighbours.2 Afghanistan’s external security environment is even more difficult now than it was during the Obama and Bush years. Pakistan’s position towards Afghanistan has remained unchanged and till Pakistan Army thinks that it has a hold on Afghanistan political structure it won’t change its policies towards Afghanistan.3

Response of the Afghan Government

Under PM Karzai the relationship between Afghanistan and U.S., began to deteriorate with arise in civilian casualties as has been described above. In an interview with Diane Sawyer of ABC News, PM Karzai said, “Now, if we concentrate almost entirely and effectively on providing protection to the civilian population rather than chasing the Taliban, the surge will be helpful and effective… we must emphasize that this war on terror must be one that provides protection to the civilians from attacks by the Taliban, from attacks by the terrorists, and by all other elements. In other words, the presence of the international community in this part of the world, in Afghanistan in particular, must be seen by the population as having brought them security and protection, not the opposite of it.”4 He felt that the security and protection of Afghan civilian not being a major concern in the struggle against extremism. This gave rise to a strained relationship between U.S. and Afghanistan under PM Karzai.

The National Unity government led by President Ghani and Chief Executive Officer Abdullah has demonstrated the will to work through a complex set of issues with the goal of addressing much- needed political and governmental reforms. Of all the countries where the U.S. has been engaged in so far, Afghanistan is one of the few places where the local government—led by President Ghani and Chief Executive Officer Abdullah—and the greater part of the local population have welcomed U.S. military forces.

In a video telephonic conference held on July 28, 2017, President Ghani and Vice President of the United States, Mike Pence have discussed a four year development plan for Afghan security. The fight against corruption, reform plans, fight against terrorism, and regional security were the issues that were discussed over the conference. The VP reaffirmed the commitment of the United States and the American nation to Afghanistan to achieve peace and stability and development in Afghanistan. President Ghani has welcomed and thanked the United States and the American people for their support to Afghanistan, calling the United States as one of the main supporters of Afghanistan.5 The Afghan government is optimistic that the capabilities of the Afghan national defense and security forces will further be bolstered with the implementation of the four year development plan.

Conclusion

The U.S. interests in Afghanistan do not diminish the importance of Iraq, Syria, Libya and other frontline states battling terrorist groups. Nonetheless the U.S. seems to be committed to making Afghanistan and neighbouring Pakistan an important and enduring part of the fight against al-Qaeda, Islamic State and other extremists. Since terrorist groups continue to operate in Afghanistan and the region, the U.S. is determined to work with the Afghan government and US allies and partners. Trump Administration is also focused on pursuing political reconciliation where feasible, and target terrorist and insurgent groups that threaten the U.S. This approach may not quickly end the war, but it would be an important contribution to the U.S., regional and international security.

It will only be a matter of time to see if the Trump policy proves fruitful or not. Undoubtedly the world waits to see how effective the policy would turn out to be, and how much will it benefit both—the U.S. and Afghanistan. Reform is an utmost desideratum in Afghanistan, and the U.S. would need to look into the reform measures—both in governance and security aspects. With full responsibility on the shoulders of ANDSF, it will be significant to see how well they are able to accomplish their duty on securing Afghanistan from challenges emanating from both outside and inside of the country. The world eagerly waits to see if President Trump can keep his promises aimed at completely dismantling the terrorist factions from Afghanistan or not.

*Swati Sinha, M.A. Geopolitics and International Relations, Manipal University, Karnataka, India

Until recently, Nepal had maintained silence on the Doklam standoff.

By Hari Bansh Jha

The standoff between the Indian and Chinese troops along the Bhutan-India-China tri-junction in the Doklam region has been continuing unabated ever since 16 June when China accused Indian troops of intrusion into Chinese territory. ^[i] Ever since then, there is no sign of de-escalation of the situation from either side.

China claims that it is constructing a road in its part of the territory in the Doklam region, while Bhutan’s government treats it as the case of intrusion in its territory. China maintains that whatever it has been doing in the Doklam region is an issue that concerns only China and Bhutan and not India. It blames India for its aggressive posture and accuses its troops of crossing into the Chinese territory. It wants Indian troops to return back from its present position.

On the other hand, India maintains that its troops had moved to the Doklam region only after Bhutan lodged a diplomatic protest with China on the ground of intrusion of Chinese troops into its territory. ^[ii] India defends its position in the Doklam areas as it is committed to safeguarding the security of Bhutan as per the 1949 Treaty of Friendship between the two countries.

India charges China of violating the written understanding of December 2012 between the two sides in which they had agreed not to change the status quo at the tri-junction point without the consent of the third country, which obviously means Bhutan. ^[iii] It feels that China has no ground to change the status quo at the tri-junction point with Bhutan unilaterally either through the construction of roads or by engaging in any other activity across the line of control (LOC) in Bhutanese territory.

In order to stop the Chinese army from moving forward in the Doklam region, India sent nearly 400 of its troops there to ensure the security of Bhutan as well as its own security. China too has placed heavy troops and sophisticated machinery on its side at the tri-junction point to face any eventuality.

In order to assert its position in the Doklam areas, China has not only used undiplomatic languages against India and its leaders, but it has also been threatening India of serious consequences in case it did not withdraw its troops. It warns of even ‘military’ action to resolve the crisis. In certain quarters, it was said that China plan to launch small-scale military operation within two weeks in its bid to expel the Indian troops from the Doklam region. ^[iv]

It appears that India at no cost could back out from its position in Doklam areas as that would mean a threat to its most sensitive region called ‘chicken neck’ of Siliguri areas that join the country’s entire Northeastern states with other parts of the country. Since this region is quite close to the tri-junction point, any change in the status quo in the Doklam region would directly affect Indian security.

The standoff between the world’s two largest armies — of India and China — in the Doklam region has become a matter of concern for the entire global community. It is more so for Nepal as the Doklam region is right across the small Indian state of Sikkim that borders Nepal. Additionally, Nepal, like Bhutan, is sandwiched between India and China, and it also entered into a security pact with India through its 1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship in the same way as Bhutan and India are bound through the security pact of 1949.

Moreover, Nepal finds itself in a quandary as its border with India and China at the tri-junction points both in the northwest at Lipulekh and northwest at Jhinsang Chuli is not yet settled like that of the tri-junction point at Bhutan, India and China border, ^[v] though Nepal and China resolved almost all of their boundary issues through the Boundary Treaty on 5 October 1961. ^[vi] Significantly, in 2015 India and China had made a decision to conduct trade through the Lipulekh pass that Nepal treats as its territory. ^[vii]

Until recently, Nepal had maintained silence on the Doklam standoff. But on Monday (7 August), it made its position on this issue clear. Krishna Bahadur Mahara, the Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Nepal, categorically stated that Nepal would not align on the Doklam issue with any of its neighbours as the country pursues an independent foreign policy. ^[viii] However, he appealed to the two neighbours to settle the issue peacefully through diplomatic negotiations.

This position is not new as far as the country’s foreign policy is concerned. Even during the war between India and China in 1962, Nepal had maintained a neutral stand despite the fact that it had security pact with India.

Nepal’s neutrality between India and China was also reflected in 1969 when the then Nepalese Prime Minister, Kirti Nidhi Bista, during the monarchical period under the Panchayat system, had threatened to go on hunger strike if India did not withdraw its troops from its northern front. India had to withdraw its troops and Military Mission from Nepal under this compulsion.

Even during the Sino-Indian war of 1962, Indian troops were present in Nepal’s northern part. By compelling India to withdraw its troops from Nepal, the country wanted to show that it maintained a neutral and equidistant policy with its neighbours.

What is, however, feared is the situation in which Nepal could be dragged to take the side of one of the two neighbours in case the tension in the Doklam region aggravates? Will Nepal be able to maintain neutrality then? Presently, both Beijing and New Delhi appear to be wooing Nepal on this issue, considering the extremely sensitive location that Nepal maintains between the two neighbours. ^[ix] The Chinese deputy chief of mission in Kathmandu has already briefed Kathmandu about his country’s position on the Doklam issue and made it amply clear that India should withdraw its troops from Doklam. Further, Chinese Vice Premier Wang Yang, during his visit to Nepal on 14 August, is likely to discuss this issue with Nepalese leaders. ^[x] But India is yet to brief Nepal. Possibly, Indian Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj might touch upon this issue with Nepal when she visits the country on August 10 in the wake of the BIMSTEC meeting.

The foreign affairs experts in Nepal seems to be worried over the standoff. They treat this development as a dangerous signal for Nepal. As such, they want Nepal to give priority to its national interest while taking any stand on the issue, which is ambiguous in character.

So far, most of the political parties have maintained silence on the issue — both in the Parliament and outside. ^[xi] However, there is a general perception that Nepal should back Bhutan on this issue. In case Nepal fails to do so, the international community might not be sympathetic to Nepal in a similar situation when it could be coerced by any outside forces.

The more the standoff continues in the Doklam region, the more it will get complicated as both countries would find it increasingly difficult to retreat from the LOC and thereby resolve the crisis. Such a situation does not augur good for the security of the two countries and also for the region. But it would be Himalayan blunders if any country thinks to seek a military solution, instead of the diplomatic one, to resolve the crisis. As Nepal is friendly to both India and China, it could no more remain a silent spectator and should rather use its soft power to pursue the two countries to simultaneously withdraw their troops from the LOC in the Doklam region to ensure long-term peace and stability in the region.

References:

^[i] Jacob, Jayanath, “At the heart of Doklam standoff is China’s attempts to drive wedge into Indo-Bhutan ties,” Hindustan Times, 4 August 2017.

^[ii] Ibid.

^[iii] Ibid.

^[iv] Dasgupta, Saibal, “Chinese daily talks of military operations in Doklam,” The Times of India, 6 August 2017.

^[v] Baral, Biswas, “The View from Nepal on Doklam Stand-off,” My Republica, 20 July 2017, in https://thewire.in/159792/doklam-standoff-india-china-nepal/

^[vi] Shrestha, Buddhi Narayan, “Border Issues of Nepal – With Special Reference to India,” WordPress.com, 17 January 2010, in https://borderissuesofnepal.wordpress.com/

^[vii] Parasar, Sachin, “India wary as China takes up Doklam issue with Nepal,” The Times of India, 6 August 2017.

^[viii] Republica, “Nepal won’t align with India or China on Doklam issue,” My Republica, 8 August 2017.

^[ix] HT Correspondent, “India, China courting Nepal and border stand-off,” Hindustan Times, 3 Auguest 2017, in http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/india-china-courting-nepal-amid-border-standoff/story-s7wIPVWjimuTLK9DXWZpjM.html

^[x] Parasar, no. vii.

^[xi] Republica, “Nepal should not keep mum over Doklam issue: Lawmaker Gyawali,” My Republica, 24 July 2017, in http://www.myrepublica.com/news/24412/

The ominous strains of The Doors, The End, should be playing through the halls of the prime minister’s office in Jerusalem.  He is beset by four concurrent criminal investigations, any one of which could bring him down, should it result in an indictment.

The event that marked the beginning of the end of Netanyahu’s nearly forty-year political career was the deal that his former chief of staff, Avi Harow, struck to turn State’s witness in return for a reduced sentence.  Harow is reported to have recordings of Netanyahu’s conversations with subjects of the various police inquiries including former Israel HaYom editor, Amos Regev and Yediot Achronot publisher, Noni Mozes.  They constitute the chief witnesses in one of the bribery and conspiracy cases being pursued.

Unlike many other journalists or Israeli voters, I don’t rejoice in this development.  Of course Netanyahu is corrupt and doesn’t belong in power.  But neither do any leaders of any of the other parties who will doubtless fill his shoes when his own are retired.  Deposing him will not lead to any change in Israeli politics.  Undoubtedly, when the ax does fall you will find the liberal Zionist journalists from the NY Times, Haaretz, and other foreign publications writing rapturously about the chance for a “new beginning.” How Israel can “make a fresh start.”  How it can now approach the Palestinian issue with fresh eyes.  Mainly they will carry on about how much hope there now is for a change in Israel’s posture toward the Palestinians.

And they will all be wrong.  Israel, with or without Bibi, cannot change.  Say Yair Lapid, a reputed moderate, becomes prime minister…he brings nothing different from Bibi.  He has no new ideas.  He doesn’t stand for anything striking or revolutionary regarding relations with the Palestinians.  He won’t bargain away settlements.  He won’t offer the Palestinians a state or a capital in Jerusalem.  In his mind, he can’t.  The Israeli public simply wouldn’t stand for it–or so the common thinking goes.

Israel has a terminal case of clogged arteries.  No politician in decades has advanced an original idea regarding peace.  Israeli voters are afraid of their own shadows when it comes to considering change or compromise.  Not to mention that they’re never made to pay a price for their intransigence.  The U.S. always vetoes “anti-Israel” resolutions offered in the UN Security Council.  The EU treads lightly even when its own projects in Palestine are destroyed by Israeli forces.  Even the United Nations refuses to support its own employees when they’re dragged before Israeli judges on trumped-up security charges.  As long as there is no price to pay, Israel will never change.

So don’t celebrate when Bibi falls.  Don’t look for new beginnings.  Don’t hope for change.  And when you read that journalist who offers clichés and wishful thinking on the subject, read it with a skeptical eye–and even call them on it.  Don’t give them a free pass.  Because world media are part of the enablers of Israeli oppression through their timidity and tacit acceptance of Israel’s narrative.

Bibi: a Cornered Animal

When Netanyahu faces his darkest hour, he’s always at his most outrageous.  The day of the last election, he demanded national TV air-time to make a speech calling on Israeli right-wing voters to return to Likud.  The networks refused, so he took to Facebook.  There he accused Barack Obama (he didn’t use his name, but used a dog whistle substitute) of renting buses to bring “Arabs in droves” to vote for the end of the State of Israel.  In that tour de force of demagoguery he unleashed every trick in the book including racism, Arabophobia, and the lot.  And it worked.  He won another term.

Today is another one of those days (but with a likely different ultimate outcome).  He offered a performance fit for a tragic opera (or opera bouffe).  Speaking to an audience of thousands of his supporters, he inveighed against the left, the media, and virtually everyone in Israel except his own beloved supporters.  All of them are out to get him in a personal vendetta:

“Their purpose is a governmental coup,” Netanyahu said to thousands of supporters of his Likud Party in Tel Aviv. “Their goal is to apply unrelenting pressure on law enforcement agents so that they’ll serve an indictment at all costs, without taking into account the truth or justice.”

Much of this is true.  There is unrelenting pressure on the police and prosecutor to serve indictments.  But the pressure doesn’t come from leftists, who are a spent force in Israeli politics anyway.  The pressure comes, first of all, from the majority of Israelis who are just plain sick and tired of the Bibi & Sara Show.  Most Israelis want him to go.  Not to mention, that he was never a popular leader to being with.  Polls consistently showed he was beloved by hardly anyone.

Israelis don’t have high standards for their politicians.  They don’t put much stock in them.  For good reason.  Israeli politics is a venal, corrupt sport in which everyone is out for their own personal or communal interest.  There is no such thing as bi-partisanship.  Nor is there even a concept of the greater good, that is, the good of the nation.  Everyone interprets the nation’s good as their own personal good.  John F. Kennedy could never have written a Profiles in Courage about Israeli politics.  Certainly not now, anyway.

Returning to the language of his speech, he is wrong about one major point.  There is no “coup” against him.  And if there is, it is a coup of the whole, rather than of one tiny left-wing splinter.  In other words, Netanyahu barely carries his own party, let alone parties he’s allied with, or parties in the Opposition.  No one wants him.  He has outlived his usefulness.  They all want a new flavor of ice cream.  They’re tired of the pistachio of which he and Sarah were so enamored.

But as I said, this doesn’t open up new vistas or possibilities for change, or peace or anything of the sort.  It offers up possibilities that the old boss will be replaced by a new boss, who is the same as the old one (as The Who so presciently sang).  Lapid, Kahlon, Bennett, Lieberman, Saar, Katz–they’re all ready to rise to the call of the nation.  To solemnly take their place at the helm of state.  And none of them will do a damn thing different from Bibi.  They’ll sound a bit different; have a slightly different accent; be more bellicose (Lieberman) or more nuanced (Lapid).  But it all will amount to nothing in the end.

Bibi and Trump, Brothers in Arms, Confront Their Political Mortality

Bloomberg’s coverage of the speech raised parallels between Bibi’s approach to his looming scandals and Donald Trump’s.  Each inveighs against “fake news,” the “extremists” and “leftists” who ignore their victory at the ballot box.  Each is a megalomaniac, completely self-absorbed and narcissistic.  The world is united against each of them in their imaginations.  Only the chosen few remain truly loyal.  And even those will sometimes betray them to save their own hides.

Each believes he is far more popular than he really is.   Sarah Netanyahu famously told Melania Trump, after arriving in Israel:

“The majority of the people of Israel, unlike the media, they love us, so we tell them how you are great and they love you,” Sara said to Trump and his wife.

Trump then interjected: “We have something very much in common.”

Trump’s popularity has sunk to a historic low of 33% in a recent Pew poll.  Netanyahu’s is not much better.  But there is a clear difference between the Israeli and American political systems.  Israelis don’t vote for specific candidates to represent them.  They don’t vote directly for prime minister as Americans vote for Congress and the presidency.  So all an Israeli candidate needs to do is win his Party’s leadership primary.  Then, if the public likes the Party candidate list (led by the Party leader), they vote for that Party.  In that way, a Party leader who doesn’t command enormous respect from the general population can still become prime minister.

Despite the differences in our respective systems, this is almost precisely what happened in the U.S. presidential election.  The majority of American voters disapproved of Donald Trump.  But a relentless, surreptitious campaign against Clinton so suppressed her vote that Trump slipped in.  In both America and Israel, the voters held their noses as they voted for the least bad candidate or Party.

Just as Netanyahu faces the net closing in on him, so Trump will face the same eventuality.  I have little doubt that just as a mounting drumbeat of criminal charges is overwhelming Netanyahu, the same will happen to Trump.  Mueller has convened a DC grand jury in order to bring indictments against a number in Trump’s inner circle including (but not limited to) Michael Flynn and Paul Manafort.  Roger Stone and Carter Page may be close behind.  Then the investigation promises to move up the food chain to Jared Kushner and Trump Jr.  By the time Mueller is done, the Republicans (I believe) will be faced with the same stark choice they had regarding Nixon after the Saturday Night Massacre.

Though Republicans control both houses of Congress (unlike in the Nixon era), they may have little choice but to show Trump the door.  If their popularity ratings fall off a cliff along with his and they face near oblivion in Congressional races in 2018 or 2020, their hand may be forced.  When faced with a choice between loyalty to Trump and saving their own skins, it’s clear what most of them would choose.

As Trump faces his imminent downfall he will use similar rhetoric to Bibi.  He will complain about a coup mounted by the fake media to overturn the popular will which gave him a “huge” unprecedented, historic victory.  Just as Bibi shreys about “leftists” conspiring with the media to topple him Trump will complain about Democrats conspiring with CNN to bring him down.

The nature of the charges against both men are quite different.  Netanyahu, the second longest-serving Israeli prime minister, is accused of conspiring to improve press coverage by limiting the commercial activity of Israel HaYom, his own pet newspaper.  This was a move to preserve his power.  While the charges against Trump and his coterie involve conspiring with Russian operatives to win his election to the presidency.

In addition, Netanyahu, who isn’t a billionaire like Trump, stands accused of petty corruption: of receiving gifts of cigars and champagne from wealthy political admirers; of his family accepting concert tickets and vacation stays in villas at the expense of other tycoons.

Trump too is corrupt (though it isn’t clear whether these will be charges the special counsel will choose to pursue), but on a much larger scale.  His corruption is on behalf of his own business interests: using his political position and power to advance his real estate schemes.

Finally, along with potential criminal charges, Trump may face charges of violating constitutional provisions (such as violating the emoluments clause).  This won’t happen to Netanyahu since Israel has no constitution.  Bibi cannot be impeached, as Trump can.  That makes the toppling of an Israeli prime minister a much more ad hoc affair.  This is part of the strength of the American system that it offers hard and fast rules that leaders must adhere to.  Violations of these rules result (at least potentially) in losing office.  In Israel, they make these rules up as they go along.  Every scandal involving every prime minister means re-inventing the wheel.

There is a striking difference between the American and Israeli scenes after the downfall of the respective current leaders.  While Israel cannot change, America might.  Though not from the conventional Democratic Party, which offers policies only marginally different from Republicans.  The hope for America lies in the candidacy of someone like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, a truly populist candidate who can surmount the morass of party consensus and political convention.  Unfortunately for Israel, there is no possibility of such a development.

This article was published at Tikun Olam

(RFE/RL) — U.S. President Donald Trump on August 10 said his statement that North Korea “will be met with fire and fury” if it threatened the United States again may not have been “tough enough.”

Speaking to reporters as he vacationed at his golf club in New Jersey, Trump said that while he will always consider negotiations, Pyongyang should be “very, very nervous” if it does anything to the United States.

“North Korea better get their act together, or they are going to be in trouble like few nations have ever been in trouble,”he said.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has “disrespected our country greatly. He has said things that are horrific,” Trump said. “And with me, he’s not getting away with it.”

“It’s not a dare. It’s a statement,” Trump said. “He’s not going to go around threatening Guam. And he’s not going to threaten the United States. And he’s not going to threaten Japan. And he’s not going to threaten South Korea.”

North Korea has said it will complete plans by mid-month to strike near the U.S. Pacific island territory of Guam with intermediate-range ballistic missiles.

“Let’s see what he does with Guam,” Trump said. “He does something in Guam, it will be an event the likes of which nobody’s seen before, what will happen in North Korea.”

Shortly after Trump spoke, U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said the United States is “ready” to take on North Korea, but Washington still prefers to resolve matters through negotiations because any war would be “catastrophic.”

On August 8, the U.S. president warned that North Korea will “be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen” after a Washington Post report, citing U.S. intelligence officials, said Pyongyang had produced a miniaturized nuclear warhead that can fit inside its missiles — a key step in the country’s attempt to become a full-fledged nuclear power.

In response, Pyongyang announced a detailed plan to fire missiles near the U.S. territory of Guam soon as a “crucial warning,” adding that “only absolute force can work” on Trump.

Tensions between Washington and Pyongyang have escalated after North Korea tested two intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) in July, later claiming that it now had the capability to reach all of the U.S. mainland.

Last week, the United Nations imposed its harshest sanctions yet on Pyongyang as a result of its nuclear weapons program. They are expected to cut North Korea’s export revenues by one-third.

Trump praised China and Russia for backing the sanctions, saying “I have great respect for what China and what Russia did.”

But he said China, North Korea’s closest ally, could do “a lot more” to pressure Pyongyang to end its nuclear weapons program.

Trump also railed against previous U.S. administrations for not being tough enough on North Korea, calling the country’s pursuit of nuclear weapons a “tragedy.”

Earlier on August 10, North Korea’s state-run news agency KCNA quoted General Kim Rak Gyom, commander of the Strategic Force of the Korean People’s Army (KPA), as saying that Pyongyang was planning to launch four Hwasong-12 rockets that would fly over Japan and hit the water around 30 to 40 kilometers away from Guam in the western Pacific.

Guam, located in the Pacific Ocean some 3,400 kilometers from the Korean Peninsula, is home to a U.S. military base and about 160,000 people.

Kim said the plan would be finalized by mid-August and that the KPA would then await the orders of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

He also said that Trump had “let out a load of nonsense about ‘fire and fury,’ failing to grasp the ongoing grave situation.”

Meanwhile, South Korea’s military on August 10 warned Pyongyang that it would face “the allies’ strong and resolute retaliation” in case of an attack.

Japan’s Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga said Pyongyang’s threat to fire missiles near Guam is “absolutely unacceptable.”

(EurActiv) — The European Union on Thursday (10 August) expanded its North Korean sanctions blacklist as fiery rhetoric between Washington and Pyongyang sent tensions soaring.

The 28-nation EU has steadily increased asset freezes and travel bans on North Korea over its repeated violation of UN resolutions on its nuclear and ballistic missile programmes.

After tests of an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) capable of reaching the US mainland, the UN last week imposed the most damaging restrictions so far aimed at slashing North Korea’s vital export earnings.

The EU member states said in a statement that in accordance with the UN resolution, the bloc was adding nine individuals and four entities – including state-owned Foreign Trade Bank (FTB) – to its sanctions list.

“This resolution was adopted on 5 August 2017 in response to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK)’s ongoing nuclear-weapon and ballistic missile-development activities, in violation and flagrant disregard of previous UN Security Council resolutions,” the statement noted.

The decision brings the total number of individuals listed by the EU to 103, plus 57 entities.

The European Council, which groups the EU member states, said they would also work on the swift implementation of other parts of the UN resolution, including efforts to curb earnings sent home by North Koreans working abroad.

US President Donald Trump earlier this week stunned the world with an apocalyptic warning to unleash “fire and fury” on North Korea. Pyongyang responded in kind by announcing a detailed plan to send a salvo of missiles toward the US territory of Guam.

he opioid crisis in the United States is resulting in increased admissions to hospital intensive care units and in increased numbers of ICU deaths from opioid overdoses, according to new research published online, ahead of print in the Annals of the American Thoracic Society.

In “The Critical Care Crisis of Opioid Overdoses in the United States,” researchers report that between Jan. 2009 and Sept. 2015, admission to the ICU at 162 U.S. hospitals in 44 states increased by 34 percent. During that same time, deaths from these overdoses averaged 7 percent, but rose to 10 percent by 2015. These statistics taken together, the researchers estimate, indicate that deaths in these ICUs from opioid overdoses nearly doubled over the seven years. The researchers also found that the cost of caring for these patients increased from $58,517 to $92,408 (in 2015 dollars) in the same period.

“The opioid epidemic has reached a new level of crisis,” said lead study author Jennifer P. Stevens, MD, associate director of the medical intensive care unit at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School. “This study tells us that the opioid epidemic has made people sicker and killed more people, in spite of all the care we can provide in the ICU, including mechanical ventilation, acute dialysis, life support and round-the-clock care.”

The authors believe that their report provides the first description of the impact of the opioid addiction crisis on the nation’s ICUs. Their data source was the Clinical Data Base/Resource ManagerTM. Over seven years, 4,145,068 patients required ICU care at the hospitals contributing to the data base. Of those, 21,705 were patients who had overdosed on opioids, most commonly heroin.

Among the opioid overdose patients, 25 percent experienced aspiration pneumonia, 15 percent rhabdomyolosis (release of dead muscle fiber into the bloodstream), 8 percent anoxic brain injury and 6 percent septic shock. Ten percent of patients who overdosed needed mechanical ventilation.

The study could not determine whether increased ICU admissions for opioid overdoses resulted from improved community emergency response that saved lives but then required critical care or whether the increased ICU admissions indicated the community emergency response needed to be improved so that patients could recover with lower levels of hospital care.

“These data don’t tell us whether the problem is with the drugs themselves, challenges with pre-hospital care for patients with overdose, our care in the ICUs or some combination of these factors,” Dr. Stevens said. “The urgency of our findings, however, suggests the need for a larger, national approach to developing safe strategies to care for patients with overdose in the ICU, to provide coordinated resources in the hospital for patients and families and to help survivors maintain sobriety on discharge.”

The authors also argue in their article that “any admission to the ICU for opioid overdose is a preventable admission.” Study limitations include the fact that nearly all hospitals participating in the Clinical Data Base/Resource ManagerTM are located in cities, and most are part of academic medical centers. Findings may not be generalizable to communities with fewer critical care resources.

When a solar eclipse plunges the country into darkness Aug. 21, Nathaniel Frissell will be stationed directly along the shadow’s path, leading one of the largest ionospheric experiments in the history of space science from the back porch of a cabin in Gilbertsville, Kentucky.

With a 102 ft. wire antenna, he will contact a network of ham radio operators he’s assembled around the world to test the strength and reach of their high frequency signals as one measure of the eclipse’s impact on Earth’s atmosphere. More than a week in advance, nearly 200 operators – from New Jersey, to Tennessee, to Wyoming in the U.S. and at far-flung locales such as Chile, Greece and India – are already signed on to be “citizen-scientists” that day by recording their contacts with one another. Their number grows daily.

“Among other phenomena, we’re hoping to use our radio transmissions to identify how much of the ionosphere is impacted by the eclipse and how long the effects last,” explained Frissell, an assistant research professor of physics at NJIT’s Center for Solar Terrestrial Research and a sophisticated practitioner of ham radio who is intent on elevating the technology’s role in space science research. He will share data and analysis from the day at the American Geophysical Union annual meeting in December.

Frissell has been preparing for this rare event for more than two years. While a Ph.D. student at Virginia Tech, he founded the Ham Radio Science Citizen Investigation (HamSCI), an organization that connects professional researchers such as space physicists and astronomers with the amateur radio community. By merging their data, the different groups will be able to construct a comprehensive picture of atmospheric effects caused by space weather events ranging from the solar eclipse later this month to more common phenomena, such as solar flares. In 2014, he first demonstrated the use of ham radio data by showing the effects of an X-class solar flare on high frequency communications.

On NJIT’s campus, members of Frissell’s team of undergraduate ham radio operators, including Spencer Gunning, Joshua Vega and Joshua Katz, have been constructing a website and developing data analysis tools that will allow them to gather and interpret the observations generated during the eclipse. Hundreds of hams around the world are planning on participating in this event, and they will be generating a large and diverse set of measurements.

Katz, along with Shaheda Shaik, a physics major and student researcher at NJIT’s Center for Solar-Terrestrial Research, will give a talk on the eclipse at the United Astronomy Clubs of New Jersey (UACNJ) observatory at Jenny Jump State Forest Saturday, Aug. 19. Katz will return to the observatory Aug. 21 with other members of the NJIT K2MFF Amateur Radio Club to participate in the HamSCI Eclipse Ham Radio experiments. They plan on operating outside so they can view the eclipse while using their radios.

“We’ll be participating in an international data-collection effort, learning more about the space weather effects of the eclipse, exposing the general public to amateur radio and watching a beautiful once-in-a-lifetime solar event all on the same day,” Katz said. “That’s more excitement than programmers and data analysts like me are usually allowed to have in a single sitting!”

New Jersey will experience a partial eclipse – about 75 percent shadow cover that day – beginning shortly after 1 p.m. Visitors can participate that day in UACNJ’s Eclipse Observation event. (See http://www.uacnj.org for details.)

Frissell calld the eclipse “a spectacular event that has gripped the public’s imagination.”

“What’s exciting from a researcher’s perspective is that people have access to tools such as digital radios and computers that are connected in ways they weren’t in the past, allowing us to make observations and then collect and share them,” he noted. “For us, this is an unusual opportunity to learn things we don’t know about the ionosphere, the electrified region of Earth’s upper atmosphere formed when ultraviolet light from the Sun dislodges electrons from neutral particles such as oxygen, nitrogen and helium. This is one of the very few times we’re able to conduct a controlled experiment around a space weather event. Normally, we have no advanced knowledge over when, where and how they happen.”

Ham radio operators are acutely interested in the ionosphere, in part because it allows them to communicate with each other across thousands of miles and despite the Earth’s curvature, which disrupts normal line-of-sight communications. Their high-frequency radio waves bounce off the upper atmosphere and are refracted back down on the other side of the globe. The composition of the ionosphere at different levels affects their ability to transmit.

“A station in Texas may not normally be able to talk to one in North Dakota on a particular frequency at a certain time of day. However, the eclipse will change the ionospheric state and possibly create communication paths that do not normally exist. We will be looking for those changes, among other impacts,” he noted “If you suddenly alter the ionosphere as happens during an eclipse, by reducing the number of ions or changing the temperature, for example, does it create waves or instabilities? How far can these effects be detected?”

A major source of HamSCI data comes from the Reverse Beacon Network (RBN). The Reverse Beacon Network is an automated radio (1.8 – 144 MHz) receiving network created and maintained voluntarily by ham radio operators. The American Radio Relay League (ARRL) is working with HamSCI to organize and promote a Solar Eclipse QSO Party, a contest-like operating event designed to get hams on the air during the eclipse.

A team of researchers has developed a new mechanism that uses machine-learning algorithms to distinguish between genuine and counterfeit versions of the same product.

The work, led by New York University Professor Lakshminarayanan Subramanian, will be presented on Mon., Aug. 14 at the annual KDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining in Halifax, Nova Scotia.

“The underlying principle of our system stems from the idea that microscopic characteristics in a genuine product or a class of products–corresponding to the same larger product line–exhibit inherent similarities that can be used to distinguish these products from their corresponding counterfeit versions,” explained Subramanian, a professor at NYU’s Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences.

The system described in the presentation is commercialized by Entrupy Inc., an NYU startup founded by Ashlesh Sharma, a doctoral graduate from the Courant Institute, Vidyuth Srinivasan, and Subramanian.

Counterfeit goods represent a massive worldwide problem with nearly every high-valued physical object or product directly affected by this issue, the researchers note. Some reports indicate counterfeit trafficking represents 7 percent of the world’s trade today.

While other counterfeit-detection methods exist, these are invasive and run the risk of damaging the products under examination.

The Entrupy method, by contrast, provides a non-intrusive solution to easily distinguish authentic versions of the product produced by the original manufacturer and fake versions of the product produced by counterfeiters.

It does so by deploying a dataset of three million images across various objects and materials such as fabrics, leather, pills, electronics, toys and shoes.

“The classification accuracy is more than 98 percent, and we show how our system works with a cellphone to verify the authenticity of everyday objects,” noted Subramanian.

To date, Entrupy, which recently received $2.6 million in funding from a team of investors, has authenticated $14 million worth of goods.

Kuwait has deported dozens of homosexuals and shut down “gay” massage parlours, according to the country’s moral committee.

Speaking to Kuwait’s al-Seyassah newspaper, Mohammad al-Dhufairi said that “76 men have been deported” during a “moral” crackdown on homosexuality.

“We have a zero-tolerance policy towards any morally distasteful deeds and we refuse to show leniency with anyone who breaks the rules or puts the health of Kuwaiti citizens and residents at risk,” al-Dhufairi told the newspaper.

During the raids, the committee found sex toys, women’s underwear and makeup that the men were reportedly using.

Twenty two massage parlours were also shut down after being suspected of being a hub for homosexual activity.

While being a part of the LGBTQ+ community in Kuwait is already difficult, with social and legal stigmas on homosexuality, LGBTQ+ expats in Kuwait are put at a significant disadvantage.

In 2013, Yousuf Mindkar, an official at the Kuwaiti health ministry said in an interview that he wanted to come up with a homosexual detection system to keep gays out of Kuwait and other countries in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC).

LGBTQ+ individuals receive no protection of their rights in Kuwait and homosexual acts between men can result in a six-year prison sentence. Cross-dressing was outlawed in 2008.

There are no laws against sexual acts between women because under article 193 of the Kuwaiti Penal Code which punishes debauchery, homosexuality is interpreted by the courts to mean male homosexuality.

Original source

The European Commission on Friday endorsed under EU state aid rules three German virtual access products that will allow the use of so-called vectoring technology in state funded high speed broadband networks. This will boost connectivity in rural areas, whilst maintaining competition in the Single Market

In June 2015, the Commission approved a €3 billion German state aid scheme to promote investment in high speed broadband infrastructure, especially for rural areas where private investment is lacking. In its decision, the Commission allowed the use of the so-called vectoring technology, provided Germany offered virtual access products to replace the physical access lost due to the use of vectoring.

Vectoring technology allows increased broadband speed over the existing copper network beyond the highest levels normally achieved via very high speed digital subscriber lines (VDSL). This is achieved at comparably low costs. However, as a side-effect, competitors are no longer able to gain physical access to individual copper lines leading to the customers, and are therefore prevented from providing their own high speed internet products to them.

The introduction of an adequate virtual unbundled local access (VULA) product can compensate the negative effects of vectoring. A VULA product requires the network operator to transport competitors’ data traffic at conditions similar to those the competitors would have had with physical access to the copper lines. This preserves the possibility for competitors to make own diversified high speed internet offers to their customers even when vectoring is used by the network operator.

In September 2016, Germany notified to the Commission three VULA products proposed by Deutsche Telekom, DNS:Net and NetCologne for their respective broadband roll-out projects under the national next generation access (NGA) scheme.

The Commission said it has thoroughly examined the three proposed VULA products, to assess whether they would adequately compensate the negative effects of vectoring and ensure open access to the network, as required by the 2013 Broadband State Aid Guidelines.

After several amendments to the notified products, the Commission found that the proposed VULA products offered by the three companies fulfill the requirements of providing adequate virtual access to the network.

In particular, the VULA products cover the stretch of copper network leading to final customers. This is in line with the Commission’s June 2015 decision, considering that in the relevant rural areas vectoring technology removes physical access to the copper network at this point in the network.

On this basis, the Commission concluded that the three proposed VULA products fulfill the requirements set out in its approval decision of June 2015. This in turn allows vectoring technology to start being used in state-funded high speed broadband networks in Germany.

Nine years ago, on August 8, 2008, Russian military forces annexed the lands of its Eastern European neighbor, Georgia. For decades, Georgia has pursued European and Euro Atlantic aspirations in contrast to Russia. After a brief war with Georgian forces, Russia recognized two integral parts of Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, as independent states. These moves -were widely criticized in the international arena. Then President of France, Nicolas Sarkozy, played a crucial role in bringing the two sides to a cease fire agreement. However, even today, Russia continues to violate the post-war agreement and the unlawful annexation of Georgian lands. Most of the international community does not recognize the two so-called “states” — only Nauru and Venezuela, perhaps on a promise of reward from Russia.

As the integral Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia remain annexed by Russia, the new ruling party “Georgian Dream” follows the policy of peaceful reconciliation and confidence building. However, Russian military build-up and constant violation of the Cease Fire Agreement of 2008 makes resolution of the conflict implausible.

Pro -Russian separatists have intensified efforts against ethnic Georgians, Georgian language schools have been shut down, ethnic Georgians have been forced to adopt Russian citizenship, and barbed wire fences built by separatists mark impromptu “borders.” Amid this tension, Russia continues to prevent international organizations, including the UN and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), from sending peacekeeping missions to the affected regions.

It is indisputable that the NATO member states with the US leadership remain strict in its position of supporting Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. U.S. Vice President Mike Pence’s recent visit to Georgia was a clear illustration of high-level support from the United States. During his trip, Pence also made appearances in Estonia and Montenegro. It is significant that along with visiting NATO allies, Pence visited a NATO aspirant state — Georgia. With that, he sent a clear signal to Russia that Georgia’s Western path is irreversible and no foreign power can change it. While in Georgia, Pence expressed full support toward Georgia’s territorial integrity.

“The U.S. strongly condemns Russia’s occupation on Georgian soil,” Pence said at a joint news conference with Georgian Prime Minister Giorgi Kvirikashvili in Tbilisi, the Georgian capital. “We will reject any claim at any time by any nation that undermines this enduring principle.”

Pence later addressed American and Georgian troops at Exercise Noble Partner, held in the framework of the strategic partnership between NATO and Georgia.

Pence’s visit took place as U.S. President Donald Trump signed the Russia Sanctions Bill, which puts additional sanctions on Russia in response to its unlawful interventions — particularly in Ukraine, Georgia, and meddling in the US elections.

As a retaliatory measure to those sanctions, Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered 755 employees of US Diplomatic Missions in Russia to leave the country. Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev stated that, “[Additional Sanctions on Russia] is the death of hopes to improve our relations with the new American administration.”

Pence’s strong message of resistance to Russian aggression in Eastern Europe, timed with Trump’s signature on the sanctions bill, truly angered Putin. After he returned from his Siberian vacation, Putin visited the Georgian breakaway region of Abkhazia in order to reiterate his unlawful commitment to recognizing it as an independent state. However, his attempts to split the country will not be tolerated in Western capitals.

The State Department issued a statement on August 9, condemning Putin’s visit in Abkhazia and once again reiterating full support of Georgia’s territorial integrity and sovereignty: “The United States views the visit of President Putin to the Russian occupied Georgian territory of Abkhazia as inappropriate and inconsistent with the principles underlying the Geneva International Discussions, to which Russia is a party. The United States fully supports Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders and rejects Russia’s recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.”

Georgia calmly cements itself as a modern European state and beacon of democracy in the region. With over 70% of Georgians supporting EU and NATO integration, Georgia’s Western future and peaceful reconciliation with breakaway regions have no alternative.

*The Georgian Youth Network in the United States helps young Georgians to stay connected to each other both in USA and Georgia. The Network gives visitors an opportunity to meticulously observe the relevant issues related to Georgia and follow the students who study abroad in the United States. The main aspirations of the network are the promotion of a Georgian culture in the United States and the guidance for the young Georgian students who plan to study abroad.

Outgoing Vice President of India and outstanding Indian educationalist Hamid Ansari has rightly said that India is fast moving toward a terrocracy as Muslims are being targeted by a section of majority Hindus and there is a feeling of unease and a sense of insecurity among the Muslims in the country, asserting the “ambience of acceptance” is now under threat.

Dr. Ansari said a sense of insecurity is creeping in as a result of the dominant mood created by some and the resultant intolerance and vigilantism he shared the view of many that intolerance was growing. In hard-hitting remarks during an interview he ascribed the spate of vigilante violence, mob lynchings, beef bans and “Ghar Wapsi” campaigns to a “breakdown of Indian values” and to the “breakdown of the ability of the authorities” to enforce the law. “…and overall, the very fact that the Indianness of any citizen (is) being questioned is a disturbing thought,” Ansari said.

By targeting Muslims the Constitutional guarantees for the protection of minorities are being violated by the ruling classes and judiciary has no role in protecting the Muslims from majority attacks, either.

Emotional outbursts

A feeling of unease and insecurity is creeping in among Muslims in India, Vice President Hamid Ansari said in his parting interview to Rajya Sabha TV joining a growing number of leaders who have expressed concerns over attacks on minorities.

Professor Hamid Ansari, whose second five-year term as the Vice-President ended on August 10, made these remarks in the backdrop of incidents of “intolerance” and cow vigilantism. Stating that he had flagged the issue of “intolerance” with Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his cabinet colleagues, Ansari, 80, also described the questioning of citizens over their love for India as a “disturbing thought”.

Ansari, who completed two terms as vice president on August 10, said that there is a breakdown of Indian values and of the abilities among authorities at different levels in different places to be able to enforce what should be normal law enforcing work. “Overall, the very fact that Indianness of any citizen being questioned is a disturbing thought,” he said in his parting interview to Rajya Sabha TV. Congress president Sonia Gandhi MP raised similar concerns during a speech in Parliament where she urged people to not let “dark forces” diminish India’s core values. Neither Ansari nor Gandhi named any party or individual in particular, but their statements can be seen to allude to the leadership of the Bharatiya Janata Party, which the Congress party and other opposition outfits often accuse of pandering to right-wing Hindu ideologies.

On the August 10 Ansari left his Vice Presidential office at Hyderabad House in New Delhi that only Philosopher S Radhakrishnan had occupied as long as 10 years. The BJP government, for obvious political reasons, did not want to elevate him to be the president nor was given another term. He ruled out possibilities of Indian Muslims getting influenced by ISI and such other elements but mentioned that it would be a correct assessment to say that the Muslim community is feeling insecure.

Ansari, the only two-term vice president after S Radhakrishnan, also voiced advice for the Muslim community. “Do not create for one self or one’s fellow beings an imaginary situation which is centuries back, when things were very different. The challenges today are challenges of development, what are the requirements for development; you keep up with the times, educate yourself, and compete…”

On the situation in Jammu Kashmir, Ansari said, “the problem has always primarily been a political problem. And it has to be addressed politically.”

He agreed to a suggestion that politicians are ducking the problem. “That’s my impression. And I m not the only one in the country…when young boys and girls come out on to the streets and throw stones day after day, week after week, month after month, it’s something to worry about because they are our children, they are our citizens.” “Something is obviously going wrong. What exactly, I am not the final word on it, but I think there are enough people in the country who are worried about it. Eminent people belonging to different political persuasions and their worry must be taken on board,” the Vice President said.

Muslim community terrorized, alienated

In the interview, Vice President Ansari referred to incidents of lynching and ‘ghar wapsi’ and alleged killings of rationalists as a “breakdown of Indian values, breakdown of the ability of the authorities at different levels in different places to be able to enforce what should be normal law enforcing work and over all the very fact that Indianness of any citizen being questioned is a disturbing thought.” “Yes it is a correct assessment,” Ansari said agreed with the assessment that the Muslim community is apprehensive and that it was feeling insecure as a result of the kind of comments made against them.

“Yes it is a correct assessment, from all I hear from different quarters, the country; I heard the same thing in Bangalore, I have heard from other parts of the country, I hear more about it in north India, there is a feeling of unease, a sense of insecurity is creeping in,” he said.

Ansari was of the view that while tolerance is a good virtue, it is not a sufficient virtue. “…therefore you have to take the next step and go from tolerance to acceptance,” he said. Asked whether he felt that the Muslims are “beginning to feel that they are not wanted”, Ansari said, “I would not go that far, there is a sense of insecurity.” Attacks on Muslims and lynching of Muslims directly say that. He said India is a plural society that has for centuries, not just seventy years, has lived in a certain “ambience of acceptance” which is now “under threat”. He was of the view that the propensity to be able to assert your nationalism day-in and day-out is “unnecessary”. “I am an Indian and that is it,” he said.

Asked in an interview why he thought Indian values were “suddenly” breaking down, Vice-President Hamid Ansari answered: “Because we are a plural society that for centuries, not for 70 years, has lived in a certain ambience of acceptance.” He said this acceptance was “under threat”. “This propensity to be able to assert your nationalism day in and day out is unnecessary. I am an Indian and that is it,” he told Rajya Sabha TV.

Referring to the incidents of lynching and ‘ghar wapsi’ and killings of rationalists as a “breakdown of Indian values”, Ansari said, “breakdown of the ability of the authorities at different levels in different places to be able to enforce what should be normal law enforcing work and over all the very fact that Indianness of any citizen being questioned is a disturbing thought.”

On being asked if he agreed with the assessment that the Muslim community is apprehensive and that it was feeling insecure as a result of the kind of comments made against them, Ansari said, “Yes it is a correct assessment, from all I hear from different quarters, the country; I heard the same thing in Bangalore, I have heard from other parts of the country, I hear more about in north India, there is a feeling of unease, a sense of insecurity is creeping in,” “There is a sense of insecurity,” said Ansari, adding that India is a plural society that for centuries, not for seventy years, has lived in a certain “ambience of acceptance” which is now under threat.

Regarding the issues of tolerance, he mentioned that while tolerance is a good virtue, it is not a sufficient virtue. “…therefore you have to take the next step and go from tolerance to acceptance,” he said. At an event in Bengaluru on Sunday, Ansari said the “version of nationalism” that places cultural commitments at its core promotes intolerance and arrogant patriotism.

He said the issue of Triple Talaq is a social aberration and the reform, if any at all, has to come from within the community leaders of political other parties and religions need not interfere in the personal matters of Muslims. “The religious requirement is crystal clear, emphatic, there are no two views about it but patriarchy, social customs has all crept into it to create a situation which is highly undesirable.”

Threat to nationalism and unity

RSS-BJP duo employs the “patriotism” to insult Muslims as if Hindus are extra patriots. They want Hindu votes to come to power. They don’t mind another division of the nation to make India a “pure” Hindu nation. At an event in Bengaluru in the South, Vice President Ansari said that the “version of nationalism” that places cultural commitments at its core “promotes intolerance” and arrogant patriotism. Responding to a question on comments made by some BJP leaders related to minorities, he said he would not talk about people in politics or about political parties. “But to me, every time such a comment appeared or came to my knowledge; I mean my first reaction was that the person is ignorant and that he is prejudiced and he does not fit into the framework that India has always prided to itself on, which is to be an accommodative society,” he said.

Ansari was asked a question on his lecture at the National Law School in Bengaluru earlier this month where he said rejuvenating secularism’s basic principles was becoming a challenge. There is a feeling of unease, a sense of insecurity is creeping in,” he told journalist Karan Thapar during the interview after being asked to reflect on his statement in Bengaluru.

Asked specifically about his speech in which he spoke about a nationalism with cultural commitments at its core being perceived as the most conservative and illiberal form of nationalism, and whether the remark was about the mood of the country in 2017, he replied: “Oh, absolutely.” And he agreed he had felt a personal need to underline that this need to keep proving one’s patriotism, and the intolerance it made for, was unhealthy: “Yes. And I am not the only one in the country; a great many people feel the same way.” Asked if he had shared these apprehensions with the PM or the government, he replied: “Yes… But what passes between the Vice-President and the PM in the nature of things must remain in the domain of privileged information.”

The outgoing vice president also ruled out the possibility of Indian Muslims being influenced by militant outfits.

Political reactions

Ansari said that he shared his apprehensions to the Prime Minister and other cabinet ministers, but refused to divulge details of their interaction on the plank that “what passes between the vice president and the Prime Minister in the nature of things must remain in the domain of privileged conversation.” Asked in an interview on Rajya Sabha TV whether he shared his concerns with the prime minister, Ansari, who is also the Rajya Sabha Chairman, said that he had. “Yes…yes. But what passes between the Vice President and the Prime Minister in the nature of things must remain in the domain of privileged conversation,” said. He said that he has also flagged the issue with other union ministers. “Well, there is always an explanation and there is always a reason. Now it is a matter of judgment, whether you accept the explanation, you accept the reasoning and its rationale,” he said when asked about the response of the government.

Anti-Muslim forces like BJP-RSS cannot digest plain criticism of Hindutva mischief and never admit that they have created a dirty sense of uneasy and insecurity of for Indian Muslims, His comments drew criticism from the BJP, with party general secretary Kailash Vijayvargiya questioning if Ansari was looking for “political shelter” after retirement. In fact, that is how the BJP and RSS add members into their fold who speak against Islam and Muslims or for a Hindutva nation, and promote them for big positions.

Professor Ansari’s comments about the feeling of unease and a sense of insecurity creeping in among the Muslims in the country against the current backdrop of intolerance and vigilante violence drew criticism from the BJP, with party general secretary Kailash Vijayvargiya questioning if Ansari was looking for “political shelter” after retirement.

Ansari’s successor Venkaiah Naidu, who was sworn in on Friday also criticized Ansari, seemingly responded to the comments, dismissing them as “political propaganda”. “Some people are saying minorities are insecure… Compared to the entire world, minorities are safer and secure in India and they get their due,” Naidu said.

A day after outgoing vice president Hamid Ansari said Muslims were feeling insecure, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said he (Ansari) will be free to pursue his “core thinking” once he demits office. In the Rajya Sabha, where Ansari was given a farewell on his last day in office, Modi hailed his role in the past 10 years and said Ansari had tried his best to live up to it.

Meanwhile, former union minister Venkaiah Naidu has been elected as his successor and Ansari thinks that the nature of the job of chairman of Rajya Sabha will dictate the response and there is no reason why the Opposition will not get a fair deal under Naidu’s chairmanship.

Ansari’s successor an RSS operative Venkaiah Naidu  seemingly responded to the comments, dismissing them as “political propaganda”. “Some people are saying minorities are insecure… Compared to the entire world, minorities are safer and secure in India and they get their due,” Naidu said.

PM Modi praised outgoing Vice-President Hamid Ansari for his track record in public service. With Ansari chairing his last session in the Rajya Sabha, Modi led the tributes as Upper House members expressed their heartfelt gratitude and congratulated the political veteran on his efficient contributions.

A day after outgoing vice president Hamid Ansari said Muslims were feeling insecure, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said he (Ansari) will be free to pursue his “core thinking” once he demits office. In his remarks in the Rajya Sabha, where Ansari was given a farewell on his last day in office, Modi hailed his role in the past 10 years and said Ansari had tried his best to live up to it.

Prime Minister Modi referred to the 100 years of public life of Ansari’s forefathers and said they were aligned with the Congress and Khilafat Movement. The Khilafat Movement, launched by Muslim clergy in India to protest against the threat to Islamic Caliphate following the defeat of Turkey at the hands of Britain in World War I, was supported by Mahatma Gandhi and has been seen as among the factors which contributed to the growth of separatist consciousness among the community which led to the country’s partition in 1947. In an interview to Rajya Sabha TV, Ansari struck a note of caution, warning that Muslims in the country are feeling insecure amid a sense of growing intolerance – “the ambience of acceptance” is at risk

Modi recalled Ansari’s diplomatic career during which he spent many years in West Asia and his role on retirement as the Vice Chancellor of Aligarh Muslim University and as the Chairman of Minorities Commission. “Many years of your life were spent in that circle. You stayed in that atmosphere, with that thinking and debating with those people. After retirement your engagement mostly remained the same. “…But in the last 10 years, you had a different responsibility. Every moment was spent in the ambit of Constitution and running Rajya Sabha. You tried your best to run it. “Maybe there was some uneasiness within you. But from now onwards, you will not face that difficulty. You will also feel free and work, think and speak according to your core thinking.”

Responding to a question on comments made by some BJP leaders related to minorities, he said he would not talk about political people or political parties. “But to me, every time such a comment appeared or came to my knowledge; I mean my first reaction was that, A: the person is ignorant, B: that he is prejudiced and C: he does not fit into the framework that India has always prided to itself on, which is to be accommodative society,” he said.

Replying to a question on some BJP leaders comments related to minorities, he aid he would not talk about political people or political parties. “But to me, every time such a comment appeared or came to my knowledge; I mean my first reaction was that, A: the person is ignorant, B: that he is prejudiced and C: he does not fit into the framework that India has always prided to itself on, which is to be accommodative society,” he said.

Ansari also described the questioning of Indianness of citizens as a “disturbing thought.”Asked in an interview to Karan Thapar on Rajya Sabha TV whether he shared his concerns with the prime minister, Ansari replied in the affirmative. “Yes…yes. But what passes between the Vice President and the Prime Minister in the nature of things must remain in the domain of privileged conversation,” the ex officio chairman of Rajya Sabha said. Regarding the government’s response, he said, “Well, there is always an explanation and there is always a reason. Now it is a matter of judgment, whether you accept the explanation, you accept the reasoning and its rationale,” he said.

Profile

Hamid Ansari was born to Mohammad Abdul Aziz Ansari and Aasiya Begum in Calcutta (now Kolkata), West Bengal, India on 1 April 1937 though his family belongs to Ghazipur in Uttar Pradesh. Ansari is the grandson of a brother of former Congress President Mukhtar Ahmad Ansari, a leader of the Indian independence movement. He is the grand nephew of Dr. Mukhtar Ahmad Ansari, the former President of the INC (Indian National Congress) and also the founder of Jamia Millia Islamia- now federal university.

Ansari studied at St. Edward’s School, Shimla, St. Xavier’s College, Kolkata and Aligarh Muslim University where he completed an MA in Political Science in 1959. He started his career as Officer in the Indian Foreign Service in 1961. He was Permanent Representative of India to the United Nations, Indian High Commissioner to Australia and Ambassador to the United Arab Emirates, Afghanistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia. He was awarded the Padma Shree in 1984. He was also Professor & Vice-Chancellor of the Aligarh Muslim University from May 2000 to March 2002. He is known for his role in ensuring compensation to the victims of the Gujarat riots and pushing for a complete re-look into the relief and rehabilitation for riot victims since 1984.

Ansari was the first person to be re-elected as Indian VP after Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan in 1957. He also presently serves as President of the Indian Institute of Public Administration, Chancellor of Pondicherry University and the President of the Indian Council of World Affairs. Ansari worked as an ambassador and served as the Vice-Chancellor of the Aligarh Muslim University from 2000 to 2002.[2] Later he was Chairman of the National Commission for Minorities from 2006 to 2007. He was elected as the Vice-President of India on 10 August 2007 and took office on 11 August 2007. He was reelected on 7 August 2012 His second term ended in August 2017 since he decided not to run for a third term in the 2017 vice-presidential election. Upon the inauguration of Ram Nath Kovind as President of India in 2017, Ansari became the first Indian Vice-President to serve during the terms of three presidents. Longest served Indian vice president.

Ansari became the chairman of India’s National Commission for Minorities (NCM) on 6 March 2006. In June 2007, Ansari, in his capacity as NCM chairman, upheld the decision of St. Stephens College to earmark a small percentage of seats for Dalit Christians. He resigned as NCM chairman soon after his nomination for the post of India’s Vice-President.

On 20 July 2007, Ansari was named by the UPA-Left, the ruling coalition in India, as its candidate for the post of Vice-President for the upcoming election. Ansari secured 455 votes, and won the election by a margin of 233 votes against his nearest rival Najma Heptullah of BJP who is now Governor of Manipur state. Hamid Ansari was re-elected for the second term on 7 August 2012, defeating the NDA’s nominee Jaswant Singh former Finance, External Affairs and Defence minister as well as former Leader of Opposition by a margin of 252 votes. According to the Constitution of India, Ansari, as Vice-President of the Republic, also serves ex officio as Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. Ansari was a member of the Congress before being nominated Vice President in 2007.

Career After completing his Master’s degree from the Aligarh Muslim University, Ansari worked as a lecturer in AMU for two years. He then wrote a UPSC exam and secured the 4th rank. He joined the Indian Foreign Service as a diplomat in 1961. He served the country as an IFS officer in various countries. He served as ambassador to United Arab Emirates from 1976 to 1980 and as Chief of Protocol, Government of India from 1980-1985.

Scholar

Ansari is a West Asia scholar and has written on the Palestinian issue and taken positions inconvenient to the Indian official line on Iraq and Iran. He questioned India’s vote in the International Atomic Energy Agency on Iran’s nuclear programme where India voted against Iran. He said that though the Indian Government claimed to have acted on “its own judgment,” this was not borne out by facts Ansari feels that there is a sense of unease among Indian Muslims. He said this on the last day of his tenure as the Vice President of India, one of the highest constitutional posts in the country. [ Ansari quoted, “The language used by the Pope sounds like that of his 12th-Century counterpart who ordered the crusades… It surprises me because the Vatican has a very comprehensive relationship with the Muslim world.” – 15 September 2006, as Chairman of the Minorities Commission of India, on the Pope Benedict XVI Islam controversy.

In his illustrious career that spanned over forty-five years, Mohammad Hamid Ansari has worked in various disciplines in the offices of the Government of India. He is a seasoned writer in various news dailies and other print media. He is also a Padma Shri awardee. Read on to know more about the life and accomplishments of Mohammad Hamid Ansari.

Later, he rendered his services in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran. He also served as the Vice Chancellor of Aligarh Muslim University from 2000 to 2002. He was also a writer in different news papers on various issues. In 2006, he was appointed the Chairman of the National Commission for Minorities. He was also appointed the Chairman of the Petroleum Ministry’s Advisory Committee on Oil Diplomacy for Energy Security. He also served as Chairman of the “Confidence Building Measures across Segments of Society in the State”. This was group a created to focus on issues in Jammu and Kashmir.

Ansari served as a co-chairman of the India-U.K. Round Table Conference and also as a member of the National Security Advisory Board. Ansari is a permanent representative to the United Nations (UN) and is also a trustee of the Bapu Sadbhavana and Shiksha Trust. On March 2007, he surrendered the charge of Vice-Chancellorship of the Aligarh Muslim University and went back to New Delhi to lead a life of retirement.

Contribution

Ansari played a vital role in distributing compensation to the Gujarat riot victims. He also backed a thorough re-look into the rehabilitation of all the riot victims since 1984. He wrote numerous articles on the west Asian crises. His article named “Alternative Approaches to West Asian Crises”, (The Hindu, May 5, 2006), stressed upon the need for the progress of Iran, Iraq and Palestine. In an article named “Et EU, India,” (Outlook, October 10, 2005), Ansari was sceptical about India’s vote in the International Atomic Energy Agency on Iran’s nuclear programme. He also edited the book “Twenty Years after the Islamic Revolution”. He played a significant role in distributing compensation to the Gujarat riot victims. Even after his retirement from the IFS, he worked as a visiting professor at the Centre for West Asian and African Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University and the Academy for Third World Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi. Ansari’s deep interest in west Asian affairs saw him taking positions that were inconvenient to the stands of Indian officials on matters concerning Iran and Iraq.

Hillary Clinton is back in the news, but for reasons that are confounding her supporters and her detractors alike. She is reportedly weighing a decision to become a Methodist lay preacher.

There are good reasons why her fans and foes are befuddled: it is out of character for almost any Democrat these days to evince a serious interest in Christianity. Quite simply, it will not be easy for her to make the jump to preacher status given all the hostility to traditional Christian moral values that she and her Party have expressed for decades.

“God talk” has never come easily to Hillary. Her former press secretary, Mike McCurry, admits that “Hillary finds it hard to talk about religion a lot. She comes from the Methodist tradition, which, like many more liberal, mainstream Protestant denominations, is a little more buttoned up.”

That is an accurate, yet incomplete, explanation. It must also be said that mainline Protestantism has been crashing for decades, precisely because its positions on moral issues are indistinguishable from secular liberal thought. Therefore, trying to get a religious handle on such issues as abortion and marriage will not be easy. Is Hillary prepared to pivot on these matters? Not likely, which is why this is a heavy lift.

It’s even more profound than this: Hillary’s preference for discussing freedom to worship, which is a privatized understanding of religious liberty, is emblematic of her reluctance to speak about freedom of religion, which implies a more public, and robust, conception of religious liberty.

So if Hillary is going to become a preacher, she will either have to do a 180 or continue to secularize her lexicon on matters religious. The latter, however, is not likely to inspire anyone.

An even bigger problem for Hillary is the association of her Party with secularism, something that virtually every survey has confirmed. It began in 1972 and has only grown more extreme. It’s even worse than this: Religious bigotry has marked the Democrats for a long time.

In 2003, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) aligned itself with Catholics for a Free Choice (now Catholics for Choice). This is a Catholic-bashing entity funded by establishment players such as the Ford Foundation and George Soros.

On September 16, 2003, the New York Times published an op-ed page ad I wrote, “Why Are The Democrats Insulting Catholics?” Subsequently, the DNC dropped all association with the pro-abortion dummy Catholic group, but the damage had already been done.

In 2004, presidential candidate John Kerry hired Mara Vanderslice as his Director of Religious Outreach. After I outed her—she was associated with anti-Catholic causes—Kerry silenced her.

Then the DNC hired Rev. Brenda Bartella Peterson as its Senior Advisor for Religious Outreach. I outed her as well: she had filed an amicus brief with other clergy members supporting atheist Michael Newdow’s attempt to excise the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance. After I kept pounding her for days, she quit.

In 2007, presidential candidate John Edwards hired Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan to work in his 2008 campaign. I outed them for their anti-Catholic writings, forcing them to quit.

In 2012, the Democratic Party deleted the word “God” from its Platform. God was reinstated after much pushback, but everyone knew what the Democrats’ real preference was.

In 2016, Hillary stood by the anti-Catholic rhetoric of her communications director, Jennifer Palmieri, and the anti-Catholic machinations of her campaign chairman, John Podesta.

A Wikileaks document showed that Podesta was instrumental in creating phony Catholic organizations, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United: they were launched for the express purpose of creating a “revolution” in the Catholic Church.

Just recently, Democrats went into a tizzy when Rep. Ben Ray Luján, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said that pro-life Americans were welcome to join the Democrats. Also, the head of Catholic Democrats smeared the premier Catholic TV network, EWTN, as a rogue entity.

If Hillary wants to become a Christian preacher, she will have to clear many hurdles, some of which she erected. Good luck. If she succeeds, she will have no shortage of potential converts to work with—her Party is chock full of them.

It appears that inflation is continuing to decelerate in spite of an unemployment rate that is at a 16-year low. The overall and core CPI both rose 0.1 percent in July. This brings the rate of increase over the last 12 months in both measures respectively to 1.7 percent, well below the Fed’s 2.0 percent, as measured by the PCE, which translates into roughly a 2.2 percent CPI inflation rate.

Perhaps even more important than the level is the direction of change. The rate of inflation appears to be slowing. Taking the average price level over the last three months (May, June, and July) compared with the prior three months (February, March, and April), the annual rate of inflation in the core index has been just 0.7 percent. Even this modest increase is driven entirely by rising rents. If shelter costs are pulled out of the core index, it has been dropping at a 0.7 percent annual rate over the last three months compared with the prior three.

There is even some good news on rental costs. It appears that the rate of increase in rents is now slowing. The year-over-year increase for the owners’ equivalent rent (OER) component had been as high as 3.6 percent back in December. It is down to 3.2 percent for July and the annualized rate comparing the last three months with the prior three months is just 2.7 percent. (The OER is a better measure of actual housing costs because the rent proper index also includes some utilities.)

Inflation in almost all other components remains well contained. The price of medical care services increased by 0.3 percent in July and is up 2.3 percent for the last year. College tuition costs rose by just 0.1 percent in July and are up by 2.0 percent over the last year.

An exception is medical care commodities, which were up 1.0 percent in July and are now up by 3.7 percent over the last year. This is being driven by higher prices for prescription drugs, the index for which rose 1.3 percent in July and is now up by 4.2 percent over its year-ago level.

One area of notable price declines is used and new vehicles. The price of both fell by 0.5 percent in July. Over the last year, new vehicle prices are down 0.6 percent, while used vehicle prices have fallen by 4.1 percent. A big part of this story is a glut on the used car market due to the repossession of large numbers of cars sold on subprime loans. This depresses prices in the used car market, which then puts downward pressure on prices in the new car market.

Since the start of 2010, new vehicle prices have risen at less than a 1.0 percent annual rate, while used car prices have fallen by more than 4.0 percent. It’s worth noting the new vehicle index may not reflect actual sales prices. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) incorporates quality adjustments in its measurements. This means that its index for vehicle prices may be flat or declining, even if the price of a new car in 2017 is higher than the price in 2016. If people don’t perceive the quality improvements in the same way as BLS, they could still think car prices are rising.

This is one reason why concerns over a deflationary spiral are silly. Deflation could mean modest increases in the price of most goods, coupled with substantial quality improvements. It’s hard to envision the economy collapsing because the quality of goods and services is improving more rapidly.

In addition to the CPI report released today, yesterday’s report on the Producer Price Index also gives no indication of accelerating inflation. The overall final demand index fell 0.1 percent in July, while the core index excluding food, energy, and trade were flat for the month. Both indexes are up 1.9 percent over the last year. The intermediate goods index fell 0.1 percent, while the core intermediate goods index fell 0.3 percent.

In short, the July data suggest that inflation is likely slowing from its rate earlier in 2017. It is certainly not increasing.

Once upon a time, many thousands of years ago, a proud and independent nation lived and thrived in its own land in the heart of the Middle East. Down through the ages, although subject to many foreign invasions, this ethnically distinct people refused to be integrated with their various conquerors, but retained their individual culture. At the start of the First World War, their country was a small part of the Ottoman empire. In shaping the future Middle East after the war the Allied powers, and in particular the United Kingdom, promised to act as guarantors of this people’s freedom. That promise was subsequently broken.

No, this is not the story of the Jewish people. It is the broad outline of the long, convoluted and unresolved history of the Kurds.

The Kurds – more than 30 million strong – are the largest stateless nation in the world. Historically they inhabited a distinct geographical area flanked by mountain ranges, once referred to as Kurdistan. No such location is depicted on current maps, for the old Kurdistan now falls within the sovereign space of four separate states: Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria. Most Kurds – some 25 million – live within Turkey’s borders, but the 2 million Kurds in Syria are the country’s largest minority, while within Iraq the 5 million Kurds have developed a near autonomous state. Nearly 7 million Kurds are trapped inside Iran’s extremist Shi’ite regime.

It was shortly after the end of the First World War that, orchestrated by Britain and France, the dissolution and partition of the Ottoman Empire were set out in the Treaty of Sèvres. In abolishing the Ottoman Empire, the treaty stipulated a referendum to decide the issue of the Kurdistan homeland.

That referendum never took place, and the Sèvres treaty itself was rendered null and void in 1922 by the establishment of the Turkish Republic under Kemal Ataturk. What followed was a new treaty, the Treaty of Lausanne, which gave control of the entire Anatolian peninsula, including the large portion of the Kurdistan homeland that lay within it, to the new republic. With a stroke of the colonial pen over 20 million Kurds were declared Turkish.

Kurdish nationalism in Turkey developed largely as a reaction to the secular nationalism that revolutionized the country under Ataturk. After years of struggle, Mustafa Barzani emerged as the figurehead for Kurdish separatism. Comprising about 20 percent of Turkey’s 77 million population, fractious Kurds were a constant political problem for Turkey.

In Syria the civil war, starting in 2011, brought the Kurds to the forefront of the region’s politics. In the face of Islamic State’s (IS) military advance, Syrian government forces abandoned many Kurdish occupied areas in the north and north-east of the country, leaving the Kurds to administer them. In October 2011, sponsored by Iraqi Kurdish President Masoud Barzani, the Syrian Kurds established a Kurdish National Council (KNC). The KNC is now initiating elections intended to consolidate an autonomous Kurdish region within whatever Syrian state eventually emerges.

Years of rebellion by the Kurds of Iraq ended in 1970 with a peace deal with the government, granting the Kurds a degree of self-rule and recognition of their language. When Mustafa Barzani died in 1979, the leadership of the KDP passed to his son, Masoud. But a new rival force had emerged in Kurdish politics with the founding by Jalal Talabani of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK). The journey towards a unified Kurdish movement in Iraq was long and bitter, but finally, in 1998, a joint leadership deal was signed. Eventually the PUK and the KDP set up a unified regional government, and Masoud Barzani became a member of Iraq’s Governing Council.

When the Americans invaded Iraq in 2003, the Peshmerga troops of the Kurds – who retained bitter memories of Saddam Hussein’s poison gas attack on the Kurdish town of Halabja – joined in the fight to overthrow him. After he was driven from office the Iraqi people, in a national referendum, approved a new constitution which recognized the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) as an integral element in Iraq’s administration. Barzani was elected President of Iraqi Kurdistan in June 2005.

In June 2014 the Islamic State (IS) began its conquest of much of western and northern Iraq. The Iraqi military largely disintegrated. It was Kurdish Peshmerga forces that stepped in, taking control of Kirkuk and other northern areas long claimed by the KRG but until then outside its control. The Peshmerga subsequently proved to be the most effective of the anti-IS fighting forces, backed as they were by the US-led coalition which adhered to its “no boots on the ground” policy.

In June 2017, with Mosul in the final stages of being recaptured from IS, Kurdish president Barzani announced that an independence referendum would take place on 25 September 2017 encompassing not only the area within the administration of the KRG, but also three adjacent regions, largely occupied by Kurds but claimed by the central government.

In announcing the referendum, the leadership made it clear that a “Yes” vote would not automatically trigger a declaration of independence. It would, however, greatly strengthen the Kurds’ bargaining position in future talks with the central government on self-determination.

Turkey’s initial reaction to the referendum announcement was critical. So indeed was that of the US and the UK – the main burden of their opposition being that the referendum was “untimely”. The US understood “the legitimate aspirations of the people of Iraqi Kurdistan”, but believed that they should concentrate on repairing the ravages of war and on collaborating with, rather than confronting, the central government. Baghdad had already rejected the referendum call. “No party can, on its own, decide the fate of Iraq, in isolation from the other parties,” said Saad al-Haddithi, Iraqi government spokesman.

Shortly after Barzani announced the referendum, Saudi Arabia came out in support. Other Sunni states in the Saudi-led coalition are likely to follow, since Turkey is siding with Qatar in their current conflict. Then on July 25, 2017 Russia’s foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, in perhaps a knee-jerk reaction to the US’s position, announced support for the referendum.

The Kurds are a brave and battle-hardened people yearning for national independence and the right of self-determination. Long the powerless pawns of others’ interests, in taking this next step towards achieving autonomy the Kurds merit support. When the time comes for them to declare an independent Kurdistan, perhaps combining the areas in Iraq and Syria under their control, they deserve the recognition of the free world.

By Mohammed Rasooldeen

A 58-year-old Saudi man and a 50-year-old male expatriate died Thursday of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS) in Hail and Khamis Mushayt, respectively, the Health Ministry said Friday.

Two new cases, female expatriates aged 38 and 42, were diagnosed with the virus in Dawmat Al-Jandal in Al-Jouf province

Earlier this week, the ministry reported nine new cases: Seven in Dawmat Al-Jandal and the others in Madinah and Khamis Mushayt.

Since July 2014, 1,694 cases of MERS have been recorded throughout the Kingdom, including 688 deaths. There are currently 11 patients undergoing medical treatment in various hospitals.

A senior health official said people should stay away from MERS-infected or suspected patients since it is transmitted via droplets through coughing and sneezing.

People have been advised to wear a protective mask over the nose and mouth in crowded places, and follow basic health etiquette when sneezing or coughing.

Common symptoms of the disease include coughing, shortness of breath, congestion in the nose and throat, and diarrhea.

In advanced cases, the patient can have serious complications such as pneumonia, which may lead to death.

The ministry recommends that people abide by basic health guidelines, including washing hands well with soap or sanitizer, especially after coughing or sneezing.

Turkish authorities on Thursday issued arrest warrants for 35 employees of media groups on suspicion of links to the alleged mastermind of the failed 2016 coup Fethullah Gulen, the state-run news agency said.

Nine people have been detained so far, Anadolu news agency said, adding that the suspects were accused of using a messaging app allegedly used by Gulen to mobilise followers in Turkey and of belonging to a “terror” group.

Thousands of people have already been arrested in Turkey for using the Bylock messaging app, which the authorities say was used by Gulen supporters to coordinate actions ahead of the plot.

The latest arrests come amid growing alarm over press freedom in Turkey under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, in particular under the state of emergency imposed in the wake of the failed July 2016 coup and which remains in place.

Gulen, an Islamic preacher who lives in the US state of Pennsylvania, denies any link to the botched putsch.

Those detained include a former columnist for the Turkiye daily Ahmet Sagirli and the current website editor at the leftist opposition Birgun daily Burak Ekici.

Turkey ranks 155 on the latest Reporters Sans Frontieres (Reporters Without Borders) world press freedom index, below Belarus and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

According to the latest figures from the P24 press freedom website, there are 164 journalists behind bars in Turkey, most of whom were detained under the state of emergency.

In one of the highest profile cases, 17 staff from the Cumhuriyet daily, one of the few voices in the media in Turkey to oppose Erdogan, last month went on trial for aiding “terror” groups.

While most of the suspects in that case have been released from pre-trial detention, four Cumhuriyet journalists, most of whom have been held for eight months, remain behind bars.

If North Korea launches an attack that threatens the United States then China should stay neutral, but if the United States attacks first and tries to overthrow North Korea’s government China will stop them, a Chinese state-run newspaper said on Friday.

President Donald Trump ratcheted up his rhetoric toward North Korea and its leader on Thursday, warning Pyongyang against attacking Guam or U.S. allies after it disclosed plans to fire missiles over Japan to land near the U.S. Pacific territory.

China, North Korea’s most important ally and trading partner, has reiterated calls for calm during the current crisis. It has expressed frustration with both Pyongyang’s repeated nuclear and missile tests and with behavior from South Korea and the United States that it sees as escalating tensions.

The widely read state-run Global Times, published by the ruling Communist Party’s official People’s Daily, wrote in an editorial that Beijing is not able to persuade either Washington or Pyongyang to back down.

“It needs to make clear its stance to all sides and make them understand that when their actions jeopardize China’s interests, China will respond with a firm hand,” said the paper, which does not represent government policy.

“China should also make clear that if North Korea launches missiles that threaten U.S. soil first and the U.S. retaliates, China will stay neutral,” it added.

“If the U.S. and South Korea carry out strikes and try to overthrow the North Korean regime and change the political pattern of the Korean Peninsula, China will prevent them from doing so.”

China has long worried that any conflict on the Korean peninsula, or a repeat of the 1950-53 Korean war, could unleash a wave of destabilizing refugees into its northeast, and could end up with a reunified county allied with the United States.

North Korea is a useful buffer state for China between it and U.S. forces based in South Korea, and also across the sea in Japan.

The Global Times said China will “firmly resist any side which wants to change the status quo of the areas where China’s interests are concerned”.

“The Korean Peninsula is where the strategic interests of all sides converge, and no side should try to be the absolute dominator of the region.”

In its effort to gain control over social networks, an effort that is likely to fall short given various workarounds available to Internet savvy users, Russia’s FSB is demanding that by next year, instant messenger services and social networks provide it with the kind of personal data that most people prefer to keep secret to avoid identity theft.

The draft order (http://regulation.gov.ru/projects#npa=18013) which has been issued by the communications ministry and is slated to take effect next July will require these services to provide the following information about each user (meduza.io/en/feature/2017/08/11/here-s-exactly-what-kind-of-user-data-russia-s-federal-security-service-wants-from-registered-instant-messengers-and-social-networks):

• User name
• Full real name
• Date of birth
• Exact Address
• Passport number
• List of relatives
• Friends list
• Contacts list
• List of all foreign languages spoken
• Date and time of account’s creation
• Date and time of all communications
• Full text of all communications
• Full archives of all audio and video communications
• All shared files
• Records of all e-payments
• Location for use of each service
• IP address
• Telephone number
• Email address
• Software used

Such requirements are intended to send a chill through Russian social networks. And they will certainly discourage some from making use of these networks lest they fall victim to the powers that be. But more than that they will underscore the increasingly Orwellian nature of the Russian state under Vladimir Putin.

The immediately interesting question is whether those in other countries will complain as much about this as they have about NSA’s far less invasive procedures.

Towards the end of July, eight months after losing the White House to Donald Trump, leading figures of the Democratic Party launched their crusade to regain control of the U.S. Congress in next year’s midterm elections. Announcing his party’s “Better Deal,” U.S. Senator Charles Schumer wrote that “Rather than having a government that benefits the special interests and very wealthy, Democrats believe that government should work on behalf of the middle class and those struggling to get there.”

A Better Deal? Better hold onto your wallet.

Clearly taking a few pages out of President Trump’s campaign playbook, the Democrats’ policy agenda contains three interrelated promises (“Better Jobs, Better Wages, Better Future”), almost none of which is a proper function of the federal government in the first place or is within its powers actually to fulfill in today’s hyper-partisan atmosphere. Full of action words like “fight back,” “crack down,” and “prioritize,” the Better Deal demonizes “unfair foreign trade;” “corporations and billionaires,” especially those who “outsource American jobs;” “monopolies;” “special interests;” “lobbyists” and “Wall Street.” It is vintage populism; it could have been written a century ago.

Meant to be a call to arms – a political manifesto – rallying the Democratic Party’s core constituencies, which either supported Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders or defected to Trump rather than vote for Hillary Clinton, the Better Deal is long on platitudes and short on details.

The first promise is to “raise the wages and incomes of American workers and create millions of good-paying [fulltime] jobs.” That goal ostensibly will be reached in a number of ways, including “investing in our crumbling infrastructure and prioritizing small business and entrepreneurs,” but the centerpieces of the proposal are to “ensure a living wage for all Americans” and to protect private pensions, “Social Security and Medicare, so that seniors can retire with dignity.”

While it has become commonplace for pundits to bemoan the conditions of the nation’s roads, dams and bridges, reality may not match the rhetoric, especially so at the state level. Even if it does, however, massive spending of the taxpayers’ hard-earned incomes to repair or replace existing infrastructure is not necessarily the best solution to the problem. That conclusion gains traction if one looks at the results of the Keynesian economic stimulus packages enacted under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Remember all of the “shovel-ready” construction projects that, if funded, supposedly would get the U.S. economy quickly moving again? Plagued by inevitable waste, corruption and delays, the stimulus hardly had any long-term effects. It is important to remember, too, that to the extent that our infrastructure is “crumbling,” it is doing so because of governmental neglect of routine maintenance, which is less visible to voters and less rewarding to reelection-minded politicians than funding new construction projects.

Democrats generally think that spending more OPM (other people’s money) is the answer for every perceived social and political ill. The jobs “created” by pouring federal resources into infrastructure, like all construction projects, are temporary and will disappear as soon as the work is finished. A bolder option, suggested recently by Nobel laureate Vernon Smith, is to privatize the federal Interstate highway system, thereby allowing infrastructure “investment” decisions to be made by private sector actors who actually have incentives to evaluate financial rates of return to the various maintenance projects available and to then select the ones for which the benefits exceed the cost is rather than having them determined politically.

How, exactly, does a Better Deal propose to “raise the wages and incomes of American workers”? Is the Democratic Party contemplating a basic income guarantee (BIG), also known as a universal basic income? Such a program, which establishes a minimum annual income for everyone, would have some positive aspects, provided that it replaces all existing taxpayer-financed income transfers (food stamps, now called “SNAP” – supplemental nutrition assistance – housing assistance, taxpayer-financed unemployment benefits, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security and too many other ornaments of the welfare state to mention). But, like all such transfers, BIG undermines incentives to participate in the labor force and to earn one’s own way in life. The worst of all possible worlds would materialize if BIG or something like it is added on top of existing income transfers.

Another option being bandied about is to more than double the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour. Some commentators and students of the effects of minimum wages find only small negative effects on total employment, but they are asking the wrong question. As shown by a recent study of Seattle, Washington’s, labor market, where the minimum hourly wage is being raised in steps to $15 – it’s not there, yet – employers can adjust to mandated increases is cash wages along many margins. One of those ways is to keep the same number of people on the payroll, but to shorten the hours they are allowed to work per day or per week. Other responses to higher minimum wages are to cut non-wage fringe benefits, such as on-the-job training, breaks during the workday, opportunities to eat meals at no charge or at reduced prices, help with buying uniforms, paid vacations, and employer-provided health insurance and pensions, if any. If an employee does not add more than $15 per hour in value to his or her employer, then requiring such a minimum hourly wage cannot make that person better off.

Social Security and Medicare are in deep financial trouble, with those programs’ unfunded liabilities now approaching $100 trillion – five times the accumulated federal debt. Ensuring that “seniors retire with dignity” requires drastic action within the next decade or so. Payroll tax rates that fund those programs must be increased, recipients’ benefits must be cut, the age at which people become eligible for full retirement benefits must be pushed back, or some combination of those reforms must be enacted. A Better Deal is silent on how these social safety programs will be “protected.” Certainly, no mention is made of the possibility of privatizing retirees’ public pension and healthcare benefits, putting them on sound actuarial footings to avoid the looming crisis.

A Better Deal’s second promise is to “lower the cost of living for families.” The manifesto focuses on “the crippling cost of prescription drugs and the cost of a college or technical education that leads to a good job.” It pledges to “fight for families struggling with high monthly bills like childcare, credit card fees, and cable bills” and to “crack down on monopolies and the concentration of economic power that has led to higher prices for consumers, workers, and small business – and make sure Wall Street never endangers Main Street again.”

Where is acknowledgement that government itself was the proximate cause of the consolidation of financial institutions both during and after the “crisis” that precipitated the so-called Great Recession? Or that it is public regulation of childcare services and the pharmaceutical industry, along with the creation of exclusive local franchise cable television monopolies denying consumers the benefits of vigorous competition, thus leading to higher credit card fees, prescription drug prices and cable bills than otherwise? The costs of a college or technical education are souring, faster even than healthcare costs in part because taxpayer-financed grants and loans to institutions of higher learning supply incentives for those institutions to raise tuition charges and fees to capture the subsidies for themselves and then spend them on administrators rather than faculty or students.

Extolling the benefits of more active enforcement of the antitrust laws ignores the substantial public choice literature arguing that antitrust simply is just another form of economic regulation and, hence, vulnerable to capture by special interests – often the rivals of companies contemplating merging or of large, cost-efficient corporations – trying, often successfully, to win in the courtroom what they are unable to win in a competitive marketplace.

Last, the manifesto promises “to build an economy that gives working Americans the tools to succeed in the 21st century.” Such an economy will be fostered by providing “new tax incentives to employers that invest in workforce training and education and make sure the rules of the economy support companies that focus on long-term growth, rather than short-term profits.” In addition, “we will make it a national priority to bring high-speed Internet to every corner of America and offer an apprenticeship to millions of new workers. We will encourage innovation, invest in advanced research and ensure start-ups and small business can compete and prosper.”

Government institutionally is not capable of identifying and selecting the next new thing and, thus, cannot know where to “encourage innovation” or what “advanced research” merits investment. “Workforce training and education” are signal failures of the U.S. public-school monopoly and direct consequences of the iron grip of teachers’ unions. And how would politicians and the bureaucrats employed by the administrative state even begin to know which companies “focus on long-term growth rather than short-term profits”? Such decisions are made far better in decentralized market settings than by central planners. What is the value-added of “bring[ing] high-speed internet [access] to every corner of America” over and above existing government subsidies to low-income households for landline and cellular telephone service?

“A Better Deal” proposes to put the same old progressive/populist wine in new bottles. Rather than continuing to engineer society through the tax code and the federal budget, an even better deal would be to cut personal and business income taxes across the board (without a border adjustment tax that penalizes imports and subsidizes exports) and downsize the public sector at all levels so that government has fewer favors to hand out to special interests and fewer penalties to impose on businesses, workers and consumers.

I am not optimistic about the future because the concept of liberty that animated the Revolutionary generation has been lost and it turns out that many businesspeople and special pleaders are liberty’s most implacable enemies. A social safety net and protection from the harsh gales of creative destruction, not freedom, are what large numbers of Americans apparently want from government nowadays and “A Better Deal” simply responds to that demand.

“Americans … deserve for this country to work for everyone again” says Sen. Schumer. “A Better Deal” promises to enslave families even more firmly to the administrative state.” It reverses completely President Kennedy’s “Ask not what your country can do for you….”

This article was published at The Beacon.