By Chintamani Mahapatra*

The Doklam standoff between India and China is a serious test case for the maturing India-US strategic partnership, which has endured leadership changes in recent years in New Delhi and Washington.

China has recently emerged as a nuisance for the US, its allies, and partners in the Asia Pacific region and beyond. The Chinese position, not just statements, on the North Korean missile threats, along with its role in Latin America, activities in the South China Sea, and trade practices pose a big challenge to US President Donald Trump’s administration. China using its financial power to make smaller South Asian countries fall into debt-traps, and its grabbing of territories or maritime assets claimed by relatively smaller countries, such as Bhutan, Vietnam, Brunei, Malaysia, and the Philippines, are issues that need to be examined more closely by the Trump administration, and require multilateral solutions.

While Trump abandoned his predecessor’s economic and strategic rebalancing policies towards the Asia Pacific for political reasons, growing Chinese misbehaviour and ambitions detrimental to regional peace and stability may compel a rethink on his part.

Chinese media and commentators clamouring for war against Indian troops in the disputed Doklam region, and even Chinese government spokespersons making offensive statements repeatedly are wake-up calls. Indian troops at Doklam and the Modi government in New Delhi have shown remarkable restraint. However given the China’s island-grabbing activities in the South China Sea and frequent incursions along the Line of Actual Control (LAC), simply exercising restraint and calling for the peaceful resolution of differences through dialogue are highly inadequate.

As Beijing has recurrently reminded India about the outcome of the 1962 war, India should go beyond responding that war cannot be repeated. Drawing optimism from defeating Chinese soldiers during a 1967 incident is also not sufficient. While taking all precautions to protect India’s security and preserve Bhutan’s interests, New Delhi must strategise with Washington against possible bravado from Beijing.

In 1962, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru emphasised ‘non-alignment’ more than seeking timely help from the US; and only when the situation became worse did Nehru write to the then US President John F Kennedy for direct intervention. Likewise, there are many in India who harp on about ‘strategic autonomy’ as a mantra and wrongly consider strategic coordination with the US as a loss of that autonomy.

It is worth emphasising that the US sought help from numerous countries, including Iran and Oman, before taking military action against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan post-9/11.

Following the joint statements announced during Modi’s meetings with former US President Barack Obama and, more recently, Trump, one expects that the India-US strategic partnership would be invoked before it is too late. Japan’s apparent declaration of support for India on the Doklam issue augurs well for Indian national interest. Similar support may soon come from Australia and Vietnam as well.

What is needed is the Trump administration’s unequivocal support to the Indian position on this issue. On political, ethical or moral grounds, it would not be arduous for Washington to back the Indian position.

First, China says Indian troops are in Chinese territory. It is actually a disputed region and not Chinese territory. Are there no Chinese troops in disputed regions within Pakistan, such as Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK)? Are there are no Chinese troops in disputed islands in South China Sea?

Second, it is also a question of the security of smaller countries. China has been threatening its smaller neighbours; in this case, Bhutan.

Third, Indian security would come under tremendous pressure if China succeeds in occupying Doklam. Thus the issue is not just moral, it is also of national security concern.

It is a common understanding that India needs to protect its own interests rather than depend on external forces to do so. Having said that, dependence must be distinguished from cooperation.

India and the US should be on the same page to prevent Chinese territory-grabbing exercises. The current situation is a test case to judge the relevance, scope and benefits of the India-US strategic partnership. The recent conversation between Modi and Trump on working together for peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific is a good beginning, but concrete and timely steps are imperative.

If the Chinese succeed in territorial aggrandisement, the so-called Asian century will finally amount to nothing but the rise of China’s malevolent hegemony. The Indo-US strategic partnership is crucial to maintain a liberal, cooperative, prosperous and peaceful order in the Indo-Pacific. It would energise Japan, Vietnam, Australia, South Korea and ASEAN to join such efforts.

* Chintamani Mahapatra
Rector and Professor, JNU

The Spanish economy has now enjoyed almost four straight years of growth following a 0.9% increase in GDP in the second quarter and 3.1% in the last 12 months, according to the National Accounting figures published by the INE [National Statistics Institute].

This means the rate of growth has increased by one-tenth in both the annual and the quarterly rate, thus maintaining a favorable growth differential for Spain with the Eurozone average.

According to the Spanish government, growth is thus balanced, with an improvement in the contribution of domestic demand, while the foreign trade sector maintains a positive contribution for the fifth straight quarter. Employment is growing at an annual rate of 2.8%, three-tenths higher than in the first quarter, with the creation of 480,000 full-time equivalent jobs in the last year.

Following these results, the Spanish economy has recovered the level of income prior to the crisis; in other words, since the maximum figure posted in the second quarter of 2008. GDP is 1% higher than at the end of 2007, although it must still recover between 15 and 20% more, from when it stopped growing during the five years of recession suffered by the Spanish economy. The rate of 3.1% in the second quarter means this process has been speeded up and means that the forecast of 3% as an annual average will easily be achieved. Furthermore, Spain’s positive differential with the European Union and Eurozone averages is maintained, having posted growth of 2.3% and 2.2% respectively in the second quarter.

The composition of this growth remains balanced, with a slight improvement of one-tenth in the contribution from domestic demand, which has reached 2.4 percentage points. Growth in household consumption has remained steady at 2.5% over the last 12 months, while investment continues to be the most dynamic component, with growth of 3.4%, although this has slowed by half a point. Within the heading of investment, capital goods is the most active segment, with growth of 4.1% over the last year, 1.3 points less than in the first quarter. The growth rate of investment in construction has increased by one-tenth to 3% in the last year.

The contribution to economic growth from external demand remains steady at 0.7 points, thus posting five straight quarters in positive figures. Despite the strong growth of the Spanish economy, the foreign trade sector does not detract from this growth, in fact quite the opposite. This is an unprecedented event for the Spanish economy, which had not occurred in previous periods of growth, thus reflecting that the current model is sustainable and balanced. Both exports and imports have slowed their growth by around three points, although the sale of goods and services abroad are growing faster (4.5%) than imports (2.8%).

Practically all growth is translating into job creation, which has grown by 2.8% in the last 12 months. This rate is three-tenths faster than in the first quarter of the year. Job creation stands at 480,000 new full-time equivalent jobs in the last year. The number of hours actually worked continues to rise, by 1.7%, one-tenth less than in the previous quarter.

By Hani Hazaimeh

US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley voiced concern on Friday that nuclear inspectors were not granted access to Iranian military bases.

“I have good confidence in the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), but they’re dealing with a country that has a clear history of lying and pursuing covert nuclear programs,” Haley told a news conference after returning from a trip to Vienna, where the agency is based.

“We’re encouraging the IAEA to use all the authorities they have, and to pursue every angle possible,” to verify Tehran’s compliance with the 2015 nuclear deal.

Dr. Majid Rafizadeh, an Iranian-American political scientist, said there are several sites in Iran that are pursuing its nuclear program without notifying the IAEA.

“Iran conducts major nuclear research in its military bases, specifically the Parchin site,” he told Arab News on Friday.

“There’s a recently revealed site in Parchin called Pajouhesh Kadeh (Research Institute), which is operated by the Center for Explosives, Blast Research and Technologies. This center is believed to be the main player behind attempts to weaponize Iran’s nuclear program.”

Under the terms of the nuclear deal, Iran is prohibited from conducting advanced nuclear research and development, but it appears to still be doing so, he said.

“Iran has long been determined not to allow the IAEA to inspect its military sites. This issue raises significant suspicions,” Rafizadeh added.

“Without the inspection of Iran’s military sites, specifically Parchin, it would be impossible to ensure whether or not Tehran is complying with the nuclear deal.”

He said Tehran has a long history of defying the IAEA’s terms and deceiving the international community regarding its nuclear program and activities.

UN mission in Lebanon

Meanwhile, the US is wrestling with other UN Security Council members over renewing the UN peacekeeping mission mandate in Lebanon, which Washington is calling to strengthen against the wishes of Paris and Moscow.

Annual renewal of the mandate, which expires at the end of August, is normally uneventful, but the Trump administration this year is pushing to bolster the force’s authority against arms movements by the Shiite militia Hezbollah.

“The Security Council cannot adopt a business-as-usual approach when so much is at stake,” said Haley in a statement on Wednesday.

“We call on the members of the Security Council to join us in taking real action to make UNIFIL a stronger peacekeeping mission and to stand up against forces of terror in Lebanon and around the region.”

She said beefing up the force is necessary as “Hezbollah openly boasts about its illegal stockpile of weapons and publicly threatens” Israel, a key US ally.

But France on Wednesday said it wants the UN peacekeeping mission in Lebanon to stick to its current mandate.

Anne Gueguen, France’s deputy permanent representative to the UN, told reporters that Paris saw no need to change the 2006 Security Council resolution that sets the mission’s current mandate.

“We want to keep the mandate as such,” she said. Gueguen spoke before the talks on whether to extend the mandate for another year.

After the talks, Russian Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia said Moscow also saw no need to change the mandate, a position he said was shared by many at the session. “We think this mandate should be renewed in the present form,” he said.

By Talmiz Ahmad*

In response to UN Security Council resolutions tightening sanctions on North Korea after its two missile tests in July that landed near Japan, the North Korean leader Kim Jong Un said he would fire four missiles over Japan into the waters off Guam and destroy the US territory in “enveloping fire.” President Trump retorted that his forces were “locked and loaded” and he would launch “fire and fury” at his enemy.

The North Korean leader then seemed to postpone the attack near Guam, but said he could change his mind in face of “Yankee” provocations. Soon thereafter, the top US military officer, Gen Joseph Dunford, promised an “iron-clad commitment” to defend Japan. A worried Chinese president Xi Jinping called on all parties to “exercise restraint.”

The US and North Korea entered into solid agreements in the 1990s, when the latter agreed to freeze its nuclear weapons program in return for US support for its civilian nuclear program and massive humanitarian and development assistance.

However, in 2002, when President George Bush included North Korea in the “axis of evil” and rescinded the 1994 agreement, the country withdrew from the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. As US sanctions became more tough, North Korea tested its first nuclear device in 2006, and carried out further tests in 2013 and 2016. It is believed to have fissionable material for about 20 nuclear devices.

North Korea has also steadily developed its delivery capabilities. There are indications that, by 2019, it could possess ICBMs able to reach continental US. This will dramatically shift US priorities from concerns relating to its allies in Northeast Asia to the defense of the homeland.

This possible shift has already led Japan to focus on augmenting its own capabilities by significantly increasing its defense expenditure and developing a land-based missile defense system, besides funding enhanced maritime security capabilities in the Eastern Atlantic. The US and South Korea commenced their joint annual military exercises from August 21. North Korea has described this year’s exercise as “pouring gasoline on fire,” while its official mouthpiece has warned of an “uncontrollable phase of a nuclear war.”

These exercises, codenamed “Ulchi-Freedom Guardian” and involving ten nations and 80,000 soldiers, are the world’s largest, and simulate computerised command and control actions in the event of an attack from North Korea. The latter views them as an aggression, particularly since “decapitation strikes” are rehearsed to target the country’s leader and top generals.

In response to the North Korean threat to reduce Tokyo to debris, Japan is conducting massive exercises of its own.

So far, four days since the exercises started, there has been no vitriolic rhetoric from the North Korean leader, leading Trump to suggest that “something positive” could still come out of the recent exchanges. But North Korea has also released photographs indicating it is working on a new more powerful ICBM that could reach any place on the US mainland. Commentators believe North Korea may also have miniature nuclear devices to be fitted into its ballistic missiles.

Thus, the threat of conflict embracing the US, South Korea and Japan remains and could include the use of nuclear weapons. This would have horrendous consequences, inflicting casualties and destruction not seen since the Second World War.

The rapid development of nuclear weapons and delivery systems by North Korea has fundamentally transformed the regional strategic landscape and has ensured that a military option is not feasible; defusing the crisis and engaging with North Korea is the only realistic option on the table.

In this regard, the US and its allies would need to note that, whatever China’s irritations with North Korea and its irascible leader, it will not abandon its ally: China opposes regime change in Pyongyang, since it would not like to see a pro-West administration in that country and, possibly, US troops at its border.

Again, de-nuclearization of North Korea is no longer an option; the most that could be achieved is a nuclear cap-and-freeze arrangement. But this would itself require prolonged and painful negotiations, which would need to overcome the deep mutual distrust and address the core concern of North Korea that relates to the threat it senses from the West to its regime and its sovereign status. Thus, North Korea will insist on cast-iron guarantees relating to its security, including the suspension of the annual military exercises.

Finally, the US would have no option but to deal directly with North Korea, jointly with China. For this to happen, the US would need to see China as a genuine partner and coordinate positions with it after long and in-depth discussions, which would involve give-and take on both sides, not just a full endorsement of US positions and interests.
However, as of now it is doubtful that the Trump presidency is ready to replace its characteristic verbosity and brinkmanship with the sophisticated diplomatic effort that the regional tensions call for.

• Talmiz Ahmad is a former Indian ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Oman and the UAE, and holds the Ram Sathe Chair for International Studies at Symbiosis International University, Pune

By Karolina Zbytniewska

(EurActiv) — While migrant relocations reached record levels this year (peaking in June with over 3,000) Poland and Hungary remained steadfast in their refusal to participate in EU-mandated resettlement efforts.

Despite the fact that the European Commission has initiated an infringement procedure against Poland – along with the Czech Republic and Hungary – for “non-compliance with their legal obligations on relocation”, Poland is maintaining its stance – as, the Minister of the Interior and Administration, Mariusz Błaszczak, said in a letter to the European Commission on Wednesday (23 August).

In the same letter, Błaszczak informed the Commission that Poland has applied for cancellation of the infringement procedure.

Błaszczak’s views on the relocation scheme have also been consistent. “Stating that the relocation system will heal the refugee problem is false, it’s a lie. EU policy is harmful, not to say suicidal, as regards open borders,” he said in May, explaining, “Poland will not accept any refugees.”

In Wednesday’s correspondence, Błaszczak repeats his position that the relocation solution is wrong and dangerous, reiterating that national safety is the sole responsibility of each EU member state.

“We do not agree to exceeding the EC’s Treaty rights to interfere in the national powers with regard to security, integration and social issues,” he wrote.

“Paris, Stockholm, Brussels, Berlin, Manchester, Barcelona. How many more European cities must be still attacked by terrorists to make European Union wake up? To make the European Commission finally admit that ‘blindly’ accepting everyone who reaches Europe’s coast is like looping a rope around Europe’s neck,” Błaszczak added.

Curiously, the upper passage only appears in the Polish version of the letter, while the one in English version is much less colourful.

Qatar’s adoption of a new law on domestic workers provides labor rights for domestic workers for the first time, Human Rights Watch said. Qatari authorities should enact strong enforcement policies and close loopholes that place domestic workers at risk of exploitation.

On August 22, 2017, the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim Bin Hamad Al Thani, ratified Law No.15 on service workers in the home (“Domestic Workers Law”). The cabinet adopted the law in February. The law guarantees workers a maximum 10-hour workday, a weekly rest day, three weeks of annual leave, and an end-of-service payment of at least three weeks per year. The law does not, however, set out enforcement mechanisms.

“It is a positive step, if long overdue, that Qatar finally enacted a labor rights law to protect its almost 200,000 domestic workers,” said Rothna Begum, Middle East women’s rights researcher at Human Rights Watch. “But these rights will remain only on paper unless the government rapidly creates an enforcement system to give teeth to the law and sanction abusive employers.”

Qatar has 173,742 domestic workers, including 107,621 women, according to the country’s 2016 labor force survey. Most are from Asia or Africa. Domestic workers are excluded from Qatar’s existing 2004 Labor Law protections.

Human Rights Watch has documented abuses against domestic workers in Gulf states over several years tied to the lack of labor law protections and the legally mandated sponsorship (kafala) system, which ties a migrant worker to a particular employer and does not allow a worker to freely change employers.

Abuses include unpaid or delayed wages, confinement to the employer’s house, excessively long workdays with no rest and no days off, passport confiscation, physical and social isolation, and in some cases, physical, verbal, or sexual assault by employers. Domestic workers, like other unskilled migrant workers, often do not speak Arabic and have limited legal protection.

The Domestic Workers Law requires a written contract that details the type and nature of the job, salary, and other conditions. However, the contract’s Arabic text prevails. Human Rights Watch has recommended that workers sign employment contracts in their native language that are notarized as identical to the Arabic version prior to departure from their country. Human Rights Watch has documented numerous instances of contract substitution, in which a worker signs a contract in their native language, only to discover that the Arabic version has less favorable terms.

The new law also sets out minimum requirements governing the employment of any domestic worker, which includes those performing housework, drivers, nannies, cooks, and gardeners, among others. It requires employers to treat workers “in a good manner that preserves their dignity and bodily integrity,” and not to harm the worker physically or psychologically, or endanger the worker’s life or health.

Employers must provide domestic workers with medical treatment for injuries or illness, and compensation for work injuries in accordance with the Labor Law. Employers must also provide food and adequate accommodation, but the law is vague on minimum standards. The law prohibits employers from deducting a worker’s pay to compensate for recruitment fees, but does not require employers to reimburse a worker for recruitment fees already paid.

While the law has a number of positive provisions, it is still weaker than the Labor Law, which protects all other workers, and does not fully conform to the International Labour Organization (ILO) Domestic Workers Convention, the global treaty on domestic workers’ rights.

The Domestic Workers Law provides for a maximum 10-hour working day, while the Labor Law provides for a maximum 8-hour workday and a 48-hour work week. While the Domestic Workers Law provides that the working day should be interspersed with rest breaks, it does not stipulate how often, and breaks do not count as part of the 10 working hours, whereas the Labor Law requires rest every five hours.

The Domestic Workers Law allows overtime, including on weekly rest days if the domestic worker agrees, but does not require overtime pay or state that workers should be free to leave the workplace during their non-working hours.

“Parishes Across Nation Under Shadow Of Abuse,” blares a headline in today’s USA Today. The subhead is even more misleading: “Latest revelations are sign that the church’s problems with its priests are not over.”

The implication is obvious: the crisis of sexual abuse of minors by Catholic priests is still ongoing, and the Church is still failing to protect children. And that is the message that comes across to the casual reader of the almost 2,500 word article.

A more careful reading, however, contradicts that conclusion. For while the article highlights recent reports of abuse, and current or recent court cases and settlements in dioceses around the country, we see that the vast majority of actual or alleged incidents are from decades ago, some even “dating back to the 1950s.”

This affirms what we know: that the Catholic Church has responded forcefully and effectively to the crisis of clergy sexual abuse, to the point that today, virtually every allegation made against a priest is from years earlier. The 2016 Annual Report on clergy sexual abuse in the Catholic Church found only two new substantiated cases from July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016. That comes to .004 percent of the 52,238 Catholic priests and deacons in the United States.

We know of no other institution in the United States, secular or religious, which has a better record than the Catholic Church today when it comes to the sexual abuse of minors by adult employees. Yet the USA Today headline, and the tone of the whole piece, would lead one to think that nothing has changed.

Russians who’ve moved to China to live and work for extended periods say that should they return to Russia, they would prefer to work for Chinese firms rather than Russian ones or to teach Chinese language courses to other Russians, according to Beijing’s People’s Daily newspaper.

A major reason, the paper continues, is that pay in Chinese firms is higher than in Russian ones, especially in Siberia and the Russian Far East from which many Russian expats in China come; and thus they give a Russian face to what are Chinese firms (russian.people.com.cn/n3/2017/0821/c31516-9258125.html).

There are an estimated 40,000 Russian citizens now working in China; and many of those are ethnic Russian women who have married Chinese men. Among them, few are said to want to return to Russia even though visa and other conditions have become more difficult in recent years (windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2016/08/despite-problems-most-russians-now.html).

The United States and South Korea are currently engaged in large-scale, joint-military war games that simulate an invasion of the North, the destruction of the DPRK’s nuclear weapons sites, and a “decapitation operation” to take out the supreme leader, Kim Jong-un. The objective of the operation is to intensify tensions between North and South thereby justifying the continued US occupation of the peninsula and the permanent division of the country.

Imagine if North Korea decided to conduct massive “live fire” military drills, accompanied by a Chinese naval flotilla, just three miles off the coast of California.  And, let’s say, they decided to send formations of strategic high-altitude aircraft loaded with nuclear bombs to fly along the Canada and Mexico borders while tens of thousands of combat troops accompanied by hundreds of tanks and armored vehicles rehearsed a “shock and awe” type blitz onto US territory where they would immediately crush the defending army, level cities and critical civilian infrastructure, and topple the regime in Washington.

Do you think the Trump administration would dismiss the North’s provocative war games as merely “defensive maneuvers” or would they see them as a clear and present danger to US national security warranting a prompt and muscular response from the military?

It’s a no brainer, isn’t it? If North Korea treated the US like the US treats North Korea, then Washington would turn everything north of the 38th Parallel into a smoldering wastelands. That much is certain.

But double standards aside, the United States has always treated Korea with contempt and brutality.  The ongoing war games are just the latest in a long line of provocations dating back more than a hundred years. In 1871, the US launched its infamous  Korean Expedition in which US warships were deployed to the peninsula to force open markets and seize whatever wealth was available. Not surprisingly, the so called “diplomatic” mission quickly devolved into a full-blown conflagration as an armed contingent of 650 US troops landed on the Korean island of Ganghwa where they captured several Korean forts and slaughtered  over 300 Korean soldiers.  The battle culminated in a ferocious struggle for a citadel called Gwangseong Garrison.  The Korean forces defended the fortress honorably, but their ancient matchlocks were no match for the American’s vastly-superior Remington rolling-block carbines.  The Korean forces were butchered defending their own country while the invading American army barely suffered a scratch. (Just three Marines were killed in the fighting.)   This was Korea’s first taste of US savagery.

Washington’s hatred for Korea reached its apex during the Korean War, a conflict in which the meddlesome US had no reason to be involved. The nationalist militias that had finally triumphed over 40-years of Japanese occupation, now had to face the full-force of the US military which was committed to containing communism wherever it popped up. In its demented attempt to impose its own values on the rest of the world, the US killed upwards of 3 million people, reduced most of the North to rubble, razed the main population centers to the ground,  and viciously carpet-bombed reservoirs, irrigation dams, rice crops,  hydroelectric dams, and all of the other life-sustaining infrastructure and food sources. The magnitude of the devastation was unimaginable, everything north of the 38th parallel was transformed into a moonscape.  Washington wanted to make sure that survivors would face widespread famine, disease and Stone Age-type conditions for years to come. The US couldn’t win the war, so it destroyed every trace of civilization.

According to the Asia-Pacific Journal:

“By the fall of 1952, there were no effective targets left for US planes to hit. Every significant town, city and industrial area in North Korea had already been bombed. In the spring of 1953, the Air Force targeted irrigation dams on the Yalu River, both to destroy the North Korean rice crop and to pressure the Chinese, who would have to supply more food aid to the North. Five reservoirs were hit, flooding thousands of acres of farmland, inundating whole towns and laying waste to the essential food source for millions of North Koreans.10 Only emergency assistance from China, the USSR, and other socialist countries prevented widespread famine.” (“The Destruction and Reconstruction of North Korea, 1950 – 1960”, The Asia-Pacific Journal, Japan Focus)

The idea that the conflict was a “civil war” was a charade to conceal what was actually taking place. In reality, the US was engaged in a battle to the death with a weaker but more determined national liberation movement that sought to break to bonds of foreign occupation. The US could not prevail in the conflict, but they did manage to force a compromise on their adversary, the partitioning of the state along the 38th parallel followed by the installing of a military dictatorship in Soule. This is the bitter peace the US imposed on Korea.

Had the US had been defeated in Korea as they had been in Vietnam, the situation on the peninsula would probably be similar to that of Vietnam today. The country would be integrated under a central government, standards of living would have likely improved as the economy strengthened, and many of the ideological trappings of communism would have been discarded as the nation became more actively engaged in global trade.

But the US was not defeated in the Korean War, it merely withdrew to military bases in the south where more than 30,000 US combat troops reside to this day.  As a result, the southern part of the peninsula remains occupied territory, its government in Seoul largely complies with Washington’s diktats,   and the country is still split along the 38th parallel. Also, as the recent verbal confrontation between Washington and Pyongyang illustrates, hostilities could flare up at any time.

It’s worth mentioning that since the war ended in 1953,  the United States has toppled or attempted to topple over 50 sovereign governments. In that same period of time, the North has not attacked, toppled or invaded anyone, nor have they leveled sanctions on anyone, nor have they armed and trained neo Nazis, Islamic jihadists or other fanatical militants to execute their proxy wars in far-flung regions around the globe, nor have they established black sites where they brutalize their kidnapped victims with extreme forms of torture. North Korea may be a seriously-flawed and, perhaps, even tyrannical regime, but it has not pummeled entire nations into dust sending millions fleeing across continents to seek refuge. It has not bombed wedding parties, hospitals, mosques etc wreaking havoc while plunging the world deeper into chaos and despair. North Korea is far from perfect, but compared to the United States, it’s looks like a paragon of virtue.

The North Korean’s want peace. They want a formal end to the war and they want guarantees that the United States won’t preemptively attack them. Is that too much to ask?

But the United States won’t sign a treaty with the North because it is not in its interests to do so. Washington would prefer for things to stay just the way they are today.   In fact, Hillary Clinton said as much in a speech she made to Goldman Sachs in 2013. Here’s an excerpt:

CLINTON:  “We don’t want a unified Korean peninsula, because if there were one South Korea would be dominant for the obvious economic and political reasons.

We [also] don’t want the North Koreans to cause more trouble than the system can absorb. So we’ve got a pretty good thing going with the previous North Korean leaders [Kim Il-sung and Kim Jung-il]. And then along comes the new young leader [Kim Jung-un], and he proceeds to insult the Chinese. He refuses to accept delegations coming from them…..So the new [Chinese] leadership basically calls him [Kim Jung-un] on the carpet. …Cut it out. Just stop it. Who do you think you are?  You are dependent on us [the Chinese], and you know it.  (WikiLeaks)

There it is in black and white. The US does not want a unified Korea. (“for obvious economic and political reasons.”)  The US wants to keep  the country split up so it can keep the North isolated and underdeveloped, maintain the South’s colonial dependence on the US, and perpetuate the occupation. That’s what Washington wants.  The goal is not security, but power, greed and geopolitical positioning.

From Washington’s point of view, the status quo is just dandy which is why there is no incentive to end the war, sign a treaty, wind down the occupation, or provide security guarantees for the North. As Hillary cheerily opines, “We’ve got a pretty good thing going on.”

Indeed. The only fly in the ointment is that young Kim is now toying with nuclear weapons which seems to have caught Washington by surprise.

But how could Washington be surprised when they’ve known the DPRK has had a nuclear weapons program since the early 1990s? Clearly, the issue should have been seriously addressed much earlier.

Even so, Washington’s elite powerbrokers have yet to settle on a remedy for this fast emerging crisis, which is why the Trump administration is running around twisting arms (Russia and China) and escalating his bombast rather than taking the rational approach and engaging the North Koreans directly in bilateral negotiations.

Has anyone even considered that option yet?

The North is eager to negotiate because the North wants peace, it’s as plain as the nose on your face. The North does not want a confrontation with the US because they know what the outcome would be. Complete and total annihilation. They know that and they don’t want that. Nor do they want to unilaterally disarm and end up like Gadhafi or Saddam. That’s why they built nukes in the first place, to avoid the Gadhafi scenario.

At this stage of the game, the US has just two options:

1/ Ignore the issue until the North develops the ballistic missile technology needed to strike the mainland USA, thus, putting American cities and civilians at risk.

2/ Negotiate an end to the war, provide security guarantees, and some economic inducements (oil and light-water reactors for electricity)  in exchange for denuclearization and routine weapons-and-facilities inspections.

So what’s it going to be: Door Number 1 or Door Number 2?

We’ve been down this road before. In the 1990s the Clinton administration worked out the terms for the so called Agreed Framework which could have succeeded had Washington kept up its end of the deal. But it didn’t. Washington failed to meet its obligations, so now we’re back to Square 1, and the Trump administration has to decide whether they’re capable of making a rational decision or not. (Don’t hold your breath) Here’s how Jimmy Carter summed up the previous agreement in a Washington Post op-ed in  2010:

 “Pyongyang has sent a consistent message that during direct talks with the United States, it is ready to conclude an agreement to end its nuclear programs, put them all under IAEA inspection and conclude a permanent peace treaty to replace the ‘temporary’ cease-fire of 1953. We should consider responding to this offer. The unfortunate alternative is for North Koreans to take whatever actions they consider necessary to defend themselves from what they claim to fear most: a military attack supported by the United States, along with efforts to change the political regime.” (“North Korea’s consistent message to the U.S.”, President Jimmy Carter, Washington Post)

There’s a peaceful way out of this crisis. Just sit down and negotiate. It’s no big deal. People do it all the time. Heck, if Trump is half the wheeler-dealer he claims to be in his autobiography, it should be a piece of cake.

Let’s hope so.

By Victor V. Claar and Greg Forster*

Developed nations are increasingly haunted by doubts about the legitimacy of their economic structures. This paralyzing anxiety crosses all lines of ethnicity, religion, class, party and ideology. It played a prominent role in the startling presidential victory of former fringe figure Donald Trump, and in the equally startling political success of former fringe figure Bernie Sanders. Before them, it fueled both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street, as well as economic attitudes among millions of ordinary, apolitical Americans.

This is not a mere selfish concern about who gets how much of what. It is a moral anxiety, a concern about what kind of people we are becoming. Is America still a country where it pays to “work hard and play by the rules,” in Bill Clinton’s famous phrase? Or have we become the kind of place where cheaters consistently get ahead and slackers get a free ride—where working hard and playing by the rules is for chumps?

All around us we see business practices that extract money without creating value for the customer. We see crony capitalism that uses illicit collusion or government favoritism to enrich big firms and political cronies at the expense of customers, investors, small business, and entrepreneurs. We see able-bodied people living in long-term dependency on handouts (from parents, from the state, from churches). People increasingly feel like those who have wealth—from the top to the bottom of the economic ladder—generally don’t get it because they deserve it. Working hard and playing fair doesn’t pay.

A pervasive, persistent moral anxiety is one of the worst things that can befall a nation. Wars and disasters are immediately catastrophic, but moral anxiety robs people of their sense of dignity and purpose. People feel like their decisions don’t matter and their lives are without real meaning. Some respond with cynicism, injustice, and exploitation; others with anger, resentment, and political extremism; and others simply fall into a paralyzing state of learned helplessness and dependency (evidenced, for example, by our current opioid epidemic).

The worst part is that we keep trying to fix the problem, but nothing seems to work. Politicians in both parties keep touting America’s traditional economic virtues: diligence, honesty, entrepreneurship, opportunity for all, earning your own success by doing work that makes the world a better place. They promise us ambitious plans to preserve our way of life; sometimes they even implement those plans, or at least scaled-back versions of them. Yet the scoundrels always seem to stay on top.

Asking the right question

One reason for the unresolved debate over whether Trump’s success is more due to “economic” or “cultural” issues is because economics is a cultural issue. The whole question needs to be reframed without this false dichotomy.

Our need to sort issues into separate “economic” and “cultural” categories is historically abnormal. It is the culmination of developments in economic philosophy.

Our conviction, which we will spell out at greater length in our forthcoming book , The Keynesian Revolution and Economic Materialism: We’re All Dead (Palgrave Macmillan, 2019), is that the economic/cultural dichotomy not only dominates how we think about our problem; it is a key cause of the problem. A revolutionary change in the discipline of economics in the first half of the 20th century, known as the Keynesian Revolution, moved professional economists away from the robust set of moral presuppositions that had traditionally defined their discipline. Keynes led the way as economists distanced themselves from ethics—from a more fully rounded understanding of what counted as a flourishing human life—and described the economy in much more materialistic, amoral terms. A comprehensive reorganization of the discipline along these lines contributed, in turn, to a comprehensive reorganization of the economy itself—as well as our cultural understanding of economic activity.

Of course, John Maynard Keynes did not come from nowhere. The discipline of economics had been gradually moving in this direction throughout the “neoclassical” period that preceded his revolution in the 19th century. The original seeds of this movement can be identified in the works of Adam Smith and David Ricardo.

But the very popularity of the phrase “Keynesian Revolution” reflects the special role Keynes played in recognizing the full implications of this transition from moral to materialistic economics, and reorganizing economics comprehensively in light of those implications. While Keynes’s direct methodological influence was in the subfield of macroeconomics, his ethical and anthropological narratives were transformative for the discipline as a whole and society at large.

Cogs in a machine?

We are all Keynesians now, in a chilling sense. Through the cultural effects of the Keynesian Revolution, we have been taught to think of ourselves fundamentally as consumers, as bundles of desires striving to be satisfied, rather than as producers of good things that improve the world and serve humanity. We have been taught to think only of what satisfies present desires, not to build up good things over time so our grandchildren inherit a better world. “In the long run we are all dead,” Keynes said, banishing from our horizons any concern for what kind of world we leave our descendants when we go. And we have been taught to think of ourselves as cogs in a vast machine, under the control of managerial experts. To accommodate the experts’ demands we must all be ready to reorder our lives down to their very roots—since taking control of the economy necessarily involves exercising ever-greater control of all areas of human life.

There is a sense in which even the anti-Keynesians are all Keynesians now. The major schools of economic thought that have emerged to challenge Keynesianism—the Chicago and Austrian schools—developed within the amoral discourse incubated in the neoclassical period and consolidated by Keynes. They share, in a somewhat mitigated but essentially similar form, Keynesianism’s privileging of consumptive preferences over productive purposes, and its reductive inability to think cross-generationally. And while they strive to resist the Keynesian tendency to justify the encroaching powers of managerial technocracy, their acceptance of Keynesianism’s materialistic anthropology and morally shallow categories for thinking about economic activity leaves them unable to offer the effective resistance to creeping totalitarianism that is one of their primary goals.

As a result, within the profession of economics Keynes’s moral shallowness is so taken for granted—so deeply embedded in the structure of the discipline’s very thought—that for a long time it was difficult even to start a discussion of them. The language and the boundaries of discourse didn’t permit a challenge to these assumptions to be seriously heard, much less debated. Sociologist Peter Berger declared in his memoir that when examining moral issues, economists were “the one group of social scientists with whom it was generally impossible to work.” He recounts an exchange from a conference on economics and culture that he described as a complete fiasco. “Exasperated, the speaker asked, ‘Don’t you accept that some people act for reasons of conscience?’ ‘Oh, yes,’ said one of the economists. ‘Conscience—we call it ‘internal price controls.’”

In the long run, however, it is the Keynesian Revolution that is dead. Awareness of the limitations of dominant economic categories is growing. It is much easier now than it was fifteen or even five years ago to start a serious conversation about the inadequacy of the homo economicus model, or the tendency to overemphasize the importance of GDP growth and other aggregate quantitative outcomes to the exclusion of other outcomes that people also care about, such as unemployment, opportunities for cronyism, or suicide rates.

The only remedy for our moral anxiety about economics is a thorough repudiation of the influence of the materialistic model of homo economicus on our thinking and practice. That influence has been complex and extensive; uprooting it will be the work of a generation. We believe that it is the work of this generation, and a failure to undertake it will leave our nations unequipped to face the unfolding political, economic and social crises of our times.

This essay was excerpted and adapted from a forthcoming issue of Acton Institute’s Journal of Markets and Morality (Vol. 20, No. 1).

About the author:
*Victor V. Claar is associate professor of economics at Florida Gulf Coast University in Fort Myers, where he holds the BB&T Distinguished Professorship in Free Enterprise. He is a coauthor of Economics in Christian Perspective: Theory, Policy, and Life Choices, and author of the Acton Institute’s Fair Trade? Its Prospects as a Poverty Solution.

Source:
This article was published at the Acton Institute

By Ryan McMaken*

There’s an old saying that “he who distinguishes well teaches well.” In other words, if one’s going to talk about an important subject, one should be able to define his terms and tell the difference between two things that are not the same.

This wisdom, unfortunately, is rarely embraced by modern pundits arguing about the causes of the American Civil War. A typical example can be found in this article at the Huffington Post in which the author opines: “This discussion [over the causes of the war] has led some people to question if the Confederacy, and therefore the Civil War, was truly motivated by slavery.”

Did you notice the huge logical mistake the author makes? It’s right here: “…the Confederacy, and therefore the Civil War….”

The author acts as if the mere existence of the Confederacy inexorably caused the war that the North initiated in response to it. That is, the author merely assumes that if a state secedes from the United States, then war is an inevitable result. Moreover, she also wrongly assumes that the motivations behind secession were necessarily the same as the motivations behind the war.

But this does not follow logically at all. If California, for example, were to secede, is war therefore a certainty? Obviously not. The US government could elect to simply not invade California in response.

Moreover, were war to break out, the motivations behind a Californian secession are likely to be quite different from the motivations of the US government in launching a war. For the sake of argument, let’s say the Californians secede because they couldn’t stand the idea of being in the same country with a bunch of people they perceive to be intolerant rubes. But, what is a likely reason for the US to respond to secession with invasion? A US invasion of California is likely to be motivated by a desire to extract tax revenue from Californians, and to maintain control of military bases along the coast.

Thus it would be absurd to equate the motivations of the California secessionists with those of the advocates for the invasion of California.

To put it simply: an act of secession, and a war that may follow it, are not the same thing. 

And yet we find that commentary on the Civil War repeatedly conflates secession with the Civil War itself as if they were the same thing.

Yes, Southern Secession was Motivated by Slavery

But before we go any further let’s get this out of the way: the secession movement itself was obviously motivated by a desire to maintain slavery. This is easy enough to show because many Southern secessionists explicitly said so in their declarations of secession. In the South Carolina declaration of independence, the entire second half of the document explains that the state is seceding because it fears the North wil force emancipation on the country as a whole. The authors of the document denounce Northerners for electing a president who is “hostile to slavery” and for a “current of anti-slavery feeling” that allegedly pervaded the North at the time. What especially annoyed the secessionists was the North’s refusal to enforce the federal fugitive slave laws against abolitionists who “encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves” in escaping slavery.

The Mississippi declaration went even further, equating slavery with civilization itself, and claiming “a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization,” and plainly states that “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world.”

In both of these documents, taxes and free trade are barely mentioned. Slavery was clearly at the heart of the matter, which is in part why British free-trade crusader Richard Cobden rejected claims that the South had seceded primarily over tax and trade concerns.

The War, However, Was Motivated by Other Factors

None of this means the war was motivated by slavery — or opposition to it. After the fact, opponents of slavery claimed the war was about emancipation, which it clearly was not, except in the minds of a small minority of radical Republicans. It was not until military victory was apparent that the Republican leadership began to press for nationwide emancipation in negotiations with the South.

Almost until the end, the war was motivated by a concern for preserving tax revenues, and by nationalism. In a North where few people were full-on abolitionists, very few were willing to run off and stop a bullet to end the institution of slavery. Even those who disliked slavery were not exactly rushing off to shoot people over the matter. New York attorney George Templeton Strong’s attitude in 1861 toward Southern secession was one of “good riddance.” Referring to slavery as the “national ulcer,” Strong concluded: “the self-amputated members were diseased beyond immediate cure, and their virus will infect our system no longer.” Strong noted that his impression of Northerners was that they were granting “cordial consent” to Southern secession.1

Those who were ready to call for war were more often animated by ideological views tied to defending “the Union,” which many regarded as sacred, while the Northern policymakers themselves were concerned with the retention of military installations and with revenue concerns. The South provided a lot of revenue for the North, and the North wanted to keep it that way.

Years into the war, many Americans were still perfectly happy to come to a negotiated settlement with the South that allowed for the continuation of slavery. Indeed, in the 1864 election, the Democratic nominee, who promised to end the war without abolishing slavery, won 45 percent of the popular vote. (Voters in Confederate states were excluded, of course.)

Should the North have invaded the South to end slavery? That’s a separate question, and one that is also totally distinct from the question of secession. Northern armies could have invaded the South at any time to force emancipation on the South. No secession was ever necessary or key to the equation.

Equating Secession with Slavery

The lack of precision used in equating the war, slavery, and secession, serves an important purpose for modern anti-secessionists. Their knee-jerk opposition to any form of decentralization or locally-based democracy impels them to equate secession itself with slavery, even though secession can be motivated by any number of reasons. After all, secession was the preferred strategy of abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison who as early as 1844 began preaching the slogan “No union with slaveholders!”  In Garrison’s mind, the North ought to secede in order to free northerners from the burdens of the fugitive slave acts, and to offer safe haven to escaping slaves.

Had such a scheme played out, and the South had taken military action to force the North back into the union, would we be hearing today about how the only appropriate response to secession is open warfare? One would certainly hope not.

About the author:
*Ryan McMaken is the editor of Mises Wire and The Austrian. Send him your article submissions, but read article guidelines first. (Contact: email; twitter.) Ryan has degrees in economics and political science from the University of Colorado, and was the economist for the Colorado Division of Housing from 2009 to 2014. He is the author of Commie Cowboys: The Bourgeoisie and the Nation-State in the Western Genre.

Source:
This article was published by the MISES Institute.

Notes:
1. It was Southerners themselves who eventually made it much easier for Northern politicians to call for war. In a show of totally unnecessary bravado, Southern artillery fired on Ft. Sumter in 1861, allowing Lincoln to claim that the South had started a war on the North. Obviously even this move by the Confederacy did not justify the wholesale invasion and occupation of the South. Given Sumter’s location, the attack on the fort shouldn’t even have counted as an act of war. Nevertheless, in terms of public perception, the South blundered badly and played into the hands of pro-war politicians.

By Munish Sharma*

In the wake of burgeoning instances of cyber-attacks on its governmental apparatus, the United States (US) has elevated its Cyber Command (USCYBERCOM) to the status of Unified Combatant Command. The head of the organization will now report directly to the Defence Secretary. The USCYBERCOM was earlier subordinate to the US Strategic Command. The decision, made on August 18, has sent a strong signal to entities and countries inimical to its interests to recalibrate their security calculus.1

The US has faced massive attacks targeting its Office of Personnel Management, healthcare system and other critical infrastructure over the last couple of years. The alleged hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s election campaign during the 2016 Presidential elections is currently a subject of two Congressional investigations.

USCYBERCOM integrates expertise to ensure resilient and reliable information and communications networks. Above all, it counters the wide cross-section of threats in cyberspace from disruptions, intrusions and attacks. As a unified combatant command, CYBERCOM is slated for a larger role, not just in coordinating military-led cyberspace operations, but also in devising the strategy for the changing nature of warfare, enmeshing interoperable cyber forces with the other nine geographic and functional combatant commands. The decision is expected to more effectively address the threats spanning across geographical and functional boundaries of the existing structure of the US armed forces. Also, as a combatant command, USCYBERCOM will ensure integration of cyber operations with all future military plans.

Cyberspace, deemed to be the fifth domain of warfare, has transformed the way armed forces conduct their day-to-day operations, and brought in a paradigm shift at the strategic, doctrinal and tactical levels of warfare.2 The USCYBERCOM was established eight years ago, envisioned to fuse the full spectrum of cyberspace operations of the US Department of Defense (DoD). It was tasked to defend and protect information networks, and most importantly, to conduct full spectrum military cyberspace operations.3 The USCYBERCOM, with its 6,200 of personnel (military, civilian, and contractors) spread across 133 mission teams, has been headed by a four-star rank officer, in a dual-hat arrangement with the National Security Agency (NSA), co-located within a common headquarters at Fort Meade, Maryland.4 While the USCYBERCOM has been elevated to the status of a Unified Combatant Command, reports note that the decision to separate it from the NSA is still under consideration.5

The USCYBERCOM and NSA have been drawing synergy from each other, on the grounds of common technologies, methods, tools and skill-sets for cyber exploitation. They also draw human resources from the common pool of expertise spread across the armed forces, government and the private sector.

However, intelligence gathering in cyberspace, and cyber operations in response to an ongoing conflict, are fundamentally different practices. Intelligence gathering entails prolonged and persistent monitoring of targeted information systems and networks, where the intruder stays under the radar to escape detection or avoids raising any alarms.

On the contrary, cyber operation(s), particularly in response to a geopolitical conflict, might necessitate deliberate attribution to demonstrate its capability, expound its intent or even to establish the deterrent effect. Additionally, intelligence gathering and cyber operations execute different mandates.

While the NSA, being a signals intelligence agency, has a different mandate and modus operandi, the operational competence of USCYBERCOM will tilt further towards cyber offense, with elevated and honed cyber deterrent capabilities. Irrespective of the outcomes of the decision over the existing dual-hat arrangement however, both the NSA and the USCYBERCOM would continue to have a close working-relationship, given the inherent commonalities among intelligence and military activities in cyberspace.

With the creation of the first operational Cyber Command, the US armed forces had already unequivocally prioritised cyber offence, sending a clear geopolitical message of massive retaliation to any act of aggression in either of the natural or cyber domains. The USCYBERCOM, now ranked equivalent to the US Strategic Command and eight other unified combatant commands, will be better placed and equipped to deter cyber attacks at the first place, and if deterrence fails, then to retaliate or punish the perpetrators.6 Given that the operational mandate of the USCYBERCOM extends to the domains of land, sea, air, space and cyberspace, a conflict in one of these domains could attract a retaliatory punitive response not just in one, but a few or in all of these domains.

The US decision has strategic implications for every nation state with modernised or modernising armed forces. The growing importance of cyberspace in the doctrines and strategies of modern armed forces have raised the stakes for nation states to recalibrate their security calculus, in accordance with these inevitable changes. This decision of a unified combatant cyber command is going to fuel the prevailing vigorous race to prioritise cyber offence at the one end, and raise its deterrence potential on the lines of space and nuclear commands, at the other end. Therefore, the cyber element is slated to play a predominant role in the arithmetic of deterrence. This will also raise the stakes for both China and Russia, both of whom have a steadfast approach to the role of armed forces in cyberspace, definitely inclined towards offence.

India is not immune to these developments either. A Cyber Command for the Indian armed forces, first mooted by the Naresh Chandra Task Force report in 2012, is yet to see the light of the day. The absence of a statutory cyber command not just limits the options but jeopardises the country’s cyber deterrent capability as well. Therefore, there is the need for an appropriate response, both at the strategic and operational levels.

Views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IDSA or of the Government of India.

About the author:
*Munish Sharma is Consultant at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi.

Source:
This article was published by IDSA, http://idsa.in/idsacomments/usa-ups-the-ante-in-cyberspace_msharma_250817

Notes:

• 1. Office of the Press Secretary, “Statement by President Donald J. Trump on the Elevation of Cyber Command”, The White House, August 18, 2017, at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/08/18/statement-donald-…, accessed August 24, 2017.
• 2. Munish Sharma, “Raising a Cyber Command for Indian Armed Forces: Requisites and Organisational Considerations”, Synergy – Journal of the Centre for Joint Warfare Studies, July 2017, New Delhi, p. 106.
• 3. US Army Cyber Command, “US Cyber Command”, at http://www.arcyber.army.mil/Organization/USCyberCommand, accessed August 24, 2017.
• 4. US Department of Defense, “Department of Defense Cyber Strategy”, April 2015, at http://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/features/2015/0415_cyber-strategy/Final…, p. 6, accessed August 24, 2017.
• 5. Jim Garamone and Lisa Ferdinando, “DoD Initiates Process to Elevate U.S. Cyber Command to Unified Combatant Command”, DoD News, August 18, 2017, at https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/1283326/dod-initiates-proce…, accessed August 25, 2017.
• 6. Carlos Barria, “Trump lifts Cyber Command status to boost cyber defense”, CNBC, August 18, 2017, at https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/18/trump-approves-plan-to-boost-military-cy…, accessed August 24, 2017.

Overnight attacks on police outposts by Rohingya Muslim “extremists” in Myanmar’s volatile northern Rakhine state have left at least 71 people dead, in the latest violence to grip the religiously and ethnically divided area, the government said Friday.

Among the dead are one security staffer, 10 policemen, a deputy township officer, and 59 extremists, according to a statement issued by State Counselor Aung San Suu Kyi’s office.

Eleven people were injured in the attacks, three of them seriously, and one “terrorist” was arrested, it said.

The Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) claimed responsibility for the attacks on 30 outposts in Maungdaw, Buthidaung, and Rathedaung townships in a Twitter post, calling them “defensive action” against persecution of Rohingya Muslims by government forces.

The group is believed to have incited deadly attacks on three local border guard posts in October 2016 and claims to lead an ongoing insurgency movement in northern Rakhine’s Mayu mountain range.

“Burma has been ramping up military in Arakan state since last few weeks in order to derail the ‘Kofi Annan Commission Report and Recommendations’ by triggering an unrest in the state,” the ARSA said on its Twitter page. “Therefore, we have tried our best to avoid any potential conflict meanwhile.”

It accused the “military and security forces” deployed in two areas of carrying out “raids; committing killings, loot[ings] in many Rohingya villages across the townships; and molesting Rohingya women.”

ARSA chief Ata Ullah said in a 19-minute video uploaded to YouTube earlier this month that the group’s “primary objective” is to “liberate our people from dehumanized oppression perpetrated by all successive Burmese regimes.”

Aung San Suu Kyi, Myanmar’s de facto leader, strongly condemned the attacks on security forces, saying that they were deliberately carried out after an advisory commission on Rakhine state led by former United Nations chief Kofi Annan released its final report with recommendations on steps to end the regions’s sectarian strife and violence.

Among the commission’s many suggestions were calls for reviews of the country’s 1982 Citizenship Law, which prevents the Rohingya from becoming Myanmar citizens because they are viewed as illegal immigrants from Bangladesh, and an end to restrictions placed upon them in the Buddhist-dominated country.

“The government had been aware of the risk of the attacks to coincide with the release of the commission’s final report yesterday and had issued instruction to relevant Union ministers,” she said in the statement issued by her office.

“It is clear that today’s attacks are a calculated attempt to undermine the efforts of those seeking to build peace and harmony in Rakhine state,” she said. “We must not allow our work to be derailed by the violent actions of extremists.

Early morning attacks

The police outposts that were attacked starting around 1 a.m. include Natchaung, Tamantha, Kuntheepin-Chaungwa, Nantthataung, Nantthataung-Chaungwa, Meetaik-Chaungwa, Kyeekyun, Zeepin-chaungwa, Laungdon, Thihokyun, Zinpaingnyar, Tharaykonboung, Panyaungbingyi, Shweyinaye, Myinlut, Alethankyaw, Udaung (Natala), Taung Bazzar, Phaungtawpyin and Maungdaw (Natala), the statement said.

At that time, about 500 to 600 attackers entered Taung Bazzar village market in Buthidaung township, and Myanmar army soldiers and police fought them for an hour and half until they retreated, said local police officer Tun Naing.

“People from Buthidaung and Taung Bazzar are frightened and worried, so we took about 200 of them to Light Infantry Regiment No. 522,” he told RFA’s Myanmar Service. “No villagers are left in Taung Bazzar. The government army, police, and border security guards are deployed in the area now.”

At about 3 a.m., about 150 “extremist terrorists” divided themselves into two groups and attempted to infiltrate Light Infantry Regiment No. 552 where they were driven out by Myanmar army soldiers, according to the statement issued by the State Counselor’s Office.

Other local administrative staffers and villagers in several locales in the region were evacuated to military battalions, and police and border guard stations, the statement said.

Security force are evacuating civilians in Maungdaw township to safer places and carrying out area clearance operations, it said.

Myint Swe, a Muslim resident of Maungdaw’s ward No. 2, told RFA that he and his family left their home and sought shelter in downtown Maungdaw after they heard gunfire.

“Some other families are moving out to the places where they think it’s safe,” he said. “We have police and security guards in Maungdaw, but we can’t go around the town now.”

He said local residents had assisted the “terrorists” with their armed assaults.

“These terrorists came into our area, and some local residents helped them carry out the attacks,” he said. “They could not have done these attacks without help from the locals.”

Fighting between “extremists” and security forces is still occurring in some areas.

“We heard that minor fighting is still going on in [Maungdaw township’s] Maunghnama village,” said Rakhine State government secretary Tin Maung Swe.

A mine exploded near three border guard police vehicles in front of the village’s local mosque at 2 p.m. during a reinforcement mission, he said.

Bangladesh fears new influx

The violence and renewed security operations prompted a new exodus of Rohingya refugees to head towards neighboring Bangladesh to where more than 75,000 Rohingya from northern Rakhine fled during a military crackdown following last October’s attacks.

“The new influx of Rohingya people will generate more problems. We request the Myanmar authority to be cautious in handling the issue. They should solve the problem politically, not militarily,” Iqbal Sobhan Choudhury, Information Advisor to the Prime Minister told BenarNews, an RFA-affiliated online news service, in Dhaka.

“Already Bangladesh is bearing the brunt of their conflict. Now Rohingyas will try to enter into Bangladesh. Those who are already staying in Bangladesh are causing big socio economic problem.”

According to the United Nations, more than 80,000 Rohingya have fled to Bangladesh since last October’s clashes, the Associated Press reported.

Bangladesh Foreign secretary Mohamndd Shahidul Haq told BenarNews on Friday that Bangladesh has issued a note of protest to Myanmar, citing that it is not possible to allow new Rohingyas anymore, though the country has allowed thousands of Rohingyas from the humanitarian ground for decades.

“We don’t think we will allow anymore new Rohingya now. It can’t happen again and again. We have issued a strong note of protest to Myanmar.”

Sariful Islam Jomaddar, Deputy Commander (Teknaf 2) Border Guard Bangladesh (BGB) said that there was a wave of Rohingya arrivals early Friday and that 146 of them had been detained from different points of the Naf river border. “And later on, we have sent them back with some humanitarian aid.”

BenarNews sources in Rohingya refugee camps in Bangladesh said ARSA militants had been crossing into Bangladesh.

“There are more than 150 members of Myanmar’s separatist Rohingya groups in Ukhiya-Teknaf areas, who go back and forth across the borders,” said a high-ranking source at a refugee camp who requested anonymity.

Asked about presence of ARSA in Bangladesh, Iqbal Sobhan said, “Anybody can make irresponsible claim. But that is not true.”

“Our Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has announced zero tolerance to militancy or insurgency. Our government does not allow any insurgence group to use our land against the neighboring county like India and Myanmar. But if they have any authentic information about insurgence group, they can inform our security agency.”

In early August, the Myanmar government dispatched an army battalion to northern Rakhine state to provide additional security for ethnic Rakhine people following a spate of deadly attacks blamed on Muslim “terrorists” that began after the security operation ended in February.

Annan, rights groups weigh in

The latest spate of violence in northern Rakhine could elevate the current level of repression to which the Rohingya have long been subjected since communal violence directed against them by Buddhists in 2012. At the time, more than 200 people died, and 140,000 Rohingya were driven from their homes into internally displaced persons camps.

On Friday, Annan, who is chairman of the Advisory Commission on Rakhine State, said: “I am gravely concerned by, and strongly condemn, the recent attacks.”

“I strongly urge all communities and groups to reject violence,” he said. “After years of insecurity and instability, it should be clear that violence is not the solution to the challenges facing Rakhine state.

London-based rights group Amnesty International said the fresh attacks signal a dangerous escalation in the turmoil in northern Rakhine.

“These attacks are a dangerous escalation in violence and could put ordinary people in Rakhine state at risk, in particular as tensions have been reaching a boiling point in the region recently,” said Josef Benedict, the group’s international deputy campaigns director for Southeast Asia and the Pacific. “We urge all sides to show the utmost restraint and ensure that ordinary people are protected from human rights violations and abuses.”

Amnesty international was one of the right groups that documented unlawful killings, arbitrary arrests, enforced disappearances, torture, rape and other sexual violence inflicted upon the Rohingya by security forces during the four-month crackdown following the October 2016 attacks.

Benedict cautioned that the new violence “cannot lead to repeat of last year’s vicious military reprisals responding to a similar attack, when security forces tortured, killed and raped Rohingya people and burned down whole villages.”

“Although the government has an obligation to protect people, this cannot be seen as giving the army a blank cheque to commit atrocities against parts of the population,” he said, adding that it is crucial for the government to address the systematic discrimination in Rakhine state, which has left people trapped in violence and destitution.

He called on the government to implement the recommendations outlined in the final report of the Advisory Commission on Rakhine State.

Similarly, Charles Santiago chairman of ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR) and a member of Malaysia’s parliament, expressed alarm about the latest violence in Rakhine.

“The events of the past 24 hours cast in stark relief the urgent need to take immediate measures to deescalate conflict and chart a path toward long-term peace, and the recommendations delivered to the government by the [Advisory] Commission [on Rakhine state] are an ideal place to start,” he said in a statement.

“The latest developments reinforce the need, emphasized the commission’s report, for the government and security forces to act to ensure that basic human rights, including freedom of movement and access to basic services, are afforded to all people in Rakhine state, and that accountability exists for human rights violations,” he said.

The United States embassy in Yangon also condemned the attacks.

“We recognize the government and security forces have the responsibility to act to apprehend the perpetrators and prevent further violence, and we urge them to do so in a way that protects all innocent civilians,” said a statement issued on the embassy’s website.

“We also urge all communities to ensure their rhetoric and their actions contribute to restoration of peace and stability,” it said.

Reported by Thet Su Aung, Thin Thiri, and Khin Khin Ei for RFA’s Myanmar Service, and by BenarNews, an RFA-affiliated online news service. Translated by Khet Mar. Written in English by Roseanne Gerin.

By Shelley Kasli*

WikiLeaks has published documents from the ExpressLane project of the CIA. These documents show one of the cyber operations the CIA conducts against liaison services, which includes among many others the National Security Agency (NSA), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

The OTS (Office of Technical Services), a branch within the CIA, has a biometric collection system that is provided to liaison services around the world — with the expectation for sharing of the biometric takes collected on the systems.

But this ‘voluntary sharing’ obviously does not work or is considered insufficient by the CIA, because ExpressLane is a covert information collection tool that is used by the CIA to secretly exfiltrate data collections from such systems provided to liaison services.

ExpressLane is installed and run with the cover of upgrading the biometric software by OTS agents that visit the liaison sites. Liaison officers overseeing this procedure will remain unsuspicious, as the data exfiltration disguises behind a Windows installation splash screen.

The core components of the OTS system are based on products from Cross Match, a US company specializing in biometric software for law enforcement and the Intelligence Community.

The company hit the headlines in 2011 when it was reported that the US military used a Cross Match product to identify Osama bin Laden during the assassination operation in Pakistan.

Cross Match certified by UIDAI

Cross Match was one of the first suppliers of biometric devices certified by UIDAI for Aadhaar program. The company received the Certificate of Approval from the Indian Government in 2011. Cross Match received the Certificate of Approval for its Guardian fingerprint capture device and the I SCAN dual iris capture device on October 7, 2011. Both systems utilize Cross Match’s patented Auto Capture feature, which quickly captures high-quality images with minimal operator involvement.

The Certificate of Approval, was issued after completion of all tests required to demonstrate compliance with the quality requirements of UIDAI. The certification body consists of the Standardization, Testing and Quality Certification (STQC) Directorate for the Government of India’s Department of Information Technology (DIT) and the UIDAI. The tests performed by the STQC included the following criteria: Physical & Dimensional, Image Quality, Environmental (Durability/Climatic), Safety, EMI/EMC, Security, Functional, Performance, Interoperability, Ease of Use & Ergonomics.

Has the CIA already stolen India’s #Aadhaar database? https://t.co/hFcALy2Lki #modi

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) August 25, 2017

The majority of the UIDAI certified enrollment agencies use Cross Match devices across India. Cross Match was also the first company to receive the Provisional Certificate for use in the UID program in September, 2010. Video featuring the Cross Match Guardian and I SCAN devices has been taken down from the official UIDAI website.

Francisco Partners

In 2012, Francisco Partners acquired Cross Match Technologies Inc. The company has more than 5,000 customers worldwide and over 250,000 products deployed in over 80 countries. Cross Match’s customers include the U.S. Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. State Department and various state and local governments; as well as numerous foreign governments and law enforcement agencies. It also provides biometric solutions to customers in transportation, critical infrastructure, financial services, education, and healthcare sectors.

One of Francisco Partners portfolio company is an Israeli cyber weapons dealer called NSO Group. The company’s Pegasus iOS malware was linked to attacks on iPhones of a prominent UAE activist and a Mexican journalist.

Researchers from the University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab and mobile security firm Lookout raised questions about the ethics of NSO Group, a government spyware provider founded by an alum of Israel’s vaunted intelligence agencies. Francisco Partners bought its stake in the company for $120 million in 2014. Citizen Lab uncovered NSO’s Pegasus malware targeting iPhones of a Mexican journalist and a UAE activist. The same day, FORBES reported that Francisco Partners added Circles to its roster of investments, another Israeli-founded surveillance firm, which sold contentious gear to hack a part of global telecoms networks, known as SS7. That cost the private equity firm $130 million, a source close to the deal told FORBES.

Spying governments, activists & journalists

Francisco Partners also ran Turkey’s spy operations by selling its deep packet inspection product for surveillance. Deep packet inspection enables surveillance at the outset. Its very purpose is to open up “packets” of data flying across networks and inspect them to check if they should pass. DPI has made headlines for controversial use cases. China, for instance, likes to use DPI in its infamous censorship and surveillance systems. Sunnyvale, California-based Blue Coat Systems, in which Francisco Partners was a significant investor, saw its DPI technology censoring the internet in Syria in 2011, just as the civil war was erupting. Human rights activists looked on agog, but Blue Coat later said resellers were to blame and that it had not given permission for the technology to be shipped to the country. One reseller was later slapped with a maximum fine of $2.8 million by the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS). (Francisco Partners also has stakes in Barracuda Networks and Dell Software, which both ship DPI products).

Aadhaar’s biometric pioneer

The foundation of the Aadhaar program is based on biometric and demographic data that is unique to each citizen. This data can only be collected by leveraging biometric devices and compatible software – the second and third stages of the Aadhaar value chain.

Cross Match’s Indian partner for the UID program is Smart Identity Devices Pvt. Ltd. (Smart ID). Smart Identity Devices, or Smart ID, has been the biometric pioneer and leader for the Aadhaar program. Smart ID provides biometric technology, smart card, and information and communication technology products and services for numerous sectors, such as financial services, logistics, government, and IT security. Launching commercial operations in 2008, Smart ID is based in Noida, India and is led by Sanjeev Mathur. The company’s devices are being used by enrollment agencies across India for the Aadhaar program.

According to a recent study by Research and Markets, India’s biometrics market is forecast to hit about $2 billion by 2018.

Smart ID’s products and services range from biometric products, to mobile application solutions, to services such as Aadhaar enrollment, training, project management, IT hosting, and business correspondent management.

As of 2014, Smart ID was able to carry out enrollment activities across India in states such as, Jharkhand, Tamil Nadu, Orissa, Uttar Pradesh, West Bangal, and Madhya Pradesh. Smart ID has already enrolled more than 1.2 million citizens into the Aadhaar program through its enrollment agencies.

In July 2011, the UIDAI recognized Smart ID as being one of the three best enrollment agencies in Aadhaar for enrolling more than 25 million citizens in a very short time frame. Cross Match’s own presentation prepared for UID study claims more than 620 million enrollments. These CIA bugged Cross Match Aadhar Uid Kit is also available on the open market. Even you can buy it for Rs 63,999 a pair.

The price of a Smart ID Patrol ID fingerprint scanner was approximately $2300 in 2014. And these devices were installed across the country. It would be interesting to know how much did the Indian government pay this CIA front company for the exercise. Lets say UIDAI installed 10,000 such bugged CIA devices across the country for enrollment (which is a very conservative estimate), the staggering cost would be 1473554800 Rs.

How CIA agents can access Aadhaar database in real-time

A number of the CIA’s electronic attack methods are designed for physical proximity. These attack methods are able to penetrate high security networks that are disconnected from the internet, such as police record database. In these cases, a CIA officer, agent or allied intelligence officer acting under instructions, physically infiltrates the targeted workplace. The attacker is provided with a USB containing malware developed for the CIA for this purpose, which is inserted into the targeted computer. The attacker then infects and exfiltrates data to removable media. For example, the CIA attack system Fine Dining, provides 24 decoy applications for CIA spies to use. To witnesses, the spy appears to be running a program showing videos (e.g VLC), presenting slides (Prezi), playing a computer game (Breakout2, 2048) or even running a fake virus scanner (Kaspersky, McAfee, Sophos). But while the decoy application is on the screen, the underlaying system is automatically infected and ransacked.

Fine Dining comes with a standardized questionnaire i.e menu that CIA case officers fill out. The questionnaire is used by the agency’s OSB (Operational Support Branch) to transform the requests of case officers into technical requirements for hacking attacks (typically “exfiltrating” information from computer systems) for specific operations. The questionnaire allows the OSB to identify how to adapt existing tools for the operation, and communicate this to CIA malware configuration staff. The OSB functions as the interface between CIA operational staff and the relevant technical support staff.

Among the list of possible targets of the collection are ‘Asset’, ‘Liason Asset’, ‘System Administrator’, ‘Foreign Information Operations’, ‘Foreign Intelligence Agencies’ and ‘Foreign Government Entities’. Notably absent is any reference to extremists or transnational criminals. The ‘Case Officer’ is also asked to specify the environment of the target like the type of computer, operating system used, Internet connectivity and installed anti-virus utilities (PSPs) as well as a list of file types to be exfiltrated like Office documents, audio, video, images or custom file types. The ‘menu’ also asks for information if recurring access to the target is possible and how long unobserved access to the computer can be maintained. This information is used by the CIA’s ‘JQJIMPROVISE’ software to configure a set of CIA malware suited to the specific needs of an operation.
Here is the official training manual that contains the detailed steps for carrying out the installation and configuration of Cross Match for the Aadhaar Enrolment Client. This manual also describes the process of importing master data after downloading it from the UIDAI Admin Portal.

It is remarkable that Aadhaar and Al-Qaeda mean the same thing, which is “foundation” – Manu Joseph pointed out this tweetable fact in his piece on Live Mint. What we might add is that it is also remarkable that both Aadhaar and Al Qaeda are illegitimate sons of the same mother.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own, who is solely responsible for the content.

(RFE/RL) — U.S. star Kyle Snyder upset fellow Olympic gold medalist Abdulrashid Sadulaev in the deciding match to lead the United States to the men’s world freestyle wrestling championship over Russia in Paris.

Snyder scored a late takedown on August 26 to hand Sadulaev, the three-time reigning world champion, his first loss since 2013.

The Americans and Russians were tied going into the match between Snyder and Sadulaev, who moved up to the 97-kilogram class to challenge Snyder.

Snyder won the 2016 Olympic gold in the 97-kilogram class, while Sadulaev won it in the 86-kilogram level.

Snyder trailed before he completed a spin-behind takedown in the final 20 seconds, giving him the victory by a score of 6-5.

Jordan Burroughs won a gold medal for the United States at 76 kilograms, defeating 2014 world champion Khetag Tsabalov of Russia.

The former Democratic National Committee chairperson accused of fixing the 2016 Democratic party primary in favor of Hillary Clinton has been cleared of fraud in a federal court.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz became embroiled in a political scandal during last year’s US presidential election after the DNC email hack revealed she had been vocal in her criticisms of Clinton’s Democratic rival Bernie Sanders – conduct which Sanders supporters believe goes against the DNC’s official neutrality in primary contests.

Federal Judge William Zloch dismissed a lawsuit brought by two Miami lawyers, Jared and Elizabeth Beck, on behalf of more than 100 Sanders supporters who claim the email leak proves Wasserman Schultz “rigged” the primary process for the former US secretary of state.

Zloch wrote in his judgement: “The Court must now decide whether Plaintiffs have suffered a concrete injury particularized to them, or one certainly impending, that is traceable to the DNC and its former chair’s conduct – the keys to entering federal court. The Court holds that they have not, which means the truth of their claims cannot be tested in this Court.”

Lawyers for Jared and Elizabeth Beck have tried to link their lawsuit to the unsolved murder of Seth Rich, the DNC staffer who was shot in the back while out in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington in July 2016.

The Seth Rich case has become a point of focus for conspiracy theorists in recent times, with many right-wing commentators claiming that Rich had been involved in leaking the DNC emails.

Among other claims, Jared Beck attempted to link the death of the man who served the lawsuit to the DNC to senior members of the Democratic Party, and also claimed that someone from Wasserman Schultz’s office threatened him over the phone using a voice-changer.

However, Zloch ruled that the Becks did not do enough to prove their case and also said that simply having a group of more than 100 aggrieved voters did not meet the legal criteria for a class-action suit.

“To the extent Plaintiffs wish to air their general grievances with the DNC or its candidate selection process, their redress is through the ballot box, the DNC’s internal workings, or their right of free speech – not through the judiciary,” the judge added.

Meanwhile, an IT specialist and former aide to Wasserman Schultz has been indicted on four felony counts, including bank fraud and engaging in unlawful monetary transactions.

Imran Awan, 37, who worked for Wasserman Schultz and dozens of other lawmakers in the US Congress, was charged with making false statements on an application to obtain home equity lines of credit on two properties they rented out.

Awan and his wife Hina Alvi, 33, allegedly sent the money to unidentified individuals in Pakistan.

By Maja Zivanovic

The Serbian and Macedonian Foreign Ministers, Ivica Dacic and Nikola Dimitrov, met in Nis to discuss the intelligence that prompted Serbia recently to recall its embassy staff from Macedonia – and vowed to work on improved relations.

Foreign Ministers Dacic and Dimitrov confirmed at a joint press conference in the Serbian town of Nis on Friday that Serbia had come across intelligence that had the potential to cause instability and damage both to Serbia and Macedonia.

“Our findings provoked our reaction. We wanted to avoid the possibility of causing damage to our relations and of Serbia being falsely accused of provoking unrest or destabilization in Macedonia,” Dacic said after meeting Dimitrov on Friday in the Serbian southern city.

Dacic added that all the information should be checked and resolved through dialogue.

“We [Serbia and Macedonia] are friends, and should be careful not to be drawn into global political games,” the Serbian Foreign Minister said.

Macedonia’s Foreign Minister Dimitrov told the media that the subject of intelligence remained “delicate” generally.

“I think that getting into too many details on an intelligence activity would lead us in the wrong direction, both Serbia and Macedonia,” Dimitrov said, adding that Macedonia’s government was not involved in the diplomatic incident.

Dacic and Dimitrov agreed that the Serbian and Macedonian intelligence services should cooperate closely, and added that two countries will remain in friendly relations, as both have same goal, which is EU membership.

Serbian diplomats returned to their embassy in Skopje on Thursday, while the Foreign Ministry announced that the Serbian ambassador would return on August 31.

The ministry added that immediately on his return the ambassador would seek a meeting with Macedonian Prime Minister Zoran Zaev.

Meanwhile, Serbia’s President, Aleksandar Vucic, and Macedonia’s Prime Minister, Zaev, agreed on Wednesday in a long telephone conversation to improve recently tense relations through more dialogue.

Vucic announced that the Serbian Prime Minister, Ana Brnabic, will ask Zaev to hold a joint session of the two governments in Belgrade.

On Monday, Vucic said Serbia had pulled out its embassy staff after Belgrade obtained “evidence of very offensive intelligence against the institutions of Serbia” adding that unnamed “foreign powers” were also involved.

Serbian media reports speculated that Macedonia had been tapping the Serbian officials’ communications.

But Zaev told the Serbian daily Blic on Wednesday that allegations in the Serbian media that he or his government had ordered wiretapping, or other intelligence measures, against the Serbian embassy in Skopje, were false.

Serbian Prime Minister Brnabic on Wednesday repeated that “intelligence was the concrete reason for withdrawing of the embassy staff” from Skopje.

Media reports have speculated that one of the factors in the diplomatic incident was a Serbian intelligence officer, Goran Zivaljevic, who worked as an adviser at the Serbian embassy.

Zivaljevic was present during a violent episode on April 27, when a group of men stormed the Macedonian parliament in Skopje.

Zivaljevic told Serbia’s Tanjug news agency on August 23 that he had the approval of Macedonian authorities to be in the chamber that night – which the office of Macedonian President Gjorge Ivanov denied.

The Macedonian television station Telma on Friday said that prosecutors might start an investigation to determine any connections of either Ivanov and Zivaljevic with the violent events in the parliament, the Sobranje.

The European Parliament rapporteur for Serbia, David McAllister, on Friday told Radio Free Europe that he was surprised by the disputes between Macedonia and Serbia, adding that he had got assurances from Serbia that the dispute would be solved.

The Seven Sisters, as they were known to the ancient Greeks, are now known to modern astronomers as the Pleiades star cluster – a set of stars which are visible to the naked eye and have been studied for thousands of years by cultures all over the world. Now Dr Tim White of the Stellar Astrophysics Centre at Aarhus University and his team of Danish and international astronomers have demonstrated a powerful new technique for observing stars such as these, which are ordinarily far too bright to look at with high performance telescopes. Their work is published in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

Using a new algorithm to enhance observations from the Kepler Space Telescope in its K2 Mission, the team has performed the most detailed study yet of the variability of these stars. Satellites such as Kepler are engineered to search for planets orbiting distant stars by looking for the dip in brightness as the planets pass in front, and also to do asteroseismology, studying the structure and evolution of stars as revealed by changes in their brightness.

Because the Kepler mission was designed to look at thousands of faint stars at a time, some of the brightest stars are actually too bright to observe. Aiming a beam of light from a bright star at a point on a camera detector will cause the central pixels of the star’s image to be saturated, which causes a very significant loss of precision in the measurement of the total brightness of the star. This is the same process which causes a loss of dynamic range on ordinary digital cameras, which cannot see faint and bright detail in the same exposure.

“The solution to observing bright stars with Kepler turned out to be rather simple,” said lead author Dr Tim White. “We’re chiefly concerned about relative, rather than absolute, changes in brightness. We can just measure these changes from nearby unsaturated pixels, and ignore the saturated areas altogether.”

But changes in the satellite’s motion and slight imperfections in the detector can still hide the signal of stellar variability. To overcome this, the authors developed a new technique to weight the contribution of each pixel to find the right balance where instrumental effects are cancelled out, revealing the true stellar variability. This new method has been named halo photometry, a simple and fast algorithm the authors have released as free open-source software.

Most of the seven stars are revealed to be slowly-pulsating B stars, a class of variable star in which the star’s brightness changes with day-long periods. The frequencies of these pulsations are key to exploring some of the poorly understood processes in the core of these stars.

The seventh star, Maia, is different: it varies with a regular period of 10 days. Previous studies have shown that Maia belongs to a class of stars with abnormal surface concentrations of some chemical elements such as manganese. To see if these things were related, a series of spectroscopic observations were taken with the Hertzsprung SONG Telescope.

“What we saw was that the brightness changes seen by Kepler go hand-in-hand with changes in the strength of manganese absorption in Maia’s atmosphere,” said Dr Victoria Antoci, a co-author of the work and Assistant Professor at the Stellar Astrophysics Centre, Aarhus University. “We conclude that the variations are caused by a large chemical spot on the surface of the star, which comes in and out of view as the star rotates with a ten day period.”

“Sixty years ago, astronomers had thought they could see variability in Maia with periods of a few hours and suggested this was the first of a whole new class of variable stars they called ‘Maia Variables’,” White said, “but our new observations show that Maia is not itself a Maia Variable!”

No signs of exoplanetary transits were detected in this study, but the authors show that their new algorithm can attain the precision that will be needed for Kepler and future space telescopes such as the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS) to detect planets transiting stars as bright as our neighbouring star Alpha Centauri. These nearby bright stars are the best targets for future missions and facilities such as the James Webb Space Telescope, which is due to launch in late 2018.

The gender gap in death from heart attack has reduced over the past two decades particularly in younger women, according to research presented today at ESC Congress. The study in over 50,000 patients found that overall in-hospital mortality for heart attack patients was halved during the 20 year period.

“Research in the 1990s showed that younger women with acute myocardial infarction had a higher mortality than men of similar age,” said Dr Dragana Radovanovic, head of the AMIS Plus Data Centre, University of Zurich, Switzerland. “Little is known about whether this gender difference has persisted over the years.”

This study assessed changes in the in-hospital mortality of men and women with acute myocardial infarction over a 20 year period. The researchers retrospectively analysed prospective data collected from January 1997 through December 2016 in the Swiss nationwide acute myocardial infarction registry AMIS Plus.

The study included 51,725 acute myocardial infarction patients from 83 Swiss hospitals. Among them, 30,398 (59%) presented with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and 21,327 (41%) with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). The study population was 73% male (mean age 64 years) and 27% female (mean age 72 years). The mean age did not change for either sex during the observation period.

The researchers found a decrease in crude in-hospital mortality from 1997 to 2016. In STEMI patients, in-hospital mortality significantly dropped from 9.8% to 5.5% in men and from 18.3% to 6.9% in women (p<0.001 for both). In NSTEMI patients it fell from 7.1% to 2.1% in men and 11.0% to 3.6% in women (p<0.001 for both).

Dr Radovanovic said: “The data shows that in-hospital mortality of patients with acute myocardial infarction fell by at least half over the 20 year period. The differences in death rates between men and women also reduced.”

As previous research had shown that younger women with acute myocardial infarction had a higher mortality than men of similar age, the researchers also separately analysed mortality in patients younger than 60 years of age. In women they found 6% and 13% decreases in mortality with each subsequent admission year for STEMI and NSTEMI, respectively. No significantly decreases were observed in men less than 60 years of age.

Dr Radovanovic said: “Although in-hospital mortality continues to be higher in women than men, overall age-adjusted mortality has decreased more prominently in women compared to men, particularly those in the age category below 60 years.”

Between 1997 and 2016 the use of reperfusion to open blocked arteries, especially percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), increased in all patients admitted for acute myocardial infarction. In STEMI patients, use of PCI increased from 60% to 93% in men and 45% to 90% in women.

Dr Radovanovic said: “Women still have higher in-hospital mortality from acute myocardial infarction than men, probably because they are eight years older when they have a heart attack, and they have more cardiovascular risk factors and comorbidities. However, the gender gap in mortality has narrowed over the past 20 years which may be due to increasing use of PCI in women.”

Boko Haram extremists killed at least 27 people by shooting them and slitting their throats as they attacked several villages in northern Nigeria’s Borno state in the past week, residents said, according to The Associated Press.

Such deadly attacks in recent months have pressured Nigeria’s government to increase its efforts against a homegrown Islamic extremist group it last year declared to be “crushed.”

Boko Haram fighters entered villages in the Nganzai area on Wednesday, August 23, slitting throats and using guns to kill at least 15 people while injuring two others, said Modu Jialta, a member of a local self-defense group. The attackers also burned homes.

Residents weren’t able to get to the bodies for burial until Friday, Jialta said.

Suspected Boko Haram fighters also attacked in the Guzamala local council area on Wednesday, killing 12 people and injuring at least four, said Mai Abatcha Monguno, the commander of the council’s citizen defense forces.

Northern Borno state is the birthplace and stronghold of Boko Haram. Bunu Bukar, secretary of the hunters’ association there, said more government support and better equipment is needed to combat the extremists.

Boko Haram’s eight-year insurgency has displaced millions in Nigeria and neighboring countries and killed more than 20,000 people.

In a speech to the nation on Monday, President Muhammadu Buhari vowed to “reinforce and reinvigorate the fight” against Boko Haram, which he accused of “attempting a new series of attacks on soft targets.”