New data confirm that suicide attempts among US adults are on the rise, with a disproportional effect on younger, socioeconomically disadvantaged adults with a history of mental disorders. The study, by researchers at Columbia University Medical Center (CUMC) and New York State Psychiatric Institute (NYSPI), was published today in JAMA Psychiatry.

“Attempted suicide is the strongest risk factor for suicide, so it’s important that clinicians know just who faces the highest risk so that we can do a better job of preventing suicides from happening,” said Mark Olfson, MD, MPH, professor of psychiatry and epidemiology at CUMC and lead author of the study.

Between 2004 and 2014, the annual suicide rate increased from 11 percent to 13 percent per 100,000 people. While the increase in suicide attempts mirrors this national trend, the study revealed some important differences in risk factors for attempted suicide versus completed suicide. For example, while middle-aged adults (aged 45-64 years) had the highest suicide rate, young adults (aged 21-34 years) had the biggest increase in suicide attempts. And while suicide attempts were higher among women than men, more men completed suicide.

The study is based on National Institutes of Health surveys performed in 2004-05 and again in 2012-13, in which nearly 70,000 adults answered questions about the occurrence and timing of suicide attempts. The study period included the economic downturn beginning in 2007.

In the 2012-13 survey, respondents who were unemployed, less educated, and had lower family income were significantly more likely to report a recent suicide attempt.

The two groups shared several clinical risk factors, including depression, anxiety, and substance use disorders. A history of violent behavior or self-injury also increased risk for suicide attempt or suicide.

“The patterns seen in this study suggest that clinical and pubic health efforts to reduce suicide would be strengthened by focusing on younger patients who are socioeconomically disadvantaged and psychiatrically distressed,” said Dr. Olfson.

Jeffrey Lieberman, MD, chair of the department of psychiatry at CUMC and former American Psychiatric Association President commented that “Dr. Olfson’s report provides a warning signal of the harmful consequences of ignoring mental illness and an exhortation to improve mental health care in the U.S.

At the end of the Stone Age and in the early Bronze Age, families were established in a surprising manner in the Lechtal, south of Augsburg, Germany. The majority of women came from outside the area, probably from Bohemia or Central Germany, while men usually remained in the region of their birth.

This so-called patrilocal pattern combined with individual female mobility was not a temporary phenomenon, but persisted over a period of 800 years during the transition from the Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age.

The findings, published in PNAS, result from a research collaboration headed by Philipp Stockhammer of the Institute of Pre- and Protohistoric Archaeology and Archaeology of the Roman Provinces of the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München.

In addition to archaeological examinations, the team conducted stable isotope and ancient DNA analyses. Corina Knipper of the Curt-Engelhorn-Centre for Archaeometry, as well as Alissa Mittnik and Johannes Krause of the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History in Jena and the University of Tuebingen jointly directed these scientific investigations.

“Individual mobility was a major feature characterizing the lives of people in Central Europe even in the 3rd and early 2nd millennium,” said Philipp Stockhammer. The researchers suspect that it played a significant role in the exchange of cultural objects and ideas, which increased considerably in the Bronze Age, in turn promoting the development of new technologies.

For this study, the researchers examined the remains of 84 individuals using genetic and isotope analyses in conjunction with archeological evaluations. The individuals were buried between 2500 and 1650 BC in cemeteries that belonged to individual homesteads, and that contained between one and several dozen burials made over a period of several generations.

“The settlements were located along a fertile loess ridge in the middle of the Lech valley. Larger villages did not exist in the Lechtal at this time,” said Stockhammer.

“We see a great diversity of different female lineages, which would occur if over time many women relocated to the Lech Valley from somewhere else,” said Alissa Mittnik on the genetic analyses.

According to Corina Knipper, “Based on analysis of strontium isotope ratios in molars, which allows us to draw conclusions about the origin of people, we were able to ascertain that the majority of women did not originate from the region.” The burials of the women did not differ from that of the native population, indicating that the formerly foreign women were integrated into the local community.

From an archaeological point of view, the new insights prove the importance of female mobility for cultural exchange in the Bronze Age. They also allow us to view the immense extent of early human mobility in a new light.

“It appears that at least part of what was previously believed to be migration by groups is based on an institutionalized form of individual mobility,” Stockhammer said.

By Ghazanfar Ali Khan

Iran has topped the world league table for money laundering and terror financing for the third consecutive year.

It was followed by Afghanistan, Guinea-Bissau, Tajikistan and Laos in the annual rankings compiled by the Basel Institute on Governance, an independent anti-corruption group based in Switzerland. The three lowest ranked countries were Finland, Lithuania and Estonia.

In the list of 146 countries, Saudi Arabia ranked 93rd, which gives the Kingdom’s banking system a superior rating to that of Turkey in 43rd, Pakistan in 46th, China in 51st, Russia in 64th and India in 88th, and only marginally behind Japan in 98th.

“The Kingdom has a clean record as far as money laundering is concerned,” said Syed Ahmed Ziauddin, chief of the financial institutions and public sector at Bank Aljazira. “All financial institutions, including banks, have a high compliance rating within the framework of international regulations and guidelines issued by the Saudi Arabian Monetary Authority. The banks in the Kingdom have world-class technical platforms on a par with advanced countries.”

Marwan Jafri, another local banker, said: “Saudi banks are fully committed to fighting money laundering and combating terrorism financing by adopting and maintaining appropriate policies, systems and controls. But there are ample proofs in the public domain about the involvement of Iran in money laundering and terror financing.”

This is the sixth year in which the institute has compiled its rankings. Its report says the greatest improvements in the past year have been made by Sudan, Taiwan, and Bangladesh.

In South Asia, Afghanistan is the highest-risk country followed by Nepal, Sri Lanka and Pakistan.

Ahmad Tibi is an inspiring voice who fearlessly champions Palestinian rights both inside Israel and in Palestine.

Tibi was born in Tayibe in central Israel, a decade after Israel was created by a UN resolution that subordinated the rights of Christian and Muslim residents of Palestine.

A successful physician who graduated from Hebrew University, Tibi fought against Israel’s stubborn racism against non-Jews. He was expelled from a medical internship at Hadassah Hospital when he protested against Israel’s double standard of selecting only Arabs for security checks.

Despite his protests, Tibi understands the best way to change Israel’s racist and discriminatory practices is to do it from the inside by becoming part of the system, rather than from a soapbox outside the country that no one hears.

Working within the system, Tibi won a seat in the Knesset in 1999, when Israel’s rightwing leaders were intentionally sabotaging the Oslo Accords process that would have created a Palestinian state and brought peace to the region.

Tibi understands that it is not enough to protest against Israeli violence and aggression against Christians and Muslims inside Israel and in the Occupied Territories, or to speak out against Israeli racism. He recognizes that Palestinians need to fight an even bigger battle to correct the negative stereotypes that Israel has fabricated about Palestinians and the lies it has fabricated about itself.

I met Tibi when he came to Chicago last May and was moved by his courageous rhetoric. He is not an extremist. He is a realist who speaks about Israel’s many human-rights transgressions in the context of bringing change and achieving peace.

Tibi will be the keynote speaker at the Sunday Palestine Luncheon on Sept. 24 at the annual convention of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) — a group under continual assault from fanatics inside and outside of the community.

The ADC audience needs to heed and embrace Tibi’s strategic rhetoric about how to effectively confront Israel. It should take steps to distance itself from extremists who reject peace and spend as much time bashing other Arabs as they do Israel.

Tibi is not out to “destroy” Israel, as many fanatics assert. He is out to change it, either by making it truly democratic, or through the creation of an independent Palestinian state that most Israelis and many Palestinian activists oppose.

He reminds me of another inspirational Palestinian Israeli leader I met more 41 years ago, Tawfiq Ziad.

Ziad visited Chicago in October 1976 to address the Arab American Congress for Palestine, a precursor to the ADC and for which I was a media strategist and later spokesman and president.

Ziad fought for Palestinian rights in his poetry and his powerful writing. He was uncompromising in speaking against the fundamental racism at the heart of Israel’s existence. He was elected mayor of Nazareth in 1973 and the following year was elected to the Knesset.

Despite this, his critics accused him of being a communist in the early days of Israel’s existence, when Arabs were restricted to joining marginal political organizations. Israel banned Palestinians from forming political organizations that championed Palestinian rights and only let them participate in communist and socialist political groups.

Many Israeli Jewish leaders may be racist bigots, but they are not stupid. They did everything they could to manipulate how Palestinians were presented to the West, especially to the American people who provide billions in taxpayer dollars to subsidize Israel’s civil rights violations against Christian and Muslim Palestinians.

When I first interviewed Ziad for my Chicago newspaper The Middle Eastern Voice, he said something about Israel that has left an impression to this day. “Discrimination in Israel,” he said, “is policy, practice and reality.”

Most American news media refused to cover Ziad, as they refused to cover Tibi when he came to Chicago last May. That is how they discriminate against Palestinian rights, by marginalizing and excluding Palestinian voices of moderation and reason. They would be there to report on “Arab terrorism,” but never to cover the reality of America’s Arabs or Palestine’s suffering.

Ziad denounced Israel’s racist policies, which he described as “a new form of apartheid.” But he also spoke out against extremists in the Palestinian community who opposed “normalization” with Israel.

Ziad said he served in the Knesset for the same reason Tibi does: To protect the rights of Palestinians in Israel and to help either make Israel a true democracy or to implement a two-state solution whereby Palestine becomes an independent state.

At the time, the University of Illinois, where I studied, refused to provide funds to allow Ziad to address the student body — in contrast, the university provided generous funding to Jewish students to bring Israeli speakers.

Both Ziad and Tibi worked with Yasser Arafat. They were among the delegation that greeted Arafat when he arrived in the Occupied Territories in 1994 under the terms of the 1993 Camp David accords. Ziad died in a car accident while driving home from the reception for Arafat.

Tibi’s voice resonates with the courage of Ziad and the commitment of Arafat to the rights of the Palestinian people.

When he speaks, Americans need to listen.

By Cheryl Pellerin

US Defense Secretary Jim Mattis left Wednesday morning on a three-day nuclear-focused trip that comes during ongoing reviews of the U.S. nuclear posture and ballistic missile defense.

Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota will be his first stop tomorrow, and the same day he will travel to U.S. Strategic Command in Omaha, Nebraska.

On Sept. 15 Mattis will travel to Mexico, the first U.S. defense secretary to participate in Mexican Independence Day activities.

“We’re on the way to Minot,” the secretary told reporters traveling with him today on his military aircraft, referring to Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota.

“I want to see the airmen who serve out there, on alert, all the time, intercontinental ballistic missile airmen and B-52 airmen, and talk to their commander, talk to the troops, just get a feel for how it’s going and hear directly, unfiltered, their view of their mission, their readiness,” he added.

Touring the Triad

Minot is the only U.S. base that is home to two legs of the nuclear triad — strategic bombers and intercontinental ballistic missiles. On August 9, Mattis visited with sailors maintaining the third leg of the nuclear triad — ballistic missile submarines — at Naval Base Kitsap in Washington state.

At Minot, Mattis will tour a missile alert facility used to control ICBMs, and a weapons storage area where airmen maintain ICBM warheads.

“I know they’re ready,” the secretary said of the airmen at Minot, “but I want to know the obstacles for their readiness so I can do something about it. I get good reports but I always like going out and talking to human beings face to face,” the secretary said.

Afterward, at Stratcom, which uses tailored nuclear, space, cyberspace, global strike, missile defense and other capabilities for deterrence and assurance, Mattis will meet with the leadership to discuss 21st-century strategic deterrence.

“At Stratcom, I’ll be talking to them about the broader aspects of the Nuclear Posture Review,” he explained, “[and receive] their view of how it’s going, their ability to get input to it, just to make sure that what I’m getting is a real well-informed review. We’ll also talk about various international issues.”

Nuclear Posture Review

As the NPR process continues, Mattis said that he reviews it every couple of weeks.

“I have different people in; the people who are leading it, the greybeards who are over-watching and checking it out, the scientists. And I want to make certain as I’m getting informed by them, I’m also getting this input,” Mattis said, adding, “I’m also talking to people who have nothing to do with the current DoD, people outside the government who have studied this for many years as well.”

Mattis said that every time the review comes back to him he sends out more questions and they get answered.

“Pretty soon you’re narrowing the areas of nonquantifiable uncertainty. And as you get that, then you can start making judgment calls that make sense … we’ve got three legs of the triad. Does each one need to exist? Within each leg, there are different weapons — does each need to be there? Are they stabilizing weapons, are they necessary?”

Mattis says he’s still in the narrowing part of the process.

21st-Century Deterrence

Asked if he sees eliminating a leg of the triad as a cost-saving mechanism, Mattis said no.

“Not as a cost-savings mechanism. There’s a way to do cost-saving within a triad. But I think what is most important is, in a deterrent, you can leave no doubt at all that [it will work] … You want the enemy to look at it and say, ‘This is impossible to take out in a first strike, and the retaliation is such that we don’t want to do it.’ That’s how a deterrent works,” the secretary said.

Another question was about whether the department, because of cost, has to prioritize conventional or nuclear warfare.

“Oh, sure, we’ll be prioritizing, but not one or the other,” he said.

The decisions involve how to maintain the deterrent and how to keep up conventional forces, Mattis added.

“If I was to sum up the challenge we face right now in the U.S. military, it’s how do you maintain a nuclear deterrent, safe and effective so those weapons are never used, and at the same time maintain a decisive conventional force because, as expensive as that is, it’s much less expensive than having to fight a conventional war because someone thought you were weak,” he said.

The priorities would be across all those elements, Mattis said.

In the end, he added, it’s about the deterrent.

“It is about the deterrent because … when you’re dealing with conflict, it is a fundamentally unpredictable phenomenon,” the secretary said. “So what you want in your combat systems, whether they be nuclear, conventional … you want redundancy, and you want something that has a built-in shock absorber to take technological surprise or tactical surprise in stride.”

Paying Respects in Mexico

In Mexico, Mattis will reaffirm the U.S.-Mexico commitment to the bilateral defense relationship and to the North America community and, he said, “Pay our respects, military respects, for their independence day.”

The military to military relationship is very good, the secretary said, as the Mexicans battle internal enemies — “primarily the narco guys,” he added.

“And it’s a neighbor,” he said. “The only all-honors parade that I’ve done since I’ve been [defense secretary] was for Canada, Mexico and the United States together on the parade deck.”

This is a continuing effort with Mexico, he said.

United Nations member countries at the Human Rights Council in Geneva should press Sri Lanka to promptly meet the targets of the council’s October 2015 resolution for transitional justice, Human Rights Watch said. Sri Lanka should put forward a time-bound and specific implementation plan on the four transitional justice mechanisms it agreed to establish as pledged in the resolution.

The UN high commissioner for human rights, Zeid al Ra’ad Hussein, in his opening remarks at the council on September 11, 2017, highlighted Sri Lanka’s lack of progress, and called on the government to realize that its obligations are not a mere “box-ticking exercise to placate the council but as an essential undertaking to address the rights of all its people.”

“Governments at the Human Rights Council should be clear with Sri Lanka that setting up various reconciliation offices and talking of progress is not the same as implementing the 2015 resolution,” said Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “Long-suffering Sri Lankans need to see the resolution fully carried out, and they need to see evidence that justice is being achieved.”

Sri Lanka has largely failed to implement the consensus UN resolution, Human Rights Watch said. The government dismissed the report submitted by the Consultation Task Force, a broad-based civil society effort established by the government to put the resolution into effect. And it took Sri Lanka’s president 18 months to formally create an Office of Missing Persons, as set out in the resolution and enacted by parliament. The gazette notification took place on September 12, just as the Human Rights Council session got underway and a few weeks before Sri Lanka is to present an oral update on steps it has taken to carry out the resolution.

Sri Lanka’s nearly three-decade-long civil war between the government and the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) ended with the LTTE’s decisive defeat in May 2009. Both sides committed many grave human rights abuses, including summary killings, abductions and enforced disappearances, torture, and sexual violence. There are well-documented allegations of laws-of-war violations, particularly during the final months of the war.

The government’s lack of progress in investigating and prosecuting these many crimes spurred the Human Rights Council to adopt the consensus resolution. The Sri Lankan government agreed to carry it out and to report back periodically on its progress.

Sri Lanka has invited several UN human rights experts to visit over the past two years and has given them free and unfettered access. However, the government has largely disregarded their recommendations. One of the key undertakings in the resolution was security sector reform, including repealing and replacing the draconian Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) with new legislation that meets international standards. Instead, the government has floated various drafts that in some cases are worse than the existing law, which remains in effect.

The UN special rapporteur on transitional justice, Pablo de Grieff, will make his first official trip to Sri Lanka from October 10 to 23.

“The special rapporteur has been engaged in transitional justice issues in Sri Lanka for a long time, and it is crucial for him to use his first official trip to call out Sri Lanka on its hesitant steps toward justice for victims,” Ganguly said. “Sri Lankan officials need to show that they can do more than just talk the language of human rights and instead put those words into action.”

A high-ranking commander of the Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham was mysteriously assassinated in the northwestern province of Idlib as tensions rise amongst the jihadi group, Al-Masdar News reports.

Abu Mohammed al-Sharie, a Saudi national who holds a senior position in HTS, was left dead with a bullet in his head in the city of Saraqib, located to the east of the provincial capital.

This comes two days after the notorious Saudi cleric Abdullah al-Muhaysini resigned as the group’s religious judge, citing transgressions against its Shariah Committee and his being unable to change “errors” he witnessed and bloodshed and infighting.

Following the resignation, several factions affiliated with the al-Qaeda-linked organization defected, marking a mass blow to what is widely considered the strongest and most well-organized rebel group in the war-torn Syria.

The Pentagon has rerouted its weapons supply-line to Syria after officials in Berlin became concerned at the surge in arms being transferred through US bases in Germany.

By Lawrence Mazouk, Ivan Angelovski and Frederik Obermaier*

The Pentagon’s US Special Operations Command Mission, SOCOM, ordered its contractors to stop trucking Soviet-style weapons from the Balkans through Germany after officials in Berlin became concerned about the deliveries.

The message was delivered by SOCOM to 11 US firms it had tasked with buying weapons from across Central and Eastern Europe for Syrian rebels fighting Islamic State, ISIS.

According to the leaked Pentagon email from December 23, 2016, recently obtained by Balkan Investigative Reporting Network, BIRN, and the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, OCCRP, German authorities had “become very sensitive” to requests from Pentagon contractors for transit licences to transport weapons across their territory to US military bases.

Contractors were told that the State Department would take over responsibility for requesting new transit licences as the permits were “taking longer than normal due to large number of requests and questions [from German authorities]”.

Berlin declined to comment on the nature of its “sensitivities”, but these may be linked to German laws dictating that transit licences for weapons need to be justified with a legal document called an end user certificate which clearly states who will be the final recipient.

However, the licences used by the Pentagon to export weapons for Syrian rebels, and which have been obtained by BIRN and OCCRP, use SOCOM as the final ‘end user’ and specify US military bases in countries such as Germany, Romania, and Turkey as the delivery point.

Jan Paul van Aken, an MP for the left-wing Die Linke party and a member of the German parliament’s arms control committee, said that “once more it is through Ramstein [US air base in Germany] that the USA organises its dirty wars all around the world”.

Germany: A Logistical Hub

Germany has long been a key logistical hub for the US army and is home to one of America’s most important air bases in Europe, Ramstein, as well as a nearby ammunition depot at Miesau, the largest of its kind outside the US.

But these bases’ role in the Syria supply-line has never been acknowledged by authorities in the US or Germany.

In February, Green MP Hans-Christian Ströbele wrote to the German government asking if it had any information about weapons deliveries via Ramstein to Syria. State Secretary Markus Ederer replied it did not, according to correspondence secured by reporters.

SOCOM said it currently does not “store or transit” equipment bound for Syria through German bases and had “specifically directed our contracted vendors” not to do so.

It repeatedly declined to confirm whether it had been moving weapons through Germany to Syria prior to 2017, explaining it had not used “contracted flights” from US bases to do so, a question reporters had not asked.

A contractor involved in the supply-line, who spoke on condition of anonymity, however said that US bases in Germany and Romania had formed a key part of the Pentagon’s vast logistical operation, which saw Eastern Bloc weaponry worth more than $700 million shifted to Syria between September 2015 and May 2017, according to an investigation by BIRN and OCCRP.

The leaked SOCOM email, Pentagon flight cargo paperwork, UN arms export reports and data on transit licences through Germany support this claim.

Following an official request from reporters, Germany’s Economy Ministry revealed an upsurge in weapons transiting to or from US military bases through German territory and onto another country in 2016.

The ministry approved 11 land transit licences that year, significantly more than in any year in the previous decade, when the numbers ranged from one to six.

Three further approvals were made in the first five months of 2017, although authorities declined to provide additional information, including whether these were heading to or leaving from US bases in Germany.

UN arms export reports for 2015 and 2016 also recorded three weapons transfers from Serbia to an end user of a “US military base in Germany”, with the final importing country entered as “Germany”. This type of entry is unprecedented, bar two others in 2016 noting Serbian exports to a “US military base in Romania”.

A vast trove of emails and documents related to Azerbaijan’s state-owned Silk Way air cargo carrier, leaked online in June, also provide further evidence of SOCOM’s use of German bases in 2016 – and the need to reroute after Berlin’s concerns emerged.

These revealed that in January 2017, just weeks after the email warning of Germany’s sensitivities about the weapons transports, 20,000 grenades were dispatched to a SOCOM depot in Bagram airbase in Afghanistan, instead of the original destination – Miesau base in Germany – because of “last minute changes to program circumstances”.

Bagram was being used as a temporary store for SOCOM activities in Syria and Iraq at the time.

The contractor said he believed private deliveries to German bases following the SOCOM diktat had not since resumed.

In March, the rerouting was confirmed in a Pentagon report which noted that an extra $23 million was needed for the Syria programme to cover additional transportation costs before the end of September 2017 because of “the inability to consolidate non-US source weapons and equipment in Europe”.

The Pentagon refused to confirm or deny that its sudden inability to gather Eastern Bloc weapons in Europe was connected to the German concerns, adding that such decisions are made due to “diplomatic” and “logistical” reasons.

The revised route for armaments to Syria remains unclear, but details of recent SOCOM flights on Silk Way, according to the leaked documents, show planes carrying weapons from Azerbaijan to Rijeka in Croatia in May and June, and flights from Kazakhstan to Chicago and Frankfurt, suggesting a variety of new paths to the conflict zone.

(Civil.Ge) — The group of several ultranationalist organizations and individual activists united under the “March of the Georgians” movement held a small-scale rally in downtown Tbilisi on September 12 to protest against the ruling party-proposed legislative initiative granting the Government the right to sell agricultural land to foreigners or foreign companies in “special circumstances.”

The protesters, who accused the ruling party of selling the agricultural land to “aliens,” picketed the campaign headquarters of Georgian Dream’s Tbilisi mayoral candidate Kakha Kaladze calling on the former energy minister to disclose his position on land sale exemptions, and for that purpose, demanding a meeting with him.

“I call on Mr. Kakha Kaladze, the secretary general of the Georgian Dream, Mr. Giorgi Kvirikashvili, chairman of the Georgian Dream, and Mr. [Archil] Talakvadze, leader of the parliamentary majority, to come out to the people and promise that Georgian land will not be sold [to foreigners]. This is what we demand,” said Sandro Bregadze, one of the leaders of the “March of the Georgians” movement.

The protester’s unsuccessful attempt to burst into Kaladze’s campaign headquarters ended with the administrative detention of Lado Sadgobelashvili, one of the organizers of the rally. Sadgobelashvili’s lawyer, who visited him in the detention facility, said he was subject to physical abuse by police officers.

Before gathering at Kakha Kaladze’s campaign headquarters, the protesters also rallied outside the Open Society Georgia Foundation (OSGF), demanding to shut down the Tbilisi branch of the billionaire financier George Soros-funded network for its activities, which “undermine the Georgian nation.” The protesters chanted “Georgia without the Soros Foundation” and held a poster describing GD’s senior MPs – Irakli Kobakhidze, Tamar Chugoshvili and Archil Talakvadze – as “Soros slaves.” Later, they also threw firecrackers to the OSGF Office.

Shortly before the rally, Georgian Prime Minister Giorgi Kvirikashvili issued a statement, stressing that the restriction on land sales to foreigners remained in force, and that it applied “only to the financial sector and for a limited period of time.” “It was precisely our government which recognized agricultural land as a strategic asset and restricted its sales to foreign citizens,” Kvirikashvili said.

The previous rally of the “March of the Georgians,” held on July 14, demanded the deportation of illegal immigrants, toughening the immigration law, imposing restrictions on granting residence permits to foreigners and banning foreign funding to civil society organizations.

A number of recent surveys across Europe show, despite Muslim integration, a rising suspicion of Muslims and a pushback against Islamic immigration. So how can governments and other organisations help push a positive agenda?

By Paul Hedges*

A recent survey in the United Kingdom by the group Hope not Hate shows in its headline figures a growing tolerance to immigration but a growing fear of Islam. Overall 42% of those polled said that recent attacks had increased their suspicion about Islam and Muslims. Meanwhile only 10% of those polled said that they felt “similar” to Muslims, suggesting a widespread perception that Muslims are seen as culturally different.

This accords with the findings of another recent survey across Europe by Bertelsmann Stiftung which suggests that despite integrating much better than often thought, Muslims still face problems being accepted by the wider society. This was seen in another pan-European survey earlier in the year by Chatham House which suggested that many opposed Islamic immigration rather than immigration per se.

Serving Extremist Ends

These findings will no doubt be welcomed by extremist and terror groups who, it has been argued, wish to see a divide in Europe between the Muslim and non-Muslim population. While perhaps not a strategic aim of all groups, it will certainly provide fertile ground for recruitment if Muslims perceive themselves as unwelcomed or rejected by Western nations.

A particular case in point, shown by a number of studies over the years, is that people with Islamic sounding names find it harder to get jobs; when the same CV is presented to employers with an English or Arabic sounding name, the candidate with the former is several times more likely to get called in for an interview. Structural anti-Islamic bias clearly operates, even in people who may not regard themselves as racist or Islamophobic.

If Muslims find their best efforts at acceptance being pushed back then frustration will be a likely, and natural, outcome. Muslims generally neither understand nor appreciate the militant Salafi-inspired doctrines that seek to justify violence and divide communities, but they can become an ideology for frustrated youths.

Fostering Integration and Understanding

The clear message is that Islam, or any religious affiliation, is no bar to integration; though some Muslims, as members of other immigrant groups, do not seek to integrate into society. Rather, the issue can lie within the framework of the receiving society. Importantly, this is not to accuse Western societies per se of being racist or Islamophobic. The distinction between a personal and structural form of discrimination is useful. Prejudice against the unknown and acceptance of the known is a common feature of human psychology.

But it points to the need for proactive efforts by governments, civil society actors, and religious (and inter-religious) organisations to raise awareness and understanding. For many Western societies Islam remains largely an unknown Other. Cultural and linguistic differences as well as the development of immigrant “ghettos” have meant that in many cases an awareness or knowledge of Muslims has not happened.

Indeed, a number of studies have shown that in Western countries people often vastly overestimate the numbers of Muslims present in society; this can lead to fears of an “invasion” or loss of cultural identity – the figures have certainly been abused and manipulated by those with anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim agendas.

To overcome such misperceptions, will and determination, not to mention expertise, is needed amongst organisations that can help develop positive attitudes to integration and understanding. However, this is easier said than done. Many politicians have jumped on populist bandwagons that contribute to Islamophobia for their own ends rather than trying to work for the public good. Further, much of the media is openly hostile to immigrants and Islam.

Amongst religious and other groups there are also many conflicting agendas demanding priority, whilst there may well be a need for education within such groups on the issue as well. While immigrant groups also need to push forward with integration and can play a wider role in promoting their place in host societies.

What’s the Message?

A critical issue would be exactly what message needs to be sent and how, which may well vary from country to country. This will involve education and awareness-raising done in ways that will not alienate the target audience nor patronise them.

In today’s social media age many members of the important demographic will need to be reached with catchy, short, and well produced multimedia productions. As such both the message and the dissemination of that message will be hard. In concise terms the question may be how to create a message that goes viral.

The basic message can be readily conveyed by a few key points. First, neither Islam nor reading the Qur’an are routes into violence and terrorism – we know this from the pathways of current and former terrorists, foreign fighters, etc. Second, Muslims are and must be integrating: they are learning host languages, going to university, playing sports such as football, and trying to get jobs (the degree of this varies from country to country).

Third, the host society is often suspicious of these people because of their background, so be careful you are not turning people away because of foreign sounding names – everybody needs to play their part. Fourth, stigmatising Muslims and disadvantaging them socially, culturally, and politically is what feeds the recruitment of terror groups, so again reaching out your hand is the most powerful tool against those who want to divide us.

A fact-based analysis makes it clear that Muslims are generally trying to integrate and that Islam is not itself a factor causing division or violence, notwithstanding some violent and divisive ideologies from some parts of the militant-Salafi inspired community. The structures of European societies do, though, need to be more open to accepting new communities and change. Meanwhile Muslim and other immigrants can be more proactive in integrating and playing a role in host societies. However, the challenge remains how to spread and promote a more positive understanding of Islam and the contribution Muslims can make to society.

*Paul Hedges PhD is Associate Professor in Interreligious Studies for the Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. He maintains a blog on Interreligious Studies and related issues at: www.logosdao.wordpress.com.

The gap between the powers that be in the North Caucasus republics and the populations of these regions is growing, taking the form among the older generation of apathy and among the younger one social aggressiveness and creating a situation in which the authorities are rapidly losing control, historian Kirill Shevchenko says.

As have many other, the specialist on region notes that the problems Russia has as a whole are manifested most disturbingly and explosively in the North Caucasus because of its “historical heritage” and “the ethno-cultural characteristics” of its peoples and their governments at all levels (caucasustimes.com/ru/severnyj-kavkaz-mezhdu-socialnoj-apatiej-i-agressiej/).

For example, Shevchenko says, growing income inequality throughout Russia is having the most negative impact on the peoples of the North Caucasus not only because elites see taking as much as they can as their right but because this trend violates long-standing values among the peoples there.

That is seldom discussed by the Russian media which prefers instead to report about the constant victories of Russia’s counter-terrorist effort, stories that represent an “indirect” confirmation that “the current social milieu in the North Caucasus republics of Russia constantly gives rise to and supports terrorist activity.”

As a result of changes since 1991, the entire region is, in the opinion of almost all experts, more or less rapidly moving out from the common legal field of the Russian Federation. Indeed, Shevchenko says, Russia is “losing its sovereignty” over that region altogether however upbeat Moscow media outlets remain.

Specialists on the region also note that “a corrupt administration cannot be strong by definition,” and consequently, the corrupt regimes in the North Caucasus seek to arm themselves “against the society that hates them by enlisting the support of Moscow” and by allying themselves with criminal oligarchic groups to enrich themselves.

In this situation, Shevchenko continues, the republic rulers will do anything “to convince the Kremlin that [they] are irreplaceable in the current circumstances, and thus they will artificially create ‘these circumstances.’” That is what they need to survive and force Moscow to support them.

The main slogan of these elites is one found in Moscow as well: “’don’t rock the boat.” But what is unfortunate is that the center does not appear to recognize that it is being played for a fool by such talk. However, if Moscow doesn’t understand or doesn’t want to admit that it does, the populations of these republics understand all too well.

They can see that the republic elites are selected not on the basis of professional qualities and talents but rather “by personal devotion, loyalty, and family connections.” And they also can see that such elites are totally incapable of solving any of the numerous social and economic problems in the region.

That represents a radical departure from the Soviet and pre-Soviet past, and “the situation is made worse by the fact that the ideological vacuum that arose as a result of the collapse of the USSR and the discrediting of communism has been filled, despite liberal expectations, not by democratic ‘all-human’ values but by the reanimation of aggressive ethnocentric stereotypes.”

Across the North Caucasus, liberal and market ideas have been discredited as well because they have been invoked by corrupt elites, Shevchenko says; and as a result, ever more people are turning to “destructive socio-cultural codes and behavioral norms adopted in the patriarchal-clan era.”

Those promoting these ideas are often armed with the most contemporary technologies like the Internet and that makes the spread of such notions even more rapid and intensive. And it is assisted unintentionally in most cases at least by elites who rewrite history in order to justify their rule.

But in all too many cases, these invented histories preclude the cooperation among peoples and between peoples and elites that were the hallmarks of North Caucasian society in the past and instead promote, Shevchenko suggests, hostility among the nations of the region and an increasingly yawning gap between incompetent elites and angry populations.

The monster of economic waste—over $7 trillion of dictated stock buybacks since 2003 by the self-enriching CEOs of large corporations—started with a little noticed change in 1982 by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) under President Ronald Reagan. That was when SEC Chairman John Shad, a former Wall Street CEO, redefined unlawful ‘stock manipulation’ to exclude stock buybacks.

Then after Clinton pushed through congress a $1 million cap on CEO pay that could be deductible, CEO compensation consultants wanted much of CEO pay to reflect the price of the company’s stock. The stock buyback mania was unleashed. Its core was not to benefit shareholders (other than perhaps hedge fund speculators) by improving the earnings per share ratio. Its real motivation was to increase CEO pay no matter how badly such burning out of shareholder dollars hurt the company, its workers and the overall pace of economic growth. In a massive conflict of interest between greedy top corporate executives and their own company, CEO-driven stock buybacks extract capital from corporations instead of contributing capital for corporate needs, as the capitalist theory would dictate.

Yes, due to the malicious, toady SEC “business judgement” rule, CEOs can take trillions of dollars away from productive pursuits without even having to ask the companies’ owners—the shareholders—for approval.

What could competent management have done with this treasure trove of shareholder money which came originally from consumer purchases? They could have invested more in research and development, in productive plant and equipment, in raising worker pay (and thereby consumer demand), in shoring up shaky pension fund reserves, or increasing dividends to shareholders.

The leading expert on this subject—economics professor William Lazonick of the University of Massachusetts—wrote a widely read article in 2013 in the Harvard Business Review titled “Profits Without Prosperity” documenting the intricate ways CEOs use buybacks to escalate their pay up to  300 to 500 times (averaging over $10,000 an hour plus lavish benefits) the average pay of their workers. This compared to only 30 times the average pay gap in 1978. This has led to increasing inequality and stagnant middle class wages.

To make matters worse, companies with excessive stock buybacks experience a declining market value. A study by Professor Robert Ayres and Executive Fellow Michael Olenick at INSEAD (September 2017) provided data about IBM, which since 2005 has spent $125 billion on buybacks while laying off large numbers of workers and investing only $69.9 billion in R&D. IBM is widely viewed as a declining company that has lost out to more nimble competitors in Silicon Valley.

The authors also cite General Electric, which in the same period spent $114.6 billion on its own stock only to see its stock price steadily decline in a bull market. In a review of 64 companies, including major retailers such as JC Penny and Macy’s, these firms spent more dollars in stock buybacks “than their businesses are currently worth in market value”!

On the other hand, Ayes and Olenick analyzed 269 companies that “repurchased stock valued at 2 percent or less of their current market value (including Facebook, Xcel Energy, Berkshire Hathaway and Amazon). They were strong market performers. The scholars concluded that “Buybacks are a way of disinvesting – we call it ‘committing corporate suicide’—in a way that rewards the “activists” (e.g. Hedge Funds) and executives, but hurts employees and pensioners.”

Presently, hordes of corporate lobbyists are descending on Washington to demand deregulation and tax cuts. Why, you ask them? In order to conserve corporate money for investing in economic growth, they assert. Really?! Why, then, are they turning around and wasting far more money on stock buybacks, which produce no tangible value? The answer is clear: uncontrolled executive greed!

By now you may be asking, why don’t the corporate bosses simply give more dividends to shareholders instead of buybacks, since a steady high dividend yield usually protects the price of the shares? Because these executives have far more of their compensation package in manipulated stock options and incentive payments than they own in stock.

Walmart in recent years has bought back over $50 billion of its shares – a move benefitting the Walton family’s wealth – while saying it could not afford to increase the meagre pay for over one million of their workers in the US. Last year the company bought back $8.3 billion of their stock which could have given their hard-pressed employees, many of whom are on welfare, a several thousand dollar raise.

The corporate giants are also demanding that Congress allow the repatriation of about $2.5 trillion stashed abroad without paying more than 5% tax. They say the money would be used to grow the economy and create jobs. Last time CEOs promised this result in 2004, Congress approved, and then was double-crossed. The companies spent the bulk on stock buybacks, their own pay raises and some dividend increases.

There are more shenanigans. With low interest rates that are deductible, companies actually borrow money to finance their stock buybacks. If the stock market tanks, these companies will have a self-created debt load to handle. A former Citigroup executive, Richard Parsons, has expressed worry about a “massively manipulated” stock market which “scares the crap” out of him.

Banks that pay you near zero interest on your savings announced on June 28, 2017 the biggest single buyback in history – a $92.8 billion extraction. Drug companies who say their sky-high drug prices are needed to fund R&D. But between 2006 and 2017, 18 drug company CEOs spent a combined staggering $516 billion on buybacks and dividends – more than their inflated claims of spending for R&D.

Mr. Olenick says “When managers can’t create value in the business other than buying their own stock, it seems like it’s time for a management change.”

Who’s going to do that? Shareholders stripped of inside power to control the company they own? No way. It will take Congressional hearings, a robust media focus, and the political clout of large pension and mutual funds to get the reforms under way.

When I asked Robert Monks, an author and longtime expert on corporate governance, about his reaction to CEOs heavy with stock buybacks, he replied that the management was either unimaginative, incompetent or avaricious – or all of these.

Essentially burning trillions of dollars for the hyper enrichment of a handful of radical corporate state supremacists wasn’t what classical capitalism was supposed to be about.

Hurricane Irma, with its destructive power, battered our island for 72 hours, beginning the morning of September 8 until this Sunday afternoon. With winds that surpassed 250 kilometers per hour on occasion, it crossed the north of the country from Baracoa – hit hard by another phenomenon of this type almost a year ago – to the outskirts of Cárdenas. However, given its immense size, practically no province was spared its effects.

Described by experts as the largest ever to form in the Atlantic, this meteorological phenomenon caused severe damage to the country, which, precisely because of its scope, has yet to be quantified. A preliminary view shows evidence of an impact on housing, the electrical system, and agriculture.

It also struck some of our principal tourist destinations, but damage will be repaired before the beginning of the high season. We have on hand for this the human resources and materials needed, given that this constitutes one of the principal sources of income in the national economy.

These have been difficult days for our people, who, in a few hours time, have seen what was constructed with great effort hit by a devastating hurricane. Images from the last few hours speak for themselves, as does the spirit of resistance and victory of our people that is regenerated with every adversity.

In these difficult circumstances, the unity of Cubans has prevailed, the solidarity among neighbors, discipline in response to instructions issued by the National Civil Defense General Staff and Defense Councils at all levels, the professionalism of specialists at the Institute of Meteorology, the immediacy of our communications media and its journalists, the support of mass organizations, as well as the cohesion of National Defense Council leadership bodies. Special mention for all of our women, including leaders of the Party and government, who with aplomb and maturity provided leadership and confronted the difficult situation.

The days that are coming will be ones of much work, during which the strength and indestructible confidence in the Revolution of Cubans will again be demonstrated. This is not a time to mourn, but to construct again that which the winds of Irma attempted to destroy.

With organization, discipline, and the coordination of all our structures, we will move forward as we have done on previous occasions. No one should be fooled; the task we have before us is huge, but with a people like ours, we will win the most important battle: recovery.

At this critical moment, the Cuban Workers’ Federation and the National Association of Small Farmers, along with all other mass organizations, must redouble efforts to eliminate as quickly as possible the trail left by this destructive event.

One principle remains immovable: the Revolution will leave no one unprotected and measures are already being adopted to ensure that no Cuban family is left to their fate.

As has been customary every time a meteorological phenomenon has struck us, there have been many expressions of solidarity received from all parts of the world. Heads of state and government, political organizations, and friends in solidarity organizations have expressed the desire to help us, who we thank in the name of more than eleven million Cuban men and women.

We face the recovery with the example of Comandante en Jefe de la Revolución Cubana, Fidel Castro Ruz, who, with his unwavering confidence in victory and iron will, taught us that nothing is impossible. In these difficult hours, his legacy makes us strong and unites us.

*Raul Castro Ruz is the president of Cuba.

By Ryan McMaken*

We’ve long been told that gentrification is the scourge of many communities, and we’ve become very familiar with the scenario: a stable middle-class community is destroyed when wealthy (usually white) people move in, drive up home prices, and force out the “diverse” population that had been there previously.

There are problems with this narrative of course. Very often, the working-class homeowners who leave the neighborhood experience a windfall from selling their property to the incoming “up and comers” who buy out the aging homeowners. There is an upside.

On the other hand, there are indeed downsides to gentrification. There are real social costs when a neighborhood disintegrates and the neighbors go their separate ways. As we’ve noted before, communities with a highly mobile population can often experience more crime, stress, and more health problems.

However, even if we keep all of this in mind, it’s important to remember that there is a fate far worse than gentrification. This occurs when people move out of a neighborhood or city — and no one wants to move back in.

We might call this de-gentrification and it can be devastating for those left behind in these communities.

In a recent interview with KCUR in Kansas City, four other guests and I looked at the issue of de-gentrification in some neighborhoods on the eastern side of Kansas City.

The overall phenomenon is one that’s become somewhat familiar over the past decade. Due to economic decline, lost jobs, and foreclosures — all interrelated phenomena — real estate in some areas of the country have declined in value so much as to be near zero. In many cases, the homes have become white elephants because the cost of maintaining the property has risen higher than what anyone is willing to pay. When that happens, owners often simply walk away.

Empty houses become a magnet for squatters and drug dealers. Wild animals take up residence in the homes. The homes become fire hazards and a threat to nearby structures.

In many cases, as explored in the KCUR piece, local investors and entrepreneurs have attempted to buy these homes and invest in them. These efforts, however, are complicated by legal problems arising from a lack of clarity as to who the current owners legally are.

Once ownership is resolved, even the most savvy investors may continue to run into problems common to de-gentrification situations. Maintaining residential property is costly, and it’s only worth it if the location and condition of the real estate can attract buyers or renters willing to pay enough to cover the costs of maintenance and restoration. As a result, many properties simply sit empty indefinitely. Eventually, the city government ends up bulldozing the property as a health hazard.

Real Estate Always Goes Up!

The phenomenon of de-gentrification helps to illustrate one persistent myth that has often accompanied discussions of real estate: the myth that real estate prices always go up, and that real estate has intrinsic value.

Economist Peter St. Onge notes:

“Buy land — they’re not making any more!” is an old investing chestnut, and a common sense one to boot. Economically, it’s also completely false.

Far from being an asset with some sort of intrinsic, built-in value, land can be rendered worthless or nearly worthless by any number of factors.

We’ve seen this at work in old rustbelt cities where population growth has dramatically slowed, or even reversed. We’ve heard of $100 houses in Detroit, and Rockford, Illinois is demolishing houses. Kansas City recently attempted to sell some abandoned homes for $999.

But, if the real estate in question fails to meet conditions that give real estate its value, then even these measures are unlikely to create demand for the homes in the absence of major demographic or economic changes.

And what are these conditions?

St. Onge explains:

Land’s value comes from its economic usefulness. From the value of things that can be done using that land…

Step back a moment and ask why land has value anyway. Why do people want land? Well, obviously, because you can put stuff there — including yourself — plus buildings, swimming pools, and factories.

Now, anybody who’s visited West Texas knows there is plenty of building space in the world. You could drive for hours and meet nobody. There’s lots of space for that factory of yours. But it’s not really space itself that makes land valuable. It’s location. As in, there’s only so much room in Manhattan. Or Central London.

Once again, though, it’s not the actual space that matters. It’s the access. Put a strip mall on Manhattan surrounded by crocodile-filled moats and snipers and it will have low value. The value is in access. So Manhattan is valuable because it’s easy to get to other parts of Manhattan. And it’s easy for other people to get to you. Customers, partners, and friends can all easily visit you if your apartment or office is in Manhattan, moatless and sniperless.

We see this issue of access at work in many of these old rustbelt cities. Once upon a time, those homes provided relatively easy access to employment centers, shopping, entertainment, and other amenities of value to residents. Once jobs began to move away, and once shops began to close, that real estate began to lose its value. It’s not enough that a house keep the rain off the residents. To build on St Onge’s analogy: if a house is surrounded by dangerous or undesirable conditions, no one will want to live in it.

Moreover, it’s important to keep in mind that the mere presence of employment, shopping, and schools is not sufficient to give a home value. Prospective owners will compare that house and that location to other possible locations. That is, homes in neighborhood Y must compete with homes in neighborhoods Z and X. If a neighboring city or another side of town is seen as more desirable, that land and real estate will be relatively undesirable and will cease to have value.

Ultimately, homeowners in these neighborhoods will be wishing a little gentrification would come their way. Instead, they find themselves in neighborhoods with numerous abandoned houses and all the health and safety hazards those bring. Homeowners will unable to sell their properties at prices that make it possible to relocate to other neighborhoods and maintain a similar standard of living. Having spent years paying for maintenance and upkeep of their properities, they one day find the market price has gone to zero because there are no buyers to be had.

It Could Be Worse: It Could be Rural Real Estate

In the long run, these urban houses are still in a better position than many homes and communities that continue to empty throughout rural America. As rural residents continue to abandon rural areas for metropolitan areas, former owners leave stores and homes behind, and the value begins to disappear.

Housing in rural areas has long been largely a function of demand for workers in agriculture and resource extraction. As fewer and fewer humans are necessary for this work, housing and shopping in rural areas will continue to disappear. Rural America is on its way to becoming a sparsely-populated land of octogenarians.

Not even nostalgia will be enough to save it. Those who inherit farmhouses built by their grandparents in, say, the old wheat belt of Western Kansas are unlikely to make the multi-hour drives necessary to keep up with maintenance or live in the properties. The remote locations of these properties render them inconvenient in the extreme, and once again we’re left with the issue of access. A farmhouse that’s three hours from teh nearest metropolitan area suffers from a severe access problem.

Urban neighborhoods, on the other hand — including those that are currently seen as highly undesirable — at least benefit from being relatively close to urban amenities that many desire. In the long run, even these neighborhoods will gentrify, as we’ve seen happen in Detroit.

So, the next time we’re told we need to be deeply concerned about gentrification, it may be helpful to remember that at least many people displaced by gentrification tend to leave their old neighborhoods with some extra money in their pockets. Victims of de-gentrification tend to end up leaving their neighborhoods with nothing at all.

About the author:
*Ryan McMaken (@ryanmcmaken) is the editor of Mises Wire and The Austrian. Send him your article submissions, but read article guidelines first. 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.

Recent hurricanes in Texas and Florida reveal a great deal about the United States and how little it does for its people. Of course hurricane winds destroy material things and injure and kill humans. But natural disasters also destroy the myths of American democracy, exceptionalism and greatness.

The people of Houston live in a city which has no zoning regulations, where petro chemical companies control politics and therefore have an unjust impact on their lives. Floridians live under a similar system, where right wing politics rule and no effort is spared to punish people because they are poor.

By every measure, America is a country where millions struggle on a daily basis because they have little or no income. Democrat Bill Clinton ended the right to public assistance twenty years ago and of course poverty has increased. Even American workers are poor, with half of them earning less than $31,000 per year. An unknown number don’t work at all, with official statistics omitting the plight of people who may not have worked for years if ever.

These truths are too inconvenient to be exposed in a country that loves to love itself. But the propaganda of a great country is harder to promote when Texans and Floridians suffer not just because of nature but because the system is not meant to help them. In America everyone is on their own in a dystopian survival of the fittest nightmare. The only money that arrives for disaster victims comes from dubious private charities like the Red Cross. In an ideal society the government would repair homes, replace lost property and take other actions to make people whole again.

Twelve years after hurricane Katrina little has changed. When disaster strikes the Red Cross fills its coffers as well meaning individuals contribute in hopes of assisting others in need. The organization has been exposed as a racket, providing a meal and a blanket but little else, even as it markets itself as the most reliable charity in times of crisis.

If America is the world’s only super power it is because it has the largest military in the world and trillions of dollars in its treasury. Its military isn’t mobilized to move people away from natural disaster because that is not why it is exists. The military industrial complex has two purposes; making money for corporate interests and intimidating the rest of the world into complying with American dictates. This is a rich country, but the presence of a strong currency and rich individuals do nothing to help people devastated by acts of nature.

The suffering in Texas and Florida shines a light on everyone’s condition in a dog eat dog society. No one can expect a helping hand unless they are already among the haves. Democrats and Republicans work together to reduce the tax burden on the wealthy but do nothing to raise the minimum wage. Corporations like Walmart always get tax relief to operate and also governmental relief for their impoverished employees. Cities and states race to the bottom to compete for the favors of the already wealthy and waste the public’s money in dubious ventures.

Yet after all the bowing and scraping to wealthy individuals and corporations the masses of people can expect nothing when they are in need. Evacuation plans don’t accommodate the needs of poor people. Those in already dire straits may not be able to access shelter, if any can be found. Floridians fleeing hurricane Irma often found no room at the inn when they heeded warnings from officials.

The impact of climate change is and should be a topic for discussion in the wake of a devastating tropical storm season. It is easy to point fingers at Donald Trump, who has already chosen to remove the United States from the most recent international climate agreement. But Trump has only been president for eight months. The damage to the ecosystem began decades ago and the pre-Trump Republicans and Democrats had no interest in acting to save all life on the planet.

Democrats like Clinton and Barack Obama talked a good game, but they acquiesced as much as Republicans did to the fossil fuel and other industries that are responsible for global warming. They allowed oil drilling offshore and on public lands. They promoted the use of coal. They did so because they follow the rules set by corporate interests.

Because capital is in control tropical storms and droughts are occurring with greater severity and imperiling life around the world. It isn’t surprising that so little is done to protect humanity in these circumstances. The same system that creates catastrophes is unlikely to stem the consequences created by them.

The post-ISIS scenario for Deir Ezzor is yet to be identified, and that is perhaps true for the entire state of Syria.

By Kabir Taneja

The Syrian armed forces recently made significant breakthroughs in the central Syrian region of Deir Ezzor, a sparsely populated region consisting mostly of barren dessert, and majority of the country’s oil deposits. The Syrian army’s breakthrough in unlatching the Islamic State’s (IS) three-year long hold on the region brings the government of President Bashar al-Assad to possibly the last territorial stronghold of the proto-state within Syria.

The Syrian Army along with military support from Russia, and as per some reports, Shiite militias backed by Iran are making headway in dislodging ISIS from its last geographical bastion of influence in an effort to decontrol all of Islamic State’s claimed land boundaries. If success is achieved, ISIS will be forced to retreat into its original role that of a guerilla militia, without holding much control of land or population. Over the past 24 hours, Russian air strikes have reportedly killed 34 civilians around the Euphrates River as Assad’s soldiers move closer from the South and East, while the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a multi-ethnic alliance largely staffed by the Kurds (some data says Arab fighters outnumber the Kurds) and backed by the US moves from the north to corner ISIS in the dessert regions.

However, the defeat of ISIS in Deir Ezzor may not see the end of the violence. As the Syrian Army and the SDF move forward, in an event of ISIS’s fall, they will be contested over the governance of land that they have released from ISIS along the way. As Figure 1 shows, the Syrian Army (in red) and the SDF (in yellow) are within miles from each other, focused on one goal for now, that of defeating the Islamic State. This is also the region where significant oil and gas deposits are, also home to some of the older oil smuggling routes that the IS took over as part of the larger control of Syria’s oil and gas fields. While IS was unable to take full advantage of having access to these fields and refineries, due to lack of expertise despite going as far as advertising for posts of engineers at salaries north of USD 100,000 per annum, they still manage to earn nearly USD 1.3 million a day from smuggling oil via running makeshift infrastructure.

This region around the Euphrates river, in peacetime Syria, was also home to a joint India–China cooperation project for exploration and development of oil and gas. In early 2013, a consortium led by India’s ONGC Videsh (OVL) via its fully owned subsidiary ONGC Nile Ganga B.V. and China’s China National Petroleum Corporation International (CNPCI) via its fully owned subsidiary Fulin Investments Sarl built the Al Furat Petroleum Company (AFPC) committing to a 50% stake each. A separate company, Himalaya Energy Syria B.V., was setup in The Netherlands to oversee the project and organise financial transactions for the same. Syrian state companies were the operators of the fields in a deal concluded in 2005. Along with AFPC, India also invested in 60% of Block 24, a developmental block in a deal concluded in 2004 for exploration and production of oil and gas. Activities at Block 24 were suspended in April 2012 while work with AFPC was suspended in December 2012 due to the security situation. The India–Chinese consortium moved its offices to Dubai to monitor future prospects.

Block 24 (see Figure 2) was situated in the midst of the ISIS takeover of Deir Ezzor, and reports from the ground had suggested ISIS was using oil wells there to produce crude petrol and diesel by using primitive refining techniques. While the investments were not very large and did not cause significant financial dents to either New Delhi or Beijing, the two largest import markets for oil in Asia now have significant stakes in peace and security in West Asia despite both having a diverse portfolio when it comes to importing oil and gas. On back of the possibilities of such situations arising, some commentators had worked towards an OPEC like organisation for Asian oil importers, to collectively represent their interests and work towards the commonality of Asian energy security. Of course, with the major Asian oil importers being India, China, Japan and South Korea any attempt to build a broad consensus of the same was a futile exercise.

Both India and China are the two largest importers of oil in Asia, and despite the massive renewable energy push, hydrocarbons are expected to capture significant section of both country’s annual energy pie. Stability in West Asia would remain a critical juncture, and with a receding interest from Western powers in the region, specifically the United States, both India and China may play larger diplomatic roles despite the divergence of interest between the two states itself, and the possibility of more cases such as the recent border standoff at Doklam between the two.

The post-ISIS scenario for Deir Ezzor is yet to be identified, and that is perhaps true for the entire state of Syria. While the Assad government now hold significant chunks of the country back under their governance, a large part in the north currently remains under Kurdish control, who themselves are organising a referendum towards independence on 25 September.

The Kurdistan Regional Government has announced that the outcome would be binding, despite strong criticism from almost all major international actors (meanwhile Moscow has said a referendum reflects the demands of the Kurdish people) and Baghdad calling the move reckless, and threatening with airspace closure. Meanwhile, in southern Syria, US backed and Iran backed militias still battle over control of the Al-Tanf region while the Hay’at Tahrir al Sham, a reminiscent body of Al Qaeda led Jabhat al-Nusra, has been attempting to setup its own micro proto-state around the Idlib region, bordering Al-Bab, where Turkish backed militias control territory in efforts to dislodge the Kurds.

By Alla Rosca*

(FPRI) — “The greatest propagandist of Moldova pretends to be the great propaganda fighter,” remarked Maia Sandu, the pro-European leader of the Action and Solidarity Party, about Vladimir Plahotniuc’s recent legislative initiative. In June 2017, Plahotniuc, the chairman of Moldova’s Democratic Party, introduced legislation ostensibly intended to bolster the security of Moldova’s information space by restricting Russian propaganda. Sandu’s sharp statements, however, allude to the fact that Plahotniuc, a media mogul who owns roughly 70 percent of Moldova’s media industry, frequently rebroadcasts Russian programs on his television channels. The paradox of Plahotniuc’s initiative is telling. An investigation into his actions reveals a great deal about the country’s current politics, the high degree of monopolization within the media market, and the serious obstacles to journalistic freedom that afflict Moldova’s media.

Plahotniuc’s proposed new legislation calls for the elimination of news programs retransmitted from Russian TV stations, through which propaganda allegedly is broadcasted. The new initiative would ban news programs from Russian TV stations, but not entertainment programs, which are popular in Moldova. The proposal would allow television stations to broadcast news programs only from the European Union, United States, Canada, and other member states of the European Convention on Transfrontier Television—but not Russia.

This restriction on the country’s media environment is far from the first challenge faced by Moldovan democracy. In 2014, the European Union considered Moldova a “success story,” and the country was the first member of the EU’s Eastern Partnership initiative to receive visa-free travel to the EU. However, the seemingly pro-European coalition of center-right parties that governed the country (that is, the coalition between Vladimir Plahotniuc’s Democratic Party, Vladimir Filat’s Liberal-Democratic Party, and Mihai Ghimpu’s Liberal Party) turned out to be highly corrupt. The coalition’s message did not align with its actions, discrediting members. The fallout from the corruption also reduced citizens’ trust in European integration. According to public opinion polls, in 2009, approximately 67 percent of Moldovans supported EU integration, but in 2016, only 38 percent did.

After a power struggle between the country’s two most powerful politicians, Plahotniuc and Filat, resulted in Filat’s arrest, political power in Moldova has become concentrated in the hands of one person: Vladimir Plahotniuc. Plahotniuc swiftly moved to reduce all other pro-European parties to insignificance, and in doing so, effectively transformed Moldova into a “captured state.”

Ultimately, the combination of Plahotniuc’s grasp on political power and his dominance of the media raises an important question regarding journalistic freedom in Moldova. This issue is particularly pertinent as some of the country’s most influential channels undergo redistribution of ownership in the lead up to 2018 parliamentary elections. The current state of media in Moldova forces us to ask important questions: How does oligarchic control of the press affect media freedoms? Is the media free to represent public interest?

Who Controls the Media Market?

In 2015, in an effort to increase media transparency, the Moldovan parliament passed an amendment to the country’s media laws that required media companies to publically disclose the names of their owners. As a result of this legislation, it was revealed that the media market was highly concentrated in the hands of politicians and people linked with political parties. In particular, the public learned that Vladimir Plahotniuc owned four of the five national TV stations (Publica TV, Prime TV, Canal 2TV, and Canal 3TV), as well as three radio stations (Publica FM, MuzFM, and Maestro FM). Rumors of Plahotniuc’s media dominance were confirmed: he owned a shocking 70 percent of Moldova’s audiovisual market. The 2015 transparency legislation led to revelations about other political forces as well. Chiril Lucinschi, former parliamentarian of the Liberal Democratic Party and son of a former president, owned two TV stations: TV7 and TNT Bravo Moldova. It was also revealed that the Party of Socialists controlled three TV stations: Accent TV, NTV Moldova, and TNT Exclusive; Russian companies owned RTR Moldova, Ren TV Moldova, and Accent TV; Moldovan businessman Victor Topa owned Jurnal TV; and American billionaire Ronald Lauder owned Pro TV. These revelations showed that the media in Moldova was concentrated in the hands of the few.

In March 2017, parliament again introduced new regulations to the Audiovisual Code, which stipulated a limit of two licenses per person for TV channels and radio stations. Additionally, new regulations prohibit a physical or legal person from holding more than two broadcast licenses in the same region unless a different person also has a license in the area, allowing for competition between stations. This stipulation should encourage competition. The legislation, however, had little effect on the degree of media pluralism in Moldova. Plahotniuc’s company, General Media Group, responded to the new law by transferring the rights for two of its channels (Canal 2TV and Canal 3TV) to one of Plahotniuc’s top advisors and to a newly created company, Telestar Media.

Is Mass Media Free to Represent Public Interest?

The U.S. Department of State’s “Moldova 2016 Human Rights Report” analyzed whether or not mass media in the country is free to represent the public interest. The report concluded that the high degree of monopolization—and, in particular, the strident “oligarchization” and politicization of Moldovan media—threatens media freedom and impedes Moldova’s democratic development. Freedom House’s 2017 “Nations in Transit” report similarly concluded that the lack of media pluralism constitutes a serious obstacle to the country’s overall level of freedom.

The clear bias inherent in a media owned by political elites is evident in coverage of political campaigns. Reports by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) stated that many major television channels demonstrated a strong bias in favor of certain candidates during Moldovan 2016 presidential election. Media outlets frequently presented more coverage of their preferred candidates and reported negative or false news about political opponents. Prime and Publika TV—channels owned by Plahotniuc—openly supported the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate, Marian Lupu, before he withdrew from the race. Conversely, Igor Dodon, the Socialist Party’s candidate, was the clear favorite on NTV and Accent TV, the two channels owned by that party. Jurnal TV, owned by businessman Victor Topa, followed suit and gave strong preference to Maia Sandu, the Action and Solidarity Party’s candidate.

This degree of media ownership, concentration, and politicization not only hinders freedom of the press in Moldova, but it also gravely affects the quality of information disseminated to the public. According to a recent Barometer of the Public Opinion poll, popular trust in the media has significantly declined. In 2014, about 60 percent of the population stated that they had high trust in the media. By April 2016, that number dropped by almost 20 points to 42 percent.

Does Content Matter? “Russian Propaganda” in Moldova

The economic interests of Moldova’s media magnates have led many television stations to rebroadcast Russian channels in Moldova. In doing so, media moguls may uphold their commercial interests and, in some cases, advance their political ambitions. The tendency to simply rebroadcast foreign content is influenced, first and foremost, by the unwillingness of media tycoons to invest in the development of original content. Other factors, however, also play in their favor: Moldovan citizens are accustomed to Russian-language media from Soviet times, and the high production quality of Russian television programs, which are entertaining and professionally produced, attract viewers.

The rebroadcasted news programs originating from Russian media outlets constitute a large segment of Moldova’s information landscape. According to a public opinion poll conducted by the Institute of Public Policy in 2015, about 40 percent of the Moldovan population reported receiving their news from Russian sources, and 54 percent said that they trusted Russian media. These numbers have slightly increased over the past few years: in April 2017, 43 percent of citizens got the news from Russian TV and radio stations, and about 56 percent reported as trusting the Russian media. These numbers show that the Russian press has a large impact in shaping public opinion in Moldova. Vladimir Putin’s status as the most popular foreign politician among Moldovans (62.1 percent) demonstrates this point.

This rebroadcasting of Russian news is not without consequences, however, because its popularity sways public opinion and electoral outcomes. Accordingly, Moldovan viewers become inclined toward the interests of a foreign power. Some recent electoral campaigns provide several relevant examples of the influence of Russian media in shaping political preferences among Moldovan voters. During Moldova’s 2014 parliamentary elections, the Party of Socialists and its leader Igor Dodon explored the technique of image transfer—that is, publishing photos of Socialist politicians together with Putin to gain political legitimacy and to assure voters of their pro-Russian orientation. The Party of Socialists won the largest number of seats in the Moldovan Parliament (25) and continues to promote pro-Russian policies today. In the March 2015 elections for Bashkan governor in the autonomous region of Gagauzia, the winner, pro-Russian candidate Irina Vlah, received significant positive coverage from Russian TV stations throughout her campaign.

This trend of appealing to other state and foreign political leaders continued during the 2016 presidential elections. Igor Dodon promoted a pro-Russian foreign policy and the cancellation of the Moldova-European Union Association Agreement. The high trust in Russian media played into the hands of the pro-Russian candidate, and Dodon won the election. During Moldova’s 2016 presidential campaign, the media failed to promote political pluralism and provide balanced campaign coverage. Major TV stations owned by political elites and business magnates egregiously promoted their own interests, leading journalists to self-censor.

Proposed Measures Could Further Harm Moldovan Press Freedoms

Under pressure from NGOs, Moldovan authorities began taking steps to fight propaganda and to protect the country’s information space. The two aforementioned media laws were prepared in the spring of 2015, but parliament postponed legislative hearings in order to obtain OSCE expert analysis. At the same time, civil society activists warned that fighting Russian propaganda could counterintuitively result in Moldova’s oligarchs maintaining control over the media market, creating further obstacles for journalists to critically address government activities.

On June 13, 2017, Vladimir Plahotniuc launched his initiative against Russian propaganda. In a press briefing, he announced that propaganda delivered by rebroadcasted Russian television was inimical to Moldova’s interests, and countermeasures were urgently needed. His Democratic Party presented proposals to counteract Russian propaganda later that day.

This controversial initiative—it’s no secret that Plahotniuc broadcasts Russia’s main television channel, Perviy Kanal, on Prime TV—would have been commendable if not for a couple of coincidences. First, it was recently revealed by Moldovan media experts, such as Petru Macovei, the executive director of Association of Independent Press, that Russian television channels declined to extend their broadcasting contracts with Plahotniuc and instead will likely offer a contract to the Socialist-backed stations. It seems that in response, the media mogul decided to win political capital and maintain profitability by proposing a topical legislative initiative that would impose restrictions on his competitors.

Second, Plahotniuc’s proposed countermeasures notably only include informational news programs from Russian TV stations, and not entertainment programs, which are made in production houses in Russia. The most likely explanation for this exception is that Plahotniuc’s General Media Group has already signed agreements with those producers. Otherwise, it’s hard to believe that the businessman would willingly cut access to this profitable industry.

This initiative is also a two-handed political play for Plahotniuc and Dodon to gain political capital. The latest news that Dodon promised to block the bill banning Russian propaganda on Moldovan TV stations is confirmation of this. Both came with proposals that would appeal to their political bases. Dodon would promote his pro-Russian orientation, while Plahotniuc would enhance his image as a pro-European leader. In reality, neither politicians’ proposal would improve Moldova’s media landscape.

So long as mass media in Moldova is highly concentrated in the hands of oligarchs, the prospects for freedom of expression and an independent press are not bright. Plahotniuc’s legislative initiative opens the door for media owners to exercise greater control over the content broadcasted on their outlets. The vague language of the legislative proposal and the content restriction could be used to limit journalistic freedom and encourage self-censorship. This new initiative advances media oligarchs’ own interests rather than actually addressing Russian propaganda. As the 2018 parliamentary election campaign approaches, the media struggle between oligarchs will only intensify.

About the author:
*Alla Rosca is an Associate Expert with the Foreign Policy Association of Moldova. Her research focuses on freedom of media as well as Moldova’s foreign relations

Source:
This article was published by FPRI.

An increase in world oil prices led to a 6.3 percent jump in gas prices in August. This increase pushed the overall Consumer Price Index (CPI) up by 0.4 percent for the month, bringing the year-over-year increase to 1.9 percent. The core index, which excludes food and energy, rose 0.2 percent, putting the year-over-year increase in the core at 1.7 percent.

The core rate continues to show no evidence of accelerating. The annualized rate from taking the average price level over the last three months (June, July, and August) compared with the prior three months (March, April, and May) is just 1.4 percent.

Furthermore even this inflation is driven largely by shelter costs. If shelter costs are excluded from the core index, the annualized rate of inflation over the last three months compared to the prior three months is 0.2 percent. That compares to an increase of 0.5 percent in this measure over the last year.

While there had been some indication that rental inflation was slowing in recent months, the August data show higher inflation in both rent proper and owners’ equivalent rent. The former increased by 0.4 percent in August, bringing the increase over the last year to 3.9 percent. Owners’ equivalent rent rose by 0.3 percent in August for a year-over-year increase of 3.3 percent. The gap in the two measures is attributable to the fact that rent proper includes utilities in many cases, whereas owners’ equivalent only measures the cost of the unit itself.

There were some anomalies in the August data, but they were largely offsetting. The price of car insurance (which has a 2.6 percent weight in the index) rose by 1.0 percent. While the 1.0 percent rise is unusual, higher prices for car insurance have been an ongoing problem. Inflation in this component over the last year has been 8.1 percent, up from 6.5 percent the prior year, and 5.4 percent from August 2014 to August 2015.

Car insurance affects the overall inflation rate far more than college tuition, which only has a 1.8 percent weight in the index. These costs appear to be well under control, falling by 0.3 percent, bringing the year-over-year increase to 1.9 percent.

The other major anomaly was a 1.0 percent drop in airfares. These are down by 3.2 percent over the last year.

Inflation seems well-contained in other sectors. The price of medical care commodities fell by 0.1 percent after rising by 1.7 percent over the prior two months. Over the last year they are up by 2.4 percent. Medical care services rose by 0.2 percent in August, making the increase over the last year 1.6 percent.

New car prices were flat in August, while used car prices fell by 0.2 percent. Over the last year these prices are down 0.7 percent and 3.8 percent, respectively. The price of wireless telephone services, which the Fed had recently cited as anomalous factor temporarily depressing the rate of inflation, fell by 0.1 percent in August. It is down by 13.2 percent over the last year.

There is also no evidence of any acceleration of inflation at earlier stages of production. The overall final demand index in the Producer Price Index rose 0.2 percent in August, as did the core index. Over the last year, these indices have risen by 2.4 percent and 1.9 percent, respectively. The intermediate demand index is up 2.6 percent over the last year, but that is less than the 2.8 and 2.9 percent year-over-year increases reported for May and June, respectively.

In short, there is very little information in the August price reports that provides any indication of accelerating inflation. Education and health care costs, the components that have generally been major drivers of higher prices, both seem well under control. Auto insurance seems to have replaced these two as a major problem sector.

The biggest source of higher prices remains rising rents. This may be contained if construction continues at its current pace, reducing demand pressures in major markets. However rental prices do not follow the same pattern as most other components in the CPI and inflation in this sector is not easily addressed by higher interest rates.

By Nick Cunningham

North Korea may not have proved petroleum reserves, but it’s estimated that the secluded belligerent nation sits on reserves of more than 200 minerals—including rare earth minerals—worth an estimated up to US$10 trillion.

Of course, there are no official reports on how much North Korea’s mineral wealth really is, but according to rough estimates from earlier this decade, Pyongyang’s deposits of coal, iron ore, zinc, copper, graphite, gold, silver, magnesite, molybdenite, and many others, are worth between US$6 trillion and US$10 trillion, as per South Korean projections reported by Quartz.

Before the fall of the USSR, North Korea had prioritized mineral mining and trade with fellow communist partners. But the mining industry has been in decline since the early 1990s, due to decades of neglect and lack of funds for infrastructure development to support mining activities.

Now North Korea’s mining sector trade is under a full ban by the UN, as Pyongyang has stepped up both nuclear missile tests and belligerent rhetoric in recent months. The UN started banning trade in metals last year, but there have been reports that Kim Jong-Un’s regime has grown increasingly inventive in circumventing sanctions.

The UN introduced last month a full ban on coal, iron, and iron ore, after having banned trade in copper, nickel, silver, and zinc in November last year. China also implemented the coal import ban, cutting off an important economic lifeline of the regime. Coal trade has generated over US$1 billion in revenue per year for North Korea, the U.S. Department of Treasury said at the end of August, when it slapped sanctions on Russian and Chinese entities for supporting the regime.

On Monday, following North Korea’s latest nuclear test on September 2, the UN Security Council banned the supply, sale, or transfer of all condensates and natural gas liquids, and banned Pyongyang’s exports of textiles such as fabrics and apparel products. The latest sanctions, however, are not imposing a full oil embargo as the U.S. called for in recent weeks. The sanctions instead are capping refined petroleum products and crude oil supply, after the U.S. dropped its demand for full oil ban, to avoid China vetoing the UN resolution.

All the sanctions leading to Monday’s strongest prohibitions so far have been designed to stifle North Korea’s trade in minerals and cut off money for the regime.

North Korea has staked mostly on coal mining, the cheapest and easiest to mine, compared to precious metals or rare earth metals mining, for which Pyongyang has neither the funds nor the infrastructure or know-how to develop.

North Korea has sizeable deposits of some minerals. Its magnesite reserves are the second largest in the world behind China, and its tungsten deposits are likely the sixth-largest in the world, Lloyd R. Vasey, founder and senior adviser for policy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), wrote in April this year. North Korea sits on sizeable deposits of more than 200 different minerals, and “all have the potential for the development of large-scale mines”, Vasey said.

North Korea doesn’t have either the funds or the infrastructure to develop those resources. It’s also officially banned to export them.

Yet, “The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is flouting sanctions through trade in prohibited goods, with evasion techniques that are increasing in scale, scope and sophistication,” a UN report of a panel of experts from February this year concluded.

“Diplomats, missions and trade representatives of the Democratic Peoples’ Republic of Korea systematically play key roles in prohibited sales, procurement, finance and logistics. In particular, designated entities are trading in banned minerals, showing the interconnection between trade of different types of prohibited materials,” the panel’s report reads.

According to UN experts—as of February this year—North Korea had adapted to the stricter sanctions “through various tactics, including identity fraud.”

“Their ability to conceal financial activity by using foreign nationals and entities allows them to continue to transact through top global financial centres,” according to the report.

According to a more recent investigation by ABC Four Corners, North Korea has business interests in Asia, the Middle East, and even Europe, contrary to the common perception that it is a very isolated country. Office 39—one of the departments of its Workers’ Party—is “the ultimate slush fund”, reportedly generating up to US$1.6 billion annually for Kim’s lavish lifestyle, while 70 percent of people are food insecure.

“North Korea is very sophisticated in concealing the fact that it is, indeed, North Korea doing business overseas. It’s good at hiding in plain sight,” Andrea Berger, Associate Fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), told the program.

Source:  http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-10-Trillion-Resource-North-Korea-Cant-Tap.html

Imports, exports and the overall consumption of chemicals harming the ozone layer decreased in the European Union in 2016, according to latest annual report on ozone-depleting substances, published by the European Environment Agency (EEA).

The report shows a continuous trend in the phasing out of such chemicals over the last decade.

The EEA report ‘Ozone-depleting substances 2016’ presents aggregated data reported by companies on the import, export, production, destruction, and use of ozone-depleting substances (ODS) in the European Union (EU).

Phasing out the ozone-depleting substances is key to protecting the ozone layer in the Earth’s atmosphere. The ozone layer serves an important function in protecting life on Earth as it absorbs sun’s ultraviolet radiation. This radiation is harmful for the environment and humans, causing for example skin cancer.

Key findings in 2016 data, as compared to 2015 are as follows:

• EU imports of ozone-depleting substances decreased by 15 %.
• EU exports of ozone-depleting substances decreased by 17 %.
• EU production of ozone-depleting substances decreased by 1 %.
• EU destruction of ozone-depleting substances decreased by 26 %.
• EU overall consumption (= production + import – export – destruction) of ozone-depleting substances decreased by 13 %.

In 1989, the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer entered into force. Its objective is to protect the stratospheric ozone layer by phasing out the production of ozone-depleting substances. The protocol covers over 200 individual substances with a high ozone-depleting potential, including chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), halons, carbon tetrachloride (CTC), 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (TCA), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), hydrobromofluorocarbons (HBFCs), bromochloromethane (BCM) and methyl bromide (MB), all of which are referred to as ‘controlled substances’.

The Montreal Protocol was amended to regulate hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) in October 2016, in Kigali, Rwanda. Both developed and developing countries have taken on mandatory commitments to reduce production and consumption of HFCs in the next three decades.