Aung San Suu Kyi is the state councillor of Myanmar and is the de facto head of government of Myanmar, equivalent to a prime minister. Her critics say that she is all powerful in Myanmar today and should be held fully responsible for all the commissions and omissions of Myanmar government and therefore, should be squarely blamed for the present Rohingya crisis in Myanmar.

Her bitter critics, who now appear to be pledged critics, have gone to the extent of questioning her credibility and her commitment to the peace and harmony in the world. Quite a few of the critics have even said that she should be stripped of the Nobel Laureate award for peace that was conferred on her a few years back.

Aung San Suu Kyi has been hailed as an apostle of peace and non violence until recently and now she is being painted as a person presiding over the actions to liquidate Rohingya community in Myanmar by driving them out of the country forcibly, what the critics call as ethnic cleansing. The UN Human Rights Commissioner have also issued stern statement on similar lines.

One aspect that the critics have failed to note is that how can one who has been praised as champion of peace and human rights can become an oppressor overnight. Obviously, no attempts have been made to view the problems faced by Aung San Suu Kyi in an dispassionate manner and to initiate efforts to provide constructive support for Myanmar, its leadership represented by Aung San Suu Kyi and the Rohingya refugees.

Rohingya crisis in Myanmar has been waiting to happen and Aung San Suu Kyi is in no way responsible for the present crisis. Rohingya crisis is not due to her but despite of her best and silent efforts. Certainly, Suu Kyi is looking for tangible solution and deserve international support.

In January 2009, hundreds of people belonging to the Muslim Rohingya minority community were expelled off its coast by Thailand government and many of them reached Myanmar. In August 2012, violence between Buddhists and Rohingya Muslims in the Rakhine state in Myanmar resulted in many deaths. In November 2012, more than 90 people were killed in the renewed community violence.

Obviously, there have been bitterness and conflict of interests between local Buddhists and Rohingya Muslims for the last several years , which is known to everyone. The immediate provocation for the Rohingya crisis is that Rohingya insurgents attacked police stations in Rakhine state in August,2017, when several people were killed. The military has to respond to restore peace and order after the attack by the insurgents , which is viewed by the Myanmar government as terrorist attack.

The terrorist attacks are taking place around the world these days and every country has no alternative other than fighting against the terrorists and eliminating them using force without showing any mercy. This is what USA and NATO countries are doing in Afghanistan now, when terrorist camps are being targeted and bombed.

Russia is now attacking the ISIS terrorists in Syria by launching missile attacks. Several other countries including Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran have attacked the terrorists militarily. The war in Iraq , where western countries play an active role now, is also being carried out in the name of eliminating the terrorist forces. Sri Lanka militarily attacked the terrorists when it faced internal strife and India is now attacking the terrorists in Jammu & Kashmir and shooting them down.

Why blame Myanmar alone for using the military attack to quell the insurgent attack by Rohingya Muslims?

It is a fact that in everyone of such fight between the terrorists and the government forces, innocent people lose their lives or suffer injuries are displaced. This is what has happened for Rohingya refugees, just as it has happened to thousands of other refugees, who recently entered Europe in the wake of Syrian conflict.

What is conspicuous in such issues is that the United Nations Organisation has failed to intervene in the matter effectively due to it’s inherent and in built weakness and the conflict of the interests among the members of the Security Council.

Prime Minister of Bangladesh Sheik Hasina would be addressing the United Nations General Assembly shortly, when she is likely to ask for international pressure on Myanmar to solve the Rohingya crisis. India too says that it would push Myanmar to solve the refugee crisis.

What Aung San Suu Kyi needs today is not push and pressure, but understanding and support.

As a person committed to the life long mission for peace, Aung San Suu Kyi would certainly respond to international efforts to bring peace in Myanmar and she is certainly pragmatic to realize that such efforts would be in the short term and long term interests of Myanmar. So far, all that Aung San Suu Kyi has received from other countries is severe and arm chair criticism. .

United Nations should play its due role and immediately form a committee of credible mediators and send the team to Myanmar to discuss with Aung Sang Suu Kyi to find an appropriate solution.

Myanmar is an economically poor country, though it is endowed with vast natural resources including natural gas. It has all the potentials to rediscover itself as a strong and progressive country. However, at the present juncture, it does not command the resources to rehabilitate the Rohingya refugees as well as the Buddhists who too have suffered in the Rakhine state.

It would be appropriate for the Prime Minister of Bangladesh to voice her suggestions in her forthcoming speech in United Nations General Assembly to send a peace committee to Myanmar that should be backed by international support. Her voice would be heard with respect and concern, as Bangladesh is neighboring country of Myanmar as that has also been severely suffering due to Rohingya crisis.

By Dr. Sulaiman Wasty*

Since June 5, 2017, Pakistan has faced what amounts to a Hobson’s choice. Saudi Arabia has been asking its fellow Sunni Muslim ally: “Are you with Qatar or with us?” While Islamabad has expressed solidarity with Saudi Arabia and its people, and has always upheld the Saudi monarch’s guardianship and jurisdiction over Islam’s two most holy sites (Mecca and Medina), it has also reiterated that Pakistan has no plans to join the quartet (Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE) in severing ties with Doha. On the day the Qatar crisis erupted, Nafees Zakaria, a spokesperson for Pakistan’s foreign ministry, declared: “At the moment there is nothing on [the] Qatar issue, [we] will issue a statement if some development takes place.”

Nonetheless, to placate Saudi Arabia, Pakistan has offered to leverage its influence over Qatar to defuse the situation. For this purpose, then-Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif promised to visit Kuwait, Qatar, and Turkey. An official familiar with the development explained that Pakistan would merely complement Kuwait’s efforts to deflate the crisis, rather than playing the role of a direct mediator between Qatar and its fellow Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members and Egypt.

Constraints

Ever since the early 1970s, Pakistan has been a direct beneficiary of the economic largesse of oil-rich Saudi Arabia and other Arabian Peninsula states. This has been a result of concessionary balance-of- payments support to the economy; the subsidized provision of oil; contributions to Sunni-led charitable outfits/madrassahs; the importation of a permanent contingent of military technical/training advisors; and the employment (and commensurate remittances) by semi-skilled and unskilled workers.

Since the 2015 formation of the Islamic Military Alliance to Fight Terrorism (IMAFT), Pakistan has been constrained to play a role in the Saudi-led coalition of 41 countries. The January 2017 appointment of IMAFT’s first commander-in-chief, retired General Raheel Sharif (Pakistan’s former Chief of Army Staff), creates another conundrum for the Pakistani establishment—especially now that the military alliance has been conducting joint military exercises with partners and, reportedly, having a combatant role in Yemen.

Dilemmas

Many in Pakistan’s significant Shi’ite population (around 15 percent of the country) occupy high civil and military positions. Caught up in the tensions between Sunni-majority Saudi Arabia and Shi’ite-majority neighbor Iran, they are likely to become far more vocal should Riyadh ever attempt to impose restrictions on Qatari/Iranian devotees’ internationally recognized “right to worship” at Islam’s two holiest places.

Pakistan is ironically considered a nation already embroiled in disputes with neighboring Afghanistan and India, both of which accuse Pakistan itself of offering support to hardline Salafist militant groups, including the Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba. More importantly, Pakistan’s progressive intellectuals have always considered their nation-state as a South Asian Muslim country – even before its formal creation – thanks to its historical ties with Iran and Turkey. For this same reason, Pakistan has been unwilling to take sides with Saudi Arabia in Yemen due to the Riyadh-led military coalition having launched its campaign against Iranian-backed Houthi rebels.

One of Pakistan’s closest allies, Turkey, faces a similar complicated dilemma because of its close ties with Doha and Riyadh. On June 7, 2017, Turkey’s parliament endorsed the deployment of Turkish troops in Qatar—not only as military support but also as a humanitarian gesture to supply essential goods and services. Ankara has remained steadfast in its defense of Doha throughout the three-month Qatar crisis.

Pakistan, too, has been striving to broaden its portfolio of alliances and economic opportunities. The foremost is the establishment of the China-Pakistan economic corridor (CPEC), and more recently, Qatar’s launch (as the Gulf blockade continues) of a new direct route between the country’s Hamad Port and Pakistan’s Port of Karachi.

A Concluding Note

Fortunately, for the moment, Pakistan may not have to explicitly state its preference between Qatar and the “quartet” (Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates). This is because, for the foreseeable future, Saudi Arabia and Iran will remain at loggerheads over what Riyadh sees as Tehran’s efforts to tighten its grip on the sub-region – from Iraq to Lebanon and from Syria to Yemen. Furthermore, the ill-fated diplomatic and economic boycott is not sustainable. As Iranian President Hassan Rouhani declared, “The era of cutting diplomatic ties and closing borders is over.” Accordingly, diminishing returns from the three-and-a-half-month old diplomatic and economic boycott of Qatar—combined with growing attrition from the military venture in Yemen—may lead Saudi Arabia and the UAE (possibly the driver of the initiative) to look for some rapprochement with the Islamic Republic to mitigate the adverse effects of lingering regional conflicts.

Moreover, a flurry of diplomatic activity in the international arena (involving also the United States) indicates that the original ultimatum to Qatar by the Saudi/UAE-led bloc might be whittled down to a list of broad principles such as “commitments to combat terrorism, extremism, to end acts of provocation, and incitement.”

Finally, with the judicial ouster on July 28, 2017, of Pakistan’s prime minister Nawaz Sharif, the country is embroiled in domestic political maneuvering by existing political parties and perhaps contending yet again with the perennial issue of civil-military relations. This turmoil could postpone the pursuit of outward looking foreign policy considerations.

*Dr. Sulaiman Wasty is an advisor at Gulf State Analytics and the President of Sharakpur, a Washington, DC-based financial integrity consultancy.

Gulf State Analytics published this article on September 15, 2017

By Liz Fuller

(RFE/RL) — Just one year after his confirmation as Republic of North Ossetia-Alania head, former prime minister and brewery magnate Vyacheslav Bitarov is facing multiple challenges, ranging from allegations that the parliamentary elections held on September 10 were rigged to the presence of militants reportedly affiliated with the extremist group Islamic State (IS).

Those circumstances might strengthen the position of Bitarov’s most serious political rival, Vladikavkaz municipal council head Makharbek Khadartsev. The election results could also signal an end to the tacit alliance between Bitarov and Arsen Fadzayev, who heads the local chapter of the Patriots of Russia party.

The parliamentary elections were problematic from the outset. The outgoing parliament had passed legislation late last year under which the 70 lawmakers are now elected not under the previous mixed (majoritarian/proportional) system but exclusively from party lists. Vitaly Cheldiyev of the Patriots of Russia parliamentary faction, who initiated that law, told RFE/RL’s North Caucasus Service that it would promote the development of a genuine multiparty system, but it was not generally perceived as such. On the contrary, it was widely deplored as the most anticivic law of the year.

Of the 13 parties that initially applied for registration, only eight succeeded. Communists of Russia was barred from the vote on the basis of a formal complaint by its rival, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (KPRF), that 40 of the 69 candidates on its party list were not residents of North Ossetia. Communists of Russia retaliated by calling for the KPRF to be similarly stripped of its registration for unspecified violations. A court in Stavropol Krai acceded to that request, but Russia’s Supreme Court overturned that ruling after KPRF Chairman Gennady Zyuganov lodged a formal protest with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The Party of Veterans, Yabloko, the Russian Socialist Party, and the Russian All-People’s Union were all denied registration on the grounds that a large proportion of the signatures submitted in their support were deemed suspect.

One deputy head of the Central Election Commission resigned in early August, and a second was dismissed just days before the vote.

Critics of the voting, in which turnout was officially given as 56.6 percent, say it was marred by fraud, including instances of ballot-stuffing and failure to seal ballot boxes; but the Central Election Commission refused to accept as evidence of fraud three videos posted on YouTube of precinct officials cramming stacks of ballot papers into ballot boxes, the news portal Caucasian Knot reported on September 12.

Yet despite that apparent intervention in favor of the ruling United Russia party, the official returns showed a 5 percent decline in support for the party, from 64.3 percent in 2012 to 59.23 percent — the lowest percentage registered in any of the six legislative elections held simultaneously across Russia that day. By contrast, United Russia garnered 70.77 percent in Krasnodar Krai and 68.99 percent in Penza Oblast. But thanks to the switch to the fully proportional system, United Russia nonetheless ended up with 46 parliament mandates, one more than in 2012.

Patriots of Russia placed second with 15.71 percent of the vote, down from 20 percent in 2012, which translated into 12 mandates, three fewer than before. A Just Russia placed third with 10.1 percent of the vote and seven mandates, up from 7.1 percent and five mandates in 2012; the KPRF received 6.61 percent, marginally less than in 2012, and retained its five mandates.

Claims Of Fraud

Cheldiyev rejected the official returns, telling the local Alania broadcasting company that Patriots of Russia actually won the election, the news agency Regnum reported. Margarita Kulova, who was second on the Patriots of Russia party list, has relinquished her mandate to protest what she described as “large-scale ballot-stuffing.”

Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR) Chairman Vladimir Zhirinovsky, whose party reportedly received only 2.5 percent of the vote, has demanded a recount. Oleg Eydelshteyn, who heads the LDPR chapter in North Ossetia, told the news agency Regnum that his party received 10 percent of the vote.

Fadzayev, a former wrestling champion who enjoys considerable popular support, has not made any formal comment on the election results. In 2012 and for the duration of then-republic head Taymuraz Mamsurov’s second term, Patriots of Russia was the republic’s most influential opposition party. But Fadzayev threw his backing behind Bitarov when the latter was installed as republic head last year.

Neither has Khadartsev publicly commented on the election outcome. A former business rival of Bitarov — he owns the republic’s second-largest brewery — Khadartsev came out openly against Bitarov following the appointment early this year of a new republican election commission from which all the candidates proposed by the Vladikavkaz municipality were excluded. (The city is home to approximately half of North Ossetia’s total population of 704,000.) Khadartsev also took Bitarov to task for naming as republican health minister a Russian from outside North Ossetia who immediately dismissed the chief medical officer at the republic’s largest hospital. At least a dozen medics resigned in protest and were immediately offered jobs by Chechen Republic head Ramzan Kadyrov.

The website On.Kavkaz reported in early March, citing unnamed “sources close to the government,” that Khadartsev, hitherto aligned with United Russia, was considering running for parliament on the ticket of Party of Action (Partia Dela) which is virtually unknown in North Ossetia. That information proved wrong, however; the Party of Action did not even apply to register for the ballot.

Bitarov’s Increasingly Shaky Grip

Khadartsev did, however, initiate a new attack on Bitarov in the run-up to the September elections. In late August, the Vladikavkaz municipal council addressed a letter to North Ossetia’s law enforcement agencies deploring the criminal charges brought against former Mayor Sergei Dzantiyev. A search warrant was issued for Dzantiyev late last year, and he has been charged in absentia with squandering some 75 million rubles ($1.299 million) from the city budget; the municipal council says those expenditures had been officially approved.

Even assuming that Ella Pamfilova, chair of the federal Central Election Commission, chooses not to probe the reported irregularities as ruthlessly as she did analogous alleged violations last year during voting in Daghestan for the Russian State Duma, the outcome of the North Ossetian vote is likely to compound popular antagonism to Bitarov, which has reportedly grown steadily as a result of his failure to kick-start the republic’s stagnating economy and reduce its massive state debt. That failure is seen by some as at least partly the result of Bitarov’s political experience and a chronic shortage of personnel qualified to serve as ministers or deputy ministers, according to a local journalist quoted by On.Kavkaz.

One further factor, however, suggests the Kremlin may not dismiss out of hand the mounting dissatisfaction with Bitarov’s leadership. In what appears to be a classic example of what French scholar Olivier Roy recently termed “the Islamization of radicalism,” three young men from North Ossetia who had converted to Islam a few years ago were shot dead last week in a counterterror operation in the North Ossetian village of Chmi, south of Vladikavkaz. The three had recently uploaded to the Internet a video clip in which they formally swear allegiance to IS head Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

A man from Daghestan subsequently identified as a member of the same militant group died in a shoot-out with police in Vladikavkaz later the same day. The four were reported to have been planning either to stage terrorist attacks or to have extorted money from local businessmen.

In December, an aide to Bitarov said eight men from North Ossetia were among the Russian citizens fighting in Syria on the side of the opposition to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad; seven months later North Ossetian Interior Minister Mikhail Skokov told RFE/RL’s North Caucasus Service the number of people from North Ossetia wanted for their alleged involvement with IS was 35. Two suspected IS recruiters have been apprehended trying to enter North Ossetia so far this year.

That IS should appear to be making inroads in North Ossetia is all the more surprising given that the majority of the population are Orthodox Christians; just 25-27 percent are Muslims, including Fadzayev. The Muslim community has been lobbying for the past seven years to regain the use of a 19th-century mosque in Vladikavkaz that was converted into a planetarium after the 1917 October Revolution but has been standing empty since the collapse of the U.S.S.R. Meeting with believers in late June to mark the end of Ramadan, Bitarov categorically rejected that request.

Two American tourists are receiving hospital treatment for burns after being attacked by an unknown female at the Saint Charles train station in Marseilles, who hurled acid at the group of four young women.

The attack with hydrochloric acid occurred on Sunday shortly after 11am, the La Provence newspaper reported, while the group of four was waiting for their transit to Paris. Two of the women are receiving treatment for burns, including a possible eye injury, while the others are being treated for shock, a French official told AP.

One suspect, aged between 41 and 51 years old, has been taken into custody. Police say there does not seem to be a terrorist or religious motive, and the woman appears to be mentally unbalanced.

French prosecutors are not investigating the acid attack on four American women in Marseilles as an act of terror, AP later reported.

By Tridivesh Singh Maini and Sandeep Sachdeva*

As India expands its strategic and economic ties with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and with Israel, New Delhi is also seeking to strengthen its ties with Tehran. The Iranian Nuclear Deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JPCOA), signed by Iran and six global powers in 2015, created new opportunities for New Delhi in Iran, especially since Iran is India’s potential gateway to Afghanistan and Central Asia.

During his 2016 visit to Iran, Indian President Narendra Modi signed not only an agreement committing USD 500 million in financial assistance for phase one of the development of the Chabahar Project, but he also signed a three-nation agreement among India, Iran, and Afghanistan to establish a land, transit and trade corridor. India will build a 310-mile rail line from Iran’s Chabahar Port on the Indian Ocean to the city of Zahedan in southeastern Iran, close to the border of Afghanistan. India’s cost of this portion of the transit corridor will be USD 1.6 billion. Modi declared that the corridor “will open new routes for India, Iran, and Afghanistan to connect among themselves.”

India’s main goal has been to secure access to Afghanistan and Central Asia. Pakistan has continuously opposed India’s entry into the Afghanistan-Pakistan Transit Trade Agreement (APTTA), even though Afghanistan has been in favor of India joining it. Currently, Afghan goods can enter India, but trucks stop at Wagah (on the Pakistani side of the border). India, however, has been deprived of land access to Afghanistan and Central Asia.

There have been some impediments to the Chabahar project actually getting underway by 2018. The companies which are to develop customized equipment jetties and container terminals were not willing to take part in the bidding process. Their banks were not ready to facilitate financial transactions involving Iran due to the uncertain policies of U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration toward the Islamic Republic. Furthermore, there was a delay in loan disbursement of USD 150 million, and India and Iran blamed one another for the setback. Transport Minister Nitin Gadkari, who attended Iranian President Rouhani’s swearing in on August 5, 2017, declared: “India and Iran have been historically sharing special ties … We are keen on developing Chabahar Port and are hopeful of starting operations in 12 to 18 months.”

US-Iran ties

India will be closely observing Trump’s warnings to Iran regarding the nuclear deal. Iran has categorically stated that it will quit the JCPOA if more sanctions are imposed. Rouhani recently warned, “Iran could quit the nuclear deal within hours if the U.S. imposes more sanctions.” Even though Iran has adhered to the stipulations of the deal, Trump has threatened to quit the accord and impose sanctions, while America’s top diplomat, Rex Tillerson, has made it clear, on numerous occasions, that Washington will not scrap the deal. The U.S. Secretary of State favors engaging the Iranians in order to promote stability in the greater Middle East – especially in Iraq and Syria, where Islamic State is losing ground – by holding the regime in Tehran accountable.

Given India’s increasingly close ties with the U.S., and the importance of Iran in the context of connectivity with Afghanistan and Central Asia, the unpredictability of Trump’s foreign policy may well pose a major challenge to India, as officials in New Delhi seek to strike a balance between good relations with Washington and closer ties with Tehran.

Iran-Pakistan ties

New Delhi would also take note of the fact that, following Trump’s August 21 televised address to the U.S. nation, during which he spelled out his administration’s Afghan policy and also came down heavily on Pakistan for providing safe havens to militants on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, Iran came to the defense of Pakistan. A foreign ministry spokesman, Bahram Ghasemi, noted: “What presently the U.S. is highlighting to condemn other countries is the result of years of wrong and inappropriate policies of Americans in the countries of the region, especially Afghanistan.”

Iran already has strong economic ties with China, and moving closer to Pakistan would not serve its purposes. New Delhi has been trying to work jointly with both Afghanistan and Iran, much to the chagrin of the Pakistan army.

Significantly, in May 2017, officials in Tehran took a tough stance against certain Sunni militant groups operating from within Pakistan after militants killed ten Iranian border guards the month before, warning that Iran would hit their bases. Major General Mohammad Baqeri, head of the Iranian armed forces, declared, “If the terrorist attacks continue, we will hit their safe havens and cells, wherever they are.”

Middle East

New Delhi will also be keeping an eye on Iran’s moves vis-à-vis Saudi Arabia and Turkey. On the sidelines of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) meeting in Istanbul in August 2017, the foreign ministers of Iran and Saudi Arabia met and exchanged greetings. Last month, Iranian chief-of-staff of the armed forces, Major-General Mohammad Baqeri, visited Turkey to explore possible synergies in counter-terrorism and the Syrian conflict. This meeting clearly indicates significant improvement in Tehran-Ankara relations. Although there is less reason for optimism regarding overtures between Iran and Saudi Arabia, the exchange at the OIC was notable and will perhaps pave the way for dialogue and restoration of diplomatic relations between Tehran and Riyadh.

New Delhi has strong ties with both Iran and Saudi Arabia, yet maintaining this geopolitical balance in the Persian Gulf will continue to prove challenging for India. India has also managed to benefit from the two countries’ rivalry by playing Tehran and Riyadh off each other. Given India’s growing importance to Iran and to the GCC countries, New Delhi could perhaps pressure all Persian Gulf states into urging Pakistan to take action against certain terrorist organizations. Saudi Arabia has been apprehensive about India aligning too closely with Iran, and this has resulted in Riyadh not only adopting a more nuanced stance on terrorism emanating from Pakistan and in extraditing terrorists, but also strengthening security cooperation with India.

To be sure, India is bogged down with numerous domestic challenges and other foreign policy dilemmas, chiefly China, and Iran is not necessarily a central focus for New Delhi’s foreign policy decision makers. Yet Iran’s next moves vis-à-vis the Trump administration, the Arabian sheikdoms of the Persian Gulf, as well as Pakistan, will heavily impact India’s position within the geopolitical landscape across greater Asia.

*Tridivesh Singh Maini (@tridiveshsingh) is a New Delhi-based Policy Analyst associated with The Jindal School of International Affairs, OP Jindal Global University, Sonipat, India. Sandeep Sachdeva is an independent policy analyst.

Gulf State Analytics published this article on September 15, 2017

Someone needs to tell President Donald Trump that his own U.S. Treasury Department chief, Steve Mnuchin, mass purveyor of reckless and short-sighted economic trade sanctions, is undermining his ability to truly make America great again.

While the rest of the world trades freely, now in multiple currencies, the constant bullying, threats and intimidation by the neo-cons begging for more violent and destructive “foreign interventions,” resulting in countless millions dead all over the world, sovereign nations ruined, and new state led enemies vowing to destroy America for ending their existence, the United States is becoming more and more isolated, hated and reviled, while its people and small businesses get choked to death because they can no longer trade with the new, countless, and ever growing list of “enemies.”

This is all the while the major international corporations and banks, who have absolutely no loyalty to the U.S.A., continue to trade freely, avoiding these proverbial “sanctions” by merely byassing international laws and restrictions, changing corporate forms and home state identities to continue on, business as usual.

Much like the crazed misguided neo-cons who have physically destroyed or infiltrated foreign governments, arming/backing open terrorist groups to kill off other countries, the “U.S. Treasury Neo-Cons” are using the “power of the international purse” to further this agenda of ruining other nations economically, while also at the same time making middle Americans hated and their small businesses being driven into bankruptcy and destruction, not even being able to safely travel out of their own borders anymore.

Again, these “flyover” Americans within the U.S. Government watch with wry smiles as their fellow countrymen are being destroyed and plundered with the ad hoc, flippant “rules” that they create, while continuing on making even more money than before, by having one foot within the international corporate and banking structures, owing no allegiance whatsoever to America.

Now, with the latest idiotic and foolhardy develoment of Steve Mnuchin cutting out the People’s Republic of China out of the American sphere of trade influence, coming quickly on the heels of cutting out Russia and Iran, these latter 2 nations heavily involved in the burgeoning, extremely wealthy, and cash/resource rich trade zone of Eurasia, the U.S.A. might as well declare bankrutcy now, and dissolve its founding documents and constitution.

The only nations in the world that benefit now, are the ones that jump ship and abandon the U.S. petrodollar because they quite simply, have to survive, feed their people, and maintain their national infrastructure.

The unilateral actions of the U.S. Treasury Department have now forced the economic unification of the greatest competing economic powers in the world, namely, Russia, China, Iran and other oil/gas/resource rich nations in order to survive, grow, and prosper.

Now even small nations like Venezuela are finding the balls to dump the U.S. dollar, because they know that they will be quickly scooped up by these BRICS nations in a heartbeat for trade, loans, project finance, and even defense cooperation.

The lunatics are clearly in charge of the nut house in the U.S. Government, and it would be hilarious if it did not inevitably wind up in the end of America.

Cooperation and diplomacy is the key to international success and making America great again, not folding up into a fetal position, and sucking our proverbial “thumb” in the corner, wailing and crying in a temper tantrum while the international “adults in the room” continue to play and trade and work together for a better world.

As Adam Garrie of the Duran newspaper writes in his seminal article “China helps Venezuela and Iran against unilateral US sanctions: China walks through the doors the US has left wide open,” the writing is unfortunately already on the wall.

The U.S.A. needs to pull up its international economic/trade proverbial “airplane” before it crashes into the equally metaphoric “mountain” of existential ruin.

By Shelley Kasli

Long before India detonated a nuclear device in May 1974, the U.S. Intelligence Community was monitoring and analyzing Indian civilian and military nuclear energy activities as we reported earlier. Unclassified Top Secret documents show that as early as 1958 the CIA was exploring the possibility that India might choose to develop nuclear weapons. The reports focus on a wide range of nuclear related matters – nuclear policy (including policy concerning weapons development), reactor construction and operations, foreign assistance, the tests themselves, and the domestic and international impact of the tests.

Documents from 1974-1975 and 1998 provide assessments of the reason why the U.S. Intelligence Community failed to provide warning of the 1974 and 1998 tests – assessments which are strikingly similar. They also include recommendations to address the deficiencies in performance that the assessments identified.

New documents from the Snowden Archive – The SIDtoday Files recently released by The Intercept give a glimpse into one such NSA interception program. SIDtoday is the internal newsletter for the NSA’s most important division, the Signals Intelligence Directorate. After editorial review, The Intercept is releasing nine years’ worth of newsletters in batches, starting with 2003. The agency’s spies explain a surprising amount about what they were doing, how they were doing it, and why.

A series of nuclear weapons tests conducted by India in the spring of 1998 took the intelligence community by surprise, prompting an internal investigation into why these tests had not been foreseen; a subsequent report was harshly critical of the U.S. intelligence community. A similar lapse in data gathering would not happen again in 2005.

In October 2004, one signals intelligence program, “RAINFALL,” “successfully geolocated signals of a suspected Indian nuclear weapons storage facility.” In response, several other parts of the NSA collaborated to confirm that the signals were related to Indian nuclear weapons, and to begin a new collection effort that revealed “spectacular” amounts of intelligence on India’s nuclear weapons capabilities.

An Australian NSA site, RAINFALL, isolated a signal it suspected was associated with an Indian nuclear facility, according to SIDtoday. Collaboration between RAINFALL and two NSA stations in Thailand (INDRA and LEMONWOOD) confirmed the source of the signals and allowed for the interception of information about several new Indian missile initiatives. Although these missile systems did not come to public attention for several more years (the Sagarika submarine-launched ballistic missile was first tested in 2008), the NSA’s access to these signals gave them foreknowledge of their Third Party SIGINT partner’s actions.

Below is the Top Secret SIDtoday report New Collection Access Yields ‘Spectacular’ Intel.

S3 branch and a field facility achieve breakthrough on Indian net (TS//SI)

One recent SIGINT success against India’s Nuclear Weapons Development Program exemplifies the Agency’s new environment of cross-program collaboration in satisfying intelligence needs. This is a great example of SIGINT programs working together to achieve a common goal. In October 2004, RAINFALL successfully geolocated signals of a suspected Indian nuclear weapons storage facility. This prompted a Foreign Satellite (FORNSAT) collection facility, LEMONWOOD, and the Unidentified Signal and Protocol Analysis Branch (S31124) at NSA to collaborate in isolating these signals and, through signals development, confirm their content as related to Indian nuclear weapons. This breakthrough highlighted the need to deploy additional demodulating equipment to LEMONWOOD in order to expand a modest collection effort undertaken since the signal was discovered in October.

Immediately after fielding this equipment, collection of this new network began to provide what is being called “spectacular” activity. Exploitation of that collection revealed India’s first-ever SAGARIKA Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missile (SLBM) launch; DHANUSH sea-launched Short Range Ballistic Missile (SRBM); and pilotless target aircraft.

Collection from this new access has also provided significant intelligence on India’s possession of two different types of airdropped bombs, one believed to be a very large Fuel Air Explosive (FAE) bomb of an unidentified type. The other, not yet confirmed by the analytic community, may be a new generation of airdropped nuclear weapons.

LEMONWOOD has sustained access to satellite communication links : (information blacked out). The FORNSAT Division is working with the site and the Trans-Asia Product Line (S2A4) to expand collection against this high-priority network.

While the collection that resulted from interagency collaboration has been categorized as spectacular, what is most impressive is the growing trend of collaboration seen across the entire Agency. What were once technological challenges are now collaboration opportunities that offer the promise of a seamless, interoperable and responsive National Security Agency.

It should also be remembered that the National Security Agency (NSA) of the United States installed a super spy software named APPARITION in New Delhi, as we reported earlier. The APPARITION program pinpoints the locations of people accessing the Internet across sensitive locations. Subsequent actionable intelligence information may lead to sending lethal Reaper drones to eliminate the target. The Top Secret reports speak of an SCS surveillance unit being set up in the embassy campus in New Delhi that operated under the codename DAISY. However, the Indian Government has not responded or is yet to make a statement regarding this Embassy Espionage.

As can be seen from the classified intelligence documents itself that the US Intelligence community was highly concerned about its failure to detect India’s Nuclear tests in advance. The Community after identifying and assessing the deficiencies in performance that led to this failure made recommendations to determine what steps should be taken to reduce the chances of a similar failure in the future.

What were those steps taken by the US Intelligence community to track India’s Nuclear program? The above case is just one such example. Are the ongoing killings of India’s scientists around the country since decades a continuation of such policies? Was the crash of Air India Flight 101 near Mont Blanc in which Homi Bhabha was also travelling a direct result of such steps? Is the Indian Intelligence community aware about those steps? If so, have they prepared a strategy and taken appropriate steps to counter such spying activities and covert operations targeting India’s Nuclear program? If not, a good place to start would be to open a fresh investigation into the assassination of the father of our Nuclear program – Homi Bhabha.

The deployment of Leopard combat tanks and Pizarro light armored vehicles by the Spanish Army in Latvia that took place in June marks an important milestone for the BMS-Lince combat management system developed by Indra and Thales: its baptism of fire on a real international military mission.

The Leopard combat tanks and Pizarro light armored vehicles transferred to Latvia carry this technology. To show the advantages of the new system, the Infantería Acorazada Guadarrama XII Brigade (BRIAC XII) based in Colmenar Viejo (Madrid) carried out a dynamic demonstration of the BMS system.

BMS-Lince is the most advanced command and control system currently in operations. The Spanish Army’s six Leopard combat tanks and 14 Pizarro light armored vehicles deployed in Latvia are equipped with the BMS-Lince Command and Control system. The aim of the system is to help commanders to plan and conduct missions on the ground, by enabling vehicles to share information in real time. This in turn provides the individual vehicle operators with a comprehensive vision of their surroundings and the ability to coordinate and react to any situation.

The BMS-Lince system also enhances the interoperability of armored vehicles with systems used by other NATO forces. This is a key factor in multinational operations like the present mission.

The usability of the system was taken into account in the design phase in order to ensure personnel can operate it whilst vehicle is in motion. The touch control display terminals allow operators to quickly and efficiently navigate and interpret data to make selections directly on the interface, thus greatly enhancing their ability to make operational decisions in combat situations.

The armored vehicles deployed in Latvia are equipped with version one of the BMS-Lince system. The system is currently installed in the 235 Leopard combat tanks available to the Spanish Army, 14 Pizarro light armored vehicles and a hundred other vehicles of various types. Furthermore Indra and Thales have recently signed a new contract with the Spanish Army to adapt the BMS-Lince combat management system and implement it in all the Army’s vehicles. This version will be known as BMS-ET.

Obtaining and deploying the BMS-LINCE system, as well as the future development for its adaptation to all other means of the Army, has been carried out under the direction of the ET’s Logistic Support Command in close coordination with the Units that use it, as has happened in the case of BRIAC XII.

The two companies are already working on this new version which includes improvements such as integration of a new video service that will enhance intelligence gathering capabilities, increase the capacity to interoperate with other NATO forces and enable integration of new tactical applications.

When this project is fully installed all Spanish Army vehicles will have the most advanced information sharing technology thus enhancing the Army’s capability to coordinate with allies on all the international missions in which Spain takes part.

Why do some people get dementia in old age and others do not, even if they reach a highly advanced age? International experts are currently delving into the issue of forgetting at the XXIII World Congress for Neurology in Kyoto. Prof Claudia Kawas from the University of California, Irvine, has researched the cognitive condition of oldest-old in “The 90+ Study”.

The long-term study involved over 1,700 participants, making it the largest of its kind. “It is important to study the oldest-old. We can learn a lot from this fastest growing age group,” Prof Kawas said.

According to life expectancy projections published by Danish and German experts, most babies born since 2000 in France, Germany, Italy, the UK, the USA, Canada, Japan, and other countries with long life expectancies will celebrate their 100th birthdays. “In view of the demographic developments, delay of cognitive decline is crucial,” Prof Kawas said. “We have calculated that if interventions could delay the onset of Alzheimer’s disease in those afflicted by two years, there would be – in the US alone – nearly 2 million fewer cases than projected by 2050.”

It turns out that 40 percent of the 90+ Study participants had dementia diseases, with women being more heavily affected than men.

“Interestingly enough, autopsies revealed that about half of the oldest-old without dementia have a high-degree of Alzheimer’s neuropathology in their brains although they were mentally fit while alive,” Prof Kawas said. Conversely, half of the dementia patients did develop symptoms of cognitive loss without this kind of pathologies in the brain.

Healthy lifestyle helps to remain mentally fit

The reasons for this cognitive resilience – which in this study is defined as having Alzheimer pathologies while not showing dementia symptoms – may be attributable in part to lifestyle. The group of resilient study participants, for example, got more exercise, and watched less TV.

Education manifested itself particularly important as a protective factor in individuals who were shown in PET scans to have plaque in the brain typical of Alzheimer’s: “People with a low level of education had a four times higher statistical risk of contracting dementia than those with a higher level of education. Among people without plaque, the educational difference was irrelevant,” Prof Kawas said.

Another interesting finding relates to multiple pathologies. “Multiple brain pathologies are at the root of dementias at all ages,” Prof Kawas reported. “In the oldest-old, the presence of multiple pathologies is associated with increased likelihood of dementia. The number of pathologies also seems to be relevant for the severity of the cognitive decline. We will therefore need to target multiple pathologies to reduce the burden of dementia.”

Keep body and brain working to hold dementia at bay

Major uncertainties continue to persist when it comes to the question of how dementias can be prevented or their progress retarded at all ages. This is the focus of “Preventing Cognitive Decline and Dementia”, a study of the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, which is determining the current state of research on behalf of the National Institute on Aging (NIA). “No specific interventions for maintaining cognitive health were able to be identified. However, the overarching message we can derive from the findings so far is: Keep your body and brain working in order to protect cognition,” Prof Kawas said.

Cognitive training includes, for example, problem-solving tasks or exercises that put demands on memory or the speed of mental processing. There is currently no evidence of the efficacy of commercial computer-based brain training exercises. They appear to have only short-term effects and just in connection with the same tasks that are practiced over and over, Prof. Kawas noted.

Physical activity – or the lack thereof – was identified as one of the risk factors open to influence that has the greatest effect on cognitive disorders and dementia. A study (AHRQ Systematic Review) shows that exercise can play a part in postponing or slowing down age-related cognitive decline. On including data from a prospective cohort study and findings from neurobiological processes, the study committee decided, however, that the conclusive evidence has not yet been furnished in this regard.

Getting high blood pressure under control appears to be important for cognitive health as well. That is especially true of mid-life between ages 35 and 65. Even if decisive evidence has not yet been furnished, there are increasing indications that keeping high blood pressure in check can prevent, postpone or retard dementia. “Interestingly, while blood pressure control is generally an important preventive factor, the picture is slightly different in the 90+ age group”, Prof Kawas said. “In the oldest-olds, there are indications that higher blood pressure might even have a certain protective effect.”

Research approaches with a sharper focus

“People should be suitably informed about what they can do to prevent cognitive decline from the standpoint of today’s scientific knowledge. The results of the report do not form a suitable basis for deriving public health strategies to counter the wide-spread disease of dementia. We need further studies to be able to better assess the effect of potential measures,” Prof. Kawas emphasized.

The committee suggested taking research approaches that are more refined, that examine different segments of the population separately and for example, that consider the ethnic or socioeconomic background of people or the time at which anti-dementia interventions are taken. It also said that further treatments for the affected individuals had to be incorporated. These include new anti-dementia treatments, diabetes and depression therapies, lipid-reducing drugs, the administration of B12plus folic acid or interventions focusing on nutrition, sleep quality or social involvement.

U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said Sunday the United States could remain in the Paris climate change agreement under the right conditions.

He told the CBS news show “Face the Nation” that President Donald Trump “is open to finding those conditions where we can remain engaged with others on what we all agree is still a challenging issue.”

Tillerson, the top U.S. diplomat, said, “We are willing to work with partners in the Paris climate accord, if we can construct a set of terms that we believe is fair and balanced [for] the American people and recognizes our economy and our economic interest.”

But he said a problem remains in the difference in commitments between the United States and China.

“If you look at those targets in terms of the Paris climate accords, they were really out of balance for the world’s two largest economies,” he said.

Trump’s stance unchanged

The White House on Saturday said Trump had not changed his mind on withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris accord unless it gets “pro-America terms.”

The White House reiterated Trump’s environmental stance Saturday after The Wall Street Journal published a report saying that Trump administration officials at a warming summit in Montreal had said the U.S. would not pull out of the Paris Agreement and had, instead, offered to re-engage in the international deal to fight climate change.

The newspaper wrote that “multiple officials” at the global warming summit had corroborated the seeming about-face by the U.S. officials attending the summit.

The account said the U.S. officials in Montreal, “led by White House senior adviser Everett Eissenstat, broached revising U.S. climate-change goals, two participants said, signaling a compromise that would keep the U.S. at the table even if it meant weakening the international effort.”

The newspaper said “Multiple participants at the Montreal gathering said Mr. Eissenstat’s approach, though it is likely to entail a significant reduction in the U.S.’s ambition to curb greenhouse-gas emissions, fueled optimism among proponents of the Paris deal.”

After the summit, Miguel Arias Canete, European Commissioner for Climate Action and Energy said “The U.S. has stated that they will not renegotiate the Paris accord, but they will try to review the terms on which they could be engaged under this agreement.”

However, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders tweeted a different message shortly after Canete’s statement was released. “Our position on the Paris agreement has not changed.,” she said. “@POTUS has been clear, US withdrawing unless we get pro-America terms.”

Trump drew international criticism when he declared the U.S. would pull out of the Paris Agreement and seek a renegotiation.

The Paris Agreement is a U.N.-negotiated deal signed in 2015 by every nation except Syria and Nicaragua. A withdrawal by the United States is seen as a possible catalyst for withdrawals by other nations.

The agreement seeks a global response to curb carbon dioxide emissions.

The United States produces the world’s second-highest level of greenhouse gas emissions, next to China.

By Uli Schamiloglu*

Kazakhstan’s planned transition to the Latin alphabet raises complex questions. While alphabets may not be important in and of themselves, they play an important role in helping define a nation’s place in the world.

As a Turkologist, I regularly teach a range of historical Turkic languages using the runiform Turkic alphabet, the Uyghur alphabet, the Arabic alphabet and others. Turkologists also study various Turkic languages written in the Syriac alphabet, the Armenian alphabet, the Hebrew alphabet, the Greek alphabet and others.

Stated briefly, you can use a lot of different alphabets to write Turkic languages. From a technical point of view, it is just a question of how accurately any particular alphabet represents speech sounds.

The classic version of the Arabic alphabet — with additional letters introduced for Persian — does not represent the vowels of Turkic languages accurately. Nevertheless, it was used successfully for Chagatay Turkic in Central Asia and Ottoman Turkish in the Ottoman Empire until the early 20th century. In the late 19th century and early 20th century, innovations were introduced to represent vowels more accurately, and this is certainly the case with the reformed Arabic alphabet used currently for Uyghur.

Using the Latin alphabet to represent Turkish languages is not a new phenomenon. The alphabet was used to write the Codex Cumanicus in a dialect of Kipchak Turkic in the early 14th century. More recently, Turkey adopted one version of the Latin alphabet beginning in 1928, as did Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan from 1991, and Uzbekistan in 2001, following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

We should also recall that in the early Soviet period most of the Turkic languages of the union shared a common Latin alphabet — the so-called Yangälif — beginning in 1926. But this alphabet was soon superseded by individual Cyrillic-based alphabets that were different from each other.

There are several linguistic factors supporting Kazakhstan’s planned switch to the Latin alphabet. One, of course, is that the Latin alphabet is familiar to a far larger number of educated persons than the Cyrillic alphabet. It is also used widely for communication over the internet and cellular telephones.

Far more significant to me personally is another phenomenon that I have often observed. Speakers of Kazan Tatar — and I am myself of Kazan Tatar heritage — Kazakh and other languages who may not be fluent in their ostensibly native language often impose the pronunciation and phonological rules of the Russian language and the Cyrillic alphabet on their own language.

To explain it in technical terms, front vowels in Russian palatalize the preceding consonant. So it is that you have speakers of these Turkic languages pronouncing words as though they were written in Russian — “spelling pronunciation” as it were. In other words, they pronounce words in their own language with a “Russian accent.” I have even encountered speakers of Kazakh learning Turkish who pronounce Turkish according to the rules of Russian pronunciation. There is every likelihood this phenomenon will be disrupted if schoolchildren are exposed to the Latin alphabet from an earlier age.

So, yes, I am in favor of the transition of the Kazakh language from the Cyrillic alphabet to the Latin alphabet.

Beyond the linguistic phenomena, there are political, cultural, and even ideological elements to consider. In other words, will Kazakhstan remain forever identified with the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union that succeeded it? Or does it wish to be seen as part of a larger world community, including the European community, of which it is also a part?

Another question is whether the Kazakh nation — and I am thinking here of ethnic Kazakhs, rather than all Kazakhstanis — should remain apart from the rest of the Turkic world. Turkey, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan have all adopted some variation of the Latin alphabet. Kyrgyzstan is also considering such a move. What would be the argument for Kazakhstan to remain isolated from this large part of the Turkic world, especially when there is sentiment in other parts of the Turkic world to adopt the Latin alphabet? (It is believed Tatarstan too would consider the transition were they to be permitted to do so, although it is currently against the law in Russia to use an alphabet other than Cyrillic).

Arguments against the adoption of Latin are inherently grounded in imperial Russian or Soviet ideology.

Beginning in the late 19th century, the various Muslim Turkic peoples of the Russian Empire were beginning to explore modern identities. I have argued elsewhere that the Kazan Tatars of today began to advocate for a Tatar territorial nation already in the 19th century, whereas many other Muslim Turks in the Russian Empire advocated for a non-territorially based shared identity extending across the Turkic world, and more broadly across the Muslim world.

The latter view raised concerns over “pan-Turkism” and “pan-Islamism” among authorities in the late Russian Empire — views that persisted during the Soviet era and beyond.

One of the underlying notions against the Kazakh language switching over to Latin is this irrational colonial-era fear of the unity of Turkic-speaking peoples.

Given the growing cultural integration of the Turkic world through the founding in 2009 of the Cooperation Council of Turkic-Speaking States — which was established by Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Turkey — and the growing role of Astana as a new cultural capital for the entire Turkic world, why shouldn’t Kazakhstan try to develop closer cultural connections with other Turkic republics via a similar alphabet?

My late father used to talk about how Kazan Tatars became illiterate twice in one generation, first as the Arabic script was abandoned in favor of the Yangälif, and then again when that “new alphabet” was abandoned in favor of Cyrillic. Individual Cyrillic alphabets were introduced for Soviet Turkic languages in the 1930s; Kazakh adopted the Cyrillic alphabet only in 1940.

There are inescapable social costs to this change, such as the older generation potentially becoming illiterate, or at least disadvantaged. Then there is the cultural cost, such as the younger generation potentially becoming cut off from its past — for the second or third time! Turkey experienced this shock beginning in 1928, and it still has not gotten over it completely. Although Turkey undertook this as a kind of “shock therapy,” Kazakhstan has chosen a gradual path by choosing the final form of the alphabet by the end of 2017, training educators in the new alphabet, and then finally completing the switch to the Latin alphabet by 2025.

At the same time, there is a political dimension to the process. Russia has very strong feelings about the Russian-speaking world and its position of dominance within it, even though its actions have often arguably undermined its own interests in this respect. Russia would naturally prefer not to see Kazakhstan abandon Cyrillic. Whether it will take any steps to prevent this from happening will be discovered soon enough. I hope not.

It is now official policy in Kazakhstan to promote three languages through the educational system — namely Kazakh, Russian and English. I think it is well documented by now that the Russian-speaking space is in decline throughout the former territories of the Soviet Union. But Kazakhstan, like Tatarstan, is so strongly bilingual that I am not worried so much that the use of Russian will decline in Kazakhstan any time soon. The real challenge is to make sure that Kazakh becomes viable as the official language of Kazakhstan.

Unlike in Turkey, or say Uzbekistan, Kazakh has a long way to go before it becomes the default language of choice among citizens of Kazakhstan.

India is industrializing her naval potency at rapid pace to accomplish the position of a “Blue Water Navy”. Nearly 90 percent of the Indian trade is carried out via sea route, which requires India to expand her resilient marine power in the Indian Ocean, securing maritime objectives and correspondingly establishing her hegemony in regional constituency and beyond.

The Indian Navy recently took delivery of the first domestically assembled long-range surface-to-air missile system (LRSAM) on August 27. The Barak-8 (first LRSAM) is indigenously produced by Indian missile maker Baharat Dynamic with the assistance of Indian MoD’, Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDOs) in collaboration with a production line setup by Israeli defense contractors IAI and its subsidiary Rafael in India. LRSAM is designed to deal with incoming airborne threats with a range of 90-150 kilometers and is equipped with advanced phased-array radar, command and control, mobile launchers and missiles with progressive radio frequency (RF) searchers.

However, India’s urge to advance blue water proficiencies is perceived as an intimidation by others in the neighborhood. It has particularly amplified Pakistan’s intentions, whose foremost security hazards hail from India. Moreover materializing the nuclear trio ambitions would provide India with a second-strike capability. Consequently the nuclear deterrence equation flanked by the hostile competitors will be disrupting.

According to an estimate as per data of 2016, the Indian Naval assets include 79,023 personnel and a large fleet comprising of 2 aircraft carriers, 1GAH amphibious transport dock, 9 landing ship tanks, 14 frigates, 10 destroyers, 1 nuclear powered submarine and 14 conventionally powered submarines, 25 corvettes, 7 minesweeping vessels, 47 patrol vessels, 4 fleet tankers, numerous auxiliary vessels, 8 maritime reconnaissance and anti-submarine aircraft purchased from Boeing Co. for $ 2.1 billion in 2009 and approved an order for 4 more aircraft.

India is repetitively refining and accumulating naval competences, her navel budget for the upcoming decade worth $61 billion in order to increase size of navy by half. Indigenously India not only lifted her vessels building capacity, but she has done fair enough collaboration as well. India plans to build a 160 plus-ship navy, three aircraft carrier battle groups, 40 warships and submarines including stealth destroyers, anti-submarine corvettes and stealth frigates, INS Vikrant due to be inducted by 2018-19, induction of MiG-29K multirole aircraft and Kamov-28 and 31 helicopters to position from its aircraft carriers as per 2022 plan. These acquisitions would immensely improve Indian reconnaissance capabilities and would provide the Indian Navy strategic outreach in the Indian Ocean.

According to the 2009 updated Indian Maritime Doctrine Indian Navy will put under her control all the choke points, significant islands, and trade routes, the Indian Ocean, Arabian Sea and in the Bay of Bengal. This vision is put forward for the Indian Navy by 2025. India aims to operationalize its naval force in combination with the United States. Taking benefit from US’s existence in the region India is trying to counter Chinese naval influence and advancing its own naval ambitions as well.

The more important point to ponder is that India set to nuclearize the Indian Ocean. This will deter other states of the region more especially Pakistan. Pakistan, intendeds to sustain an effective nuclear deterrent against India, the outline of the latter’s nuclear triplet is a hostile growth, intensifying the security dilemma between India and Pakistan. Indian naval nuclear advancement will qualitatively modify the strategic equilibrium amid India and Pakistan. It might provoke Pakistan enhance naval nuclear capability of her own for rebalancing the deterrence equation between the two. Subsequently this will hamper the strategic stability and geopolitical situation of the south Asian region thus leading to arms buildup and an arms race would start.

It is necessarily recommended for Pakistan to keep an eye on Indian naval transformation, thus by expanding her own indigenous defense manufacturing to meet the contemporary needs of the Pakistan Navy; because her flimsy economic sources does not let her to purchase new weapon systems from industrialized countries. Pakistan must boost her joint ventures with countries like China, Germany, and France to grow her nautical strength and overwhelmed her feebleness. Pakistan navy should also improve her exploration and reconnaissance proficiencies Pakistan Navy should invite countries and participate in joint navel exercises with other countries to enlarge her operative war fighting abilities at sea to overwhelmed upcoming intimidations and encounters to her national security.

*Qura tul ain Hafeez has done M Phil in international relations from Quaid-I Azam University Islamabad. she is currently working as a research associate at Strategic Vision Institute Islamabad .Her domain of work include China as an emerging global power, Sino-Pakistan strategic and civil nuclear relations, South Asian strategic issues, regional integration, nuclear issues including nuclear non-proliferation and NSG, Foreign Policy analysis, and international politics

From football to karate – concerns have been growing in recent years that contact sports such as these are not only responsible for repetitive head injuries but are also associated with long-term neurocognitive impairment. However, these concerns appear unfounded, as confirmed in a study presented at the World Congress of Neurology.

Contact sports such as football, wrestling, boxing and karate are associated with an increased risk of head injury, a factor commonly suspected of leading to long-term consequences for neurocognitive function. As shown by a study presented at the XXIII World Congress of Neurology (WCN) in Kyoto, these concerns appear to be groundless.

“Although the long-term implications of concussions and sub-concussive impacts are an increasing worry, their relative impact has had little research to date,” explained the study’s lead author Kathryn L. O’Connor from the University of Michigan. “Our study shows that participating in sports like these does not appear to be independently associated with lower neurocognitive performance when accounting for an individual’s current sport activity, sex, and previous concussions.”

In the study conducted as part of the CARE (Concussion Assessment, Research and Education) consortium, a group of researchers surveyed the amount of time that 10,265 military cadets spent participating in contact sports. Afterwards, the voluntary subjects were evaluated in a special neurocognitive assessment designed to look at sport-related head impact exposure.

The 30-minute, computer based ImPACT (Immediate Post-Concussion Assessment and Cognitive) test provides norm-referenced data for men and women ranging in age from 17 to 26 and not only records different symptoms but also looks at neurocognitive parameters such as reaction time as well as visual and verbal memory performance.

Additional data was connected using the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI-18) – in which participants self-report on somatisation, depression and anxiety – and the Sport Concussion Assessment Tool, SCAT.

After controlling for current sports activity, sex, and concussion history, it transpired that contact/collision sport exposure was in fact associated with better verbal and visual memory performance and above-average motor capability. There were no signs of lower neurocognitive performance or impaired symptom scores among contact sports participants.

“Contact or collision sports do not present an independent risk, above and beyond previous concussion, for impaired neurocognitive performance,” Kathryn L. O’Connor concluded.

By Siraj Wahab

Kurdish leaders will decide in the next two days whether to postpone this month’s controversial independence referendum, a leading political figure from Irbil told Arab News on Sunday.

A Kurdish delegation will travel to Baghdad to assess what is on offer from the Iraqi government.

“Only after studying the various options will the Kurdish leadership be able to make a decision on postponing it,” former MP Mahmoud Othman said.

“There are ongoing contacts between the Kurdish leadership and Baghdad and we will see final results in the next two days.

“With so much pressure from Baghdad, the US, Turkey and Iran, it will not be easy to go ahead with the vote. The Kurds will have to rethink their position.”

Othman dismissed a proposal on Saturday by Iraqi President Fuad Masum, himself a Kurd.

“Nobody listens to him,” he said. “His is a ceremonial position. He does not carry weight. The real power and decision-making is with Iraqi Prime Minister Haider Al-Abadi.”

He said the Kurds were in a difficult position and the leadership was to blame for not having studied the pros and cons before deciding to go ahead with the referendum.

“They did not anticipate the massive opposition to the referendum decision; they should have thought about how the major countries would respond. Obviously the Kurdish leadership did not do that.”

Othman said the Kurdish people were all in favor of the referendum. “Now, if the vote is canceled, the people will be demoralized and that is why I say the leadership should have thought about all this beforehand.”

Meanwhile, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan will meet Al-Abadi this week to discuss their concerns about the referendum.

Turkey, the US and other Western powers have advised authorities in the semi-autonomous region to cancel the vote, worrying that tensions it would generate might be an unwelcome distraction from the war on Daesh in Iraq and Syria.

With the largest Kurdish population in the region, Turkey also fears that a “Yes” vote would fuel separatism in its southeast, where militants of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) have waged an insurgency for three decades.

Ankara and Baghdad have the same view of the referendum, Erdogan said before leaving for New York to attend the UN General Assembly.

“We will have a meeting with Mr. Abadi in the United States, and from what we can see our goal is the same. Our goal is not dividing Iraq,” he said.

Kurdish leader Massoud Barzani said on Friday the referendum would go ahead as planned on Sept. 25. Erdogan said the Turkish government had therefore brought forward planned national security council and Cabinet meetings to Sept. 22, after which Turkey would announce its position on the issue.
Turkey has good relations with Barzani’s administration, founded on strong economic links and shared suspicions of other Kurdish groups and Iraq’s central government.

The Kurdish Regional Government, led by Barzani’s KDP party, exports hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil a day via Turkey to world markets.

More than 1,000 migrants were intercepted by Libyan coastguard vessels during an intensive day of operations west of the capital Tripoli on Saturday, a spokesman said.

Some 1,074 migrants attempting to cross early on Saturday were stopped by coastguards from Zawiya, about 45 km (28 miles) west of Tripoli, said Ayoub Qassem, a coastguard spokesman.

“The coastal guards of Zawiya refinery rescued 1,074 illegal migrants on board more than eight boats,” Qassem said.

The migrants were from sub-Saharan African and Arab countries and had left from Sabratha and the nearby Talil and Wadi areas, Qassem noted.

Despite the latest interception, there has been a sharp drop in migrant crossings between Libya and Italy since July, largely attributed to armed groups around the smuggling hubs of Sabratha and Zawiya blocking departures.

However, some boats have still been leaving from the area, where a number of different smuggling groups operate. Smugglers generally pack migrants into flimsy inflatable boats that are later picked up by international vessels and taken to Italy.

Six years since a revolution that toppled longtime dictator Muammar Qaddafi, Libya has become a key departure point for people risking their lives to cross the Mediterranean to Europe.

Crossings from Libya spiked in 2014, and since last year the North African country has been the main gateway for migrants trying to reach Europe.

The interior ministry said 11,193 new arrivals had been registered in July, compared with 23,552 in July 2016.

Arrivals for the first seven months of this year were 95,214, up 0.78 percent on the same period last year.

Some 600,000 mostly African refugees have arrived in Italy from Libya since the start of 2014.

The EU and Italy have been providing support for Libya’s coastguards to enable them to intercept more migrants, a strategy that has been criticised by human rights groups.

But rights campaigners fear Italy’s focus on strengthening the Libyan coastguard to ensure boatloads of migrants are intercepted before reaching international waters could place thousands of people with a right to asylum at serious risk.

Refugee agencies say Libya is too unstable for any potential refugee to be safely returned there.

There is particular concern over the fate of migrants who end up in the country’s detention camps, where conditions are usually squalid and a lack of regulation means people risk torture, sexual abuse, and forced labor.

Original source

By Dr. Arshad M. Khan*

Gauri Lankesh was shot to death on September 5, 2017. A consistent critic of Hindutva politics and right-wing Hindu extremism, the journalist-activist edited Gauri Lankesh Patrike her own weekly. She was not the first.

In August 2015, Malleshappo M. Kalburgi, a noted scholar who was opposed to superstition in Hinduism, was assassinated. Both Lankesh and Kalburgi were staunch proponents of the theory that their Lingayat religion was distinct from Hinduism.

Also in 2015, in February, it was Govind Pansare, a left-wing politician who also opposed religious superstitions (like, for example, the ritual to ensure a male child), and also lobbied vocally for the Anti-Superstition and Black Magic Act. Then there was rationalist Narendra Achyut Dabholkar, who made debunking religious superstition and mysticism his life’s work. In August 2013, he was shot and killed as he took his morning walk. Following his death, the Anti-superstition act he had worked so hard without success to get through the Maharashtra state government was finally enacted.

The killings of three rationalists, i.e. atheists, and a strong dissenter have cast a pall. Voices are being stilled. There is much more as evidenced by the complicity of authorities in instances of mass killing, their mono-cultural narrow vision in a multicultural and multi-religious society, and insurgencies in many parts of the country.

Celebrating 70 years of independence last August 15, India has much to be proud of including strong economic growth. Yet in this new century India’s steps are clearly faltering given its darker side, and, while it tries to assume a role on the world stage, the state within is cause for some despair.

Last month on August 25th, following the rape conviction of Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh — a former Sikh, styled the guru of bling for his flamboyant lifestyle — thousands of his Dera religious supporters ran amuck burning buildings, vehicles, railway stations and bringing life to a halt in the states of Haryana and Punjab, and even in parts of Delhi. More than 30 people died and a curfew was imposed.

Indeed gurus are popular: Mr. Modi has appointed a saffron-robed, Hindutva firebrand religious leader, Yogi Adityanath as Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, India’s largest state. This was after local elections there in which communalism was an essential ingredient of his party’s victory.

Also on August 25th, activists across the country observed Kandhmal day in memory of the victims of an anti-Christian pogrom in 2008. Kandhmal is in the state of Orissa just southwest of Bengal and over a thousand miles east from Punjab.

A 2016 documentary directed by K. P. Sasi vividly illustrates this notorious incident. Titled Voices from the Ruins: Kandhmal in Search of Justice, it relates the story simply and without resort to emotion. The effect is devastating as the horror of pitiless violence unfolds. In this orgy of arson and bloodshed, the victims were Adivasi and Dalit Christians — converts continue to be remembered as Dalits in their communities. Dalits are the lowest caste of Hindus formerly known as untouchables. The Hindutva perpetrators destroyed over 350 churches and 6500 dwellings. Eight years later fear and intimidation still rule, and the more than 56,000 people who were displaced have not returned. Churches and homes remain the ruins they were after the pogrom.

Devastating as it was, it is an event not as well known as the 2002 Gujarat riots directed against another minority group, the Muslims, in which at least 1000 were killed. Gujarat is a 1000 miles south of Punjab. The geography of the three incidents is an indicator of how communal hatred has infected people across the nation.

Rana Ayyub, (author of Gujarat Files: Anatomy of a Cover Up and a friend of Gauri Lankesh) is the journalist who, at tremendous personal risk, exposed administrative and police complicity through a sting operation sponsored by Tehelka magazine. She has just been honored in Vancouver with a Courage in Journalism Award. On her heels, the Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) has secured the convictions of 119 individuals including a minister (Indira Jaising, Outlook magazine, March 2015). The founders of CJP are paying for their success: Several cases have been filed against them, including criminal charges for such transgressions as accepting about $290,000 over a ten year period from the Ford Foundation. Some use these cases to question their veracity; others say they are being subjected to a campaign of harassment in the courts.

The last twenty-five years have seen the delicate fabric of communal amity rent repeatedly for political gain by upper caste Hindu nationalist parties. For instance, Prime Minister Modi’s new laws against cattle slaughter not only affect a $10 billion industry employing mostly Dalits and Muslims, but added to the incendiary rhetoric his ruling party have fostered a climate of hate leading to tragic events. Attacks against Muslims and Dalits have intensified.

On June 22, 2017, three days before the Muslim holiday of Eid, four boys were returning home to Mathura on the train from Delhi following a shopping trip. Recognized as Muslims, they were taunted as beef eaters and then set upon. In a moving train with other travelers looking on, they were beaten severely and 16-year old Junaid Khan stabbed fatally. One should note that much of southern India eats beef as does the northeast, and of course Christians, Muslims and Sikhs. Kerala’s legislature protested the Modi slaughter restrictions by having a beef breakfast.

Gau rakshak or cow protectors, whose vigilante bands now number over 200 in Gujarat alone, are terrorizing innocents. Their attacks on meat-eating Dalits, who skin carcasses for sale to the leather tanneries, and on Muslims have led to several deaths hitting the headlines lately.

Thus on April 1st this year, a dairy farmer from Haryana was transporting cows purchased legitimately at a cattle fair in Rajasthan back to his home, when he was set upon by gau rakshaks. Beaten mercilessly, Pehlu Khan died from his injuries two days later. The police have done nothing so far to apprehend the suspects despite the man’s family traveling to the capital, New Delhi, and holding a vigil demanding justice.

Last year on September 13, 2016, two men again legally transporting a cow and a calf were attacked by a cow-protector gang and also severely beaten. One of the men, Mohammad Ayub, died from his injuries shortly thereafter at a hospital in Ahmedabad. The police first registered a case of attempted murder naming the vigilantes as Janak Ramesh Mistry, Ajay Sajar Rabari and Bharat Nag Rabari. But as Pratik Sinha, a human rights activist, reported in a Facebook post after Ayub’s death, the police filed a second case underlining India’s present-day reality. This time, instead of naming the assailants, they wrote down ‘unknown’. The license plates of the cars involved in the attacks are also known. Dalits and Muslims can expect little in the way of justice. Except for a belated word, Mr. Modi has remained notoriously silent on the issue.

Overall figures for minority communal violence according to official statistics are averaging 700 per year, leading to thousands of deaths. In such an environment of hate, it is not surprising some were celebrating Pakistan’s recent victory over India in the 2017 ICC Champions Trophy finals by a record margin. For this 15 celebrants were arrested in Madhya Pradesh and charged with sedition. When this farce could not be sustained, they were charged with disturbing ‘communal harmony’.

Legislators in the U.S. became concerned enough to send Indian Prime Minister Modi a letter. Dated February 25, 2017, it was signed by 26 congressmen and 8 senators and expressed grave concern over the ‘intolerance and violence’ against religious minorities. They specifically cited the killings of Hasmat Ali in Manipur, Mohammad Saif in Uttar Pradesh, and two Sikh men during demonstrations protesting the desecration of their holy book. Innocent Sikhs were also the target of revenge attacks after Indira Gandhi was assassinated by a Sikh bodyguard. Almost 2000 were killed.

In the April 2015 issue of National Geographic, a magazine few would call political, an eye-popping map of India is displayed in its signature graphic style. A rusty, dried-blood light brown, mapped carefully adjacent to areas of government control, it reveals almost a quarter of the country where the Naxalite rebellion coupled with the Adivasi (another minority) struggle for land rights has taken hold. The area runs south from the Nepal border, to Kolkata (Calcutta), then along the Bay of Bengal almost to Chennai (Madras). Westwards, it approaches close to Varanasi (Benares) on the Ganges, then towards Nagpur in Central India and to Bangalore (India’s IT capital) in the south. Add the insurgencies in Assam, Manipur (minorities) and Kashmir (minority Muslim) which is bleeding again, and fully a third of the country is in strife. Figures vary but frequently quoted is 100,000 dead in Kashmir with no end in sight.

Post independence the promise of the first prime minister’s socialist secularism brought forth a focus on education and heavy-industry development. Flourishing first class technological institutes and rapid industrial growth was one result. Yet illiteracy proved stubborn, and the country mired by corruption and strife became bogged down in an inequality stasis with crushing poverty, where it still remains. Jawaharlal Nehru had fought for India’s independence, and as India’s first leader strongly emphasized a secular state. Wealthy and highest caste (Brahmin), educated at elite Harrow and Trinity College Cambridge before taking law and the bar exams through Inner Temple, he became a Fabian socialist. One wonders if he is turning over in his grave.

About the author:
*Dr. Arshad M. Khan is a former Professor based in the US. Educated at King’s College London, OSU and The University of Chicago, he has a multidisciplinary background that has frequently informed his research. Thus he headed the analysis of an innovation survey of Norway, and his work on SMEs published in major journals has been widely cited. He has for several decades also written for the press: These articles and occasional comments have appeared in print media such as The Dallas Morning News, Dawn (Pakistan), The Fort Worth Star Telegram, The Monitor, The Wall Street Journal and others. On the internet, he has written for Antiwar.com, Asia Times, Common Dreams, Counterpunch, Countercurrents, Dissident Voice, Eurasia Review and Modern Diplomacy among many. His work has been quoted in the U.S. Congress and published in its Congressional Record.

Source:
This article was published at Modern Diplomacy

Sri Lanka’s President Maithripala Sirisena is traveling to New York to attend the 72nd General Assembly of the United Nations.

This is the third time that President Sirisena is addressing the UN General Assembly.

The 72nd Regular Session of the UN General Assembly (UNGA 72) convened at UN Headquarters on September 12. The General Debate will open on Tuesday (19th Sept.) with a focus on the theme, ‘Focusing on People: Striving for Peace and a Decent Life for All on a Sustainable Planet’.

Sirisena is due to address the General Assembly in the evening of  September 19.

Sirisena will also brief the world leaders regarding the consensual politics in Sri Lanka as well as regarding the reconciliation and peace, and the initiatives taken by the government after declaring the year 2017 as the Year for Poverty Alleviation and also regarding the program for the concept of Green Development.

Sirisena is also scheduled to hold bilateral discussions with several world leaders participating in the sessions.

During his visit to the US, President Sirisena will also participate in a series of programs including a meeting with Sri Lankan Community.

On the steep farming slopes of China, Bozhi Wu and his research associates are finding ways to improve economic and environmental stability.

The research team studied the use of intercropping — growing more than one crop per season — on hilly land. They focused on a staple grain crop, corn. They compared intercropping the corn with either setaria grass, used in forage, or chili peppers. The results, you could say, will spice up Chinese farmers’ methods.

Over a four year period, the research team measured runoff, erosion, and economic return for four different types of cropping systems. They compared only corn (maize), only chili, and then intercropping corn with chili and corn with setaria grass. The land researched was in the Yunnan Province of southwest China. All fields were rain-fed, with no irrigation.

“Reducing erosion can sustain or increase soil fertility and productivity,” says Wu. “We researched intercropping systems that could reduce erosion, stabilize food production, and increase farmers’ incomes.”

Intercropping can benefit the soil in several ways. The additional soil cover provided by the second crop helps reduce erosion. The plants help soak up extra water and nutrients. This additional “pull” of the nutrients can help reduce runoff of the nutrients into adjacent land. Finally, growing different crops on the soil increases the biodiversity. This can help with pest and disease control. But Wu’s research pointed to another huge incentive.

The research shows that farmers could economically benefit most from growing chili peppers with their corn. Research sites that had either chili or setaria crops on them showed less soil erosion and made more money. But chili peppers increased the economic gain the most. Bringing in an extra $1,000-$2,000 per year on each hectare farmed is a true economic benefit. (For reference, a hectare is about 2.5 acres, or about the size of a baseball field.)

And it’s not just monetary benefits that intercropping brings. In southwest China, over 440,000 km2 are affected by erosion problems. To relate that to the United States, imagine if we lost all of California to erosion. That’s still less than the estimated amount of land affected by southwest China’s erosion problems! Some estimates put the economic loss of this erosion for Asia at $1.2 billion. So tackling erosion itself is a huge agricultural issue. Being able to do so while increasing profits is a huge benefit.

Setaria grass is currently used in China as a forage grass, with the animal husbandry industry rapidly growing. Due to its deeper root systems, intercropping with setaria did manage erosion and runoff better than intercropping with chili peppers. However, the environmental benefits of chili peppers combined with their economic benefits make them the clear recommendation by the research team.

Another research finding came in a drought year. During 2009, the province experienced a drought. All the experimental fields had a lower economic return that year — except one. The intercropping of corn with chili actually held its economic value. This suggests that intercropping systems can generate more stable incomes than single crops.

Both intercropping systems — chili and setaria with corn — reduced erosion, and improved the economic return. Although these are new farming techniques, the research team thinks the economic benefits will help spread these new methods across southern China. Because of its faster economic impact, the main recommendation for hilly areas in southern China is corn intercropped with chili peppers. Of course, commodity prices change over time, so the design of intercropping systems will be dependent on market opportunities.

Moscow has advertised Zapad-2017 as a joint Russian-Belarusian military exercise, but it is anything but as it includes features which Russian doctrine requires Moscow maintain exclusive control over and is intended to send a message to the West Moscow but not necessarily Minsk wants sent, Arseniy Sinitsky says.

The director of the Minsk Center for Strategic and Foreign Policy Research says that the current exercise, as few have noted, has a nuclear component in that Russian doctrine calls for Russian forces to use tactical nuclear weapons if they cannot stop an opponent by any other means (belaruspartisan.org/politic/394964/).

That in turn means that Russian forces are in complete control of the exercise because under Russian law and doctrine only the Russian president can authorize the use of such weapons. Therefore, if these exercises are to be as close as possible to reality, they would have to function under a Russian chain of command, not some joint one.

A second aspect of these exercises that shows they are not joint in any real sense is that the Belarusian portion is only a small part of a much larger exercise involving Russian forces in the Russian Federation and in international waters. Minsk wasn’t involved in planning these and so would have had minimal input into even the part on its territory.

Indeed, Sinitsky says, Russian defense planning would never be willing to offer Minsk a voice in this not only because that would undermine the shape of the total exercise but also because Moscow inevitably views Belarus as the site of potential clashes with the enemy and thus would not want Minsk to limit what Russian forces might do.

And third, the Belarusian analyst argues, this exercise is about sending the West a message concerning Moscow’s willingness to escalate its military operations in the event of a further deterioration of relations between the Russian Federation, on the one hand, and NATO and the US in particular, on the other.

Such a message, Sinitsky says, is clearly Moscow’s message. It is hardly one that Minsk would have been a co-participant in defining. Thus, it is important not to call Zapad 2017 a joint exercise because in reality it is a Russian one that is making use of some Belarusian units but not allowing them the kind of voice the term “joint exercise” suggests.

The Afghan government should reject proposals to create a new militia with inadequate training and oversight, Human Rights Watch said. Western diplomatic sources in Kabul told Human Rights Watch that President Ashraf Ghani is considering establishing a defense unit modelled on the Indian Territorial Army, an auxiliary force comprising personnel who serve on a short-term contract basis with the regular armed forces. The NATO Resolute Support Mission is believed to support such a local security force in Afghanistan.

An Afghan Territorial Army with reduced training and potentially less oversight risks being yet another abusive militia operating outside the military’s chain of command, Human Rights Watch said. If approved, the Afghan government is expected to determine the location of a pilot project by September 20, 2017.

“The Afghan government’s expansion of irregular forces could have enormously dangerous consequences for civilians,” said Patricia Gossman, senior researcher at Human Rights Watch. “Instead of creating additional local forces, which are hard to control and prone to abuses, the Afghan government with US and NATO support should be strengthening training and oversight to ensure that all forces respect the law.”

In recent years, the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces have relied on militia forces such as the Afghan Local Police (ALP) to “hold” local territory reclaimed from the Taliban or insurgent groups belonging to the Islamic State of Khorasan Province (ISKP). The group is an affiliate of the Islamic State (also known as ISIS) and is based in Nangarhar province.

The Afghan Local Police, established in 2010, was meant to serve as a local defense force. While these forces have gained some local support as a result of recent reforms, in many localities these forces have been responsible for numerous abuses against civilians, as well as summary executions of captured combatants and other violations of international humanitarian law. The proposed Afghan Territorial Army would ultimately replace the Afghan Local Police as a defense force at the local level. There is concern that existing Afghan Local Police units could remain armed as militia forces.

Instead of creating a new militia, Afghan authorities should improve the training and capabilities of its existing troops, and hold accountable those responsible for abuses, Human Rights Watch said. The inadequacy of Afghan police and soldiers has been evident in districts of Nangarhar province in which ISKP groups have carried out frequent attacks.

The Indian Territorial Army, the model for this proposed defense force, has been deployed to support Indian counter-insurgency forces in Jammu and Kashmir. Territorial army personnel have been implicated in serious abuses, and its irregular status has contributed to a lack of accountability.

In one prominent case, on March 8, 1996, Maj. Avtar Singh of the territorial army detained Jalil Andrabi, a human rights lawyer and Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front member. Three weeks later Andrabi’s body was found floating in the Jhelum River near Srinagar. An autopsy showed that he had been killed days after his arrest. Indian authorities opened an investigation that ultimately indicted Major Singh, but state counsel asserted that Singh was not a member of the armed forces but under contract with the territorial army, and that his contract had expired and he was nowhere to be found.

The Afghan government has been unable or unwilling to hold powerful strongmen accountable for abuses, including those who command Afghan Local Police units or other militias. It’s not clear how the government intends to ensure that new Afghan Territorial Army units, whose members will be paid less than their army counterparts, won’t fall into the same pattern.

While the territorial army would operate under a regular army corps commander, diplomatic sources told Human Rights Watch that Afghan officials involved in the discussions have expressed concern about the force becoming used by powerful strongmen, or becoming dependent on local patronage networks. There is also concern that the new force could replicate the criminality that many Afghan Local Police units exhibited, and clash with other government forces and militias over control of territory and smuggling routes.

In addition to the proposed Afghan Territorial Army, the Afghan government is considering creating a new 15,000-strong tribal militia, under the Ministry of Tribal and Border Affairs, currently headed by former governor Gul Agha Sherzai. The model for such a militia appears to be those established along ethnic lines by the late President Mohammad Najibullah in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Members of those militia forces were responsible for serious human rights abuses.

“There is a long, unsavory history of using tribal and irregular militias in Afghanistan, and it has led to egregious crimes without accountability,” Gossman said. “Too often they have inflamed conflict rather than provide security.”