It all began with an announcement, made public on the website of the Kennedy School’s Institute of Politics at Harvard University. Chelsea Manning would be joining a curious array of Visiting Fellows, including Mr Disaster, Robby Mook, and Sean Bumbling Spicer. (Manning, Spicer and Mook has a curious ring to it, the name, perhaps, of an error-prone debt recovery agency.)

Mook will have something to tell members of the Kennedy School, being credited with directing one of the worst electoral campaigns in US electoral history. His fanatical insistence on statistical determinations had its own role to play in sinking Hillary Clinton, the person who hired him to get elected.

Spicer hardly needs an introduction, handed the task of being the first press secretary of the Trump administration. (Remember, he explained, Hitler did not use chemical weapons.) In a world supposedly hostile to facts, he wore his crown proudly and comically, before taking leave.

Where, then, would the ire come against this rogues gallery of appointments? There was potentially room for everyone to have a crack. Within hours, it became a shooting gallery with one ultimate target: Chelsea Manning.

Apart from the usual blood lusting, chest-beating patriots who adore that fiction known as a country, Manning’s appointment was bound to generate a few frowns. But what should have been mere creases became full blown furrows, with the Central Intelligence Agency taking the noisy lead.

Coercive blackmail on the decision makers was first exerted by a former employee of that less than principled organisation. Michael Morell’s letter to Douglas Elmendorf, dean of the Kennedy School, was hectoring, irate.[1] It did not even matter that his own fellowship appointment (because former CIA employees are worth it) was in the Belfer Center, where he would not necessarily be sharing beverages with the crew at the Institute of Politics.

The former deputy and acting director of the CIA insisted that the very fact of leaking classified information – never mind of what nature – was a reprehensible, disqualifying act. It was “my right, indeed my duty, to argue that the School’s decision is wholly inappropriate and to protest it by resigning from the Kennedy School – in order to make the fundamental point that leaking classified information is disgraceful and damaging to our nation.” (How are nations ever damaged in that way has never been satisfactorily demonstrated by the actuaries in the security establishment.)

Current CIA director Mike Pompeo also lobbed a bomb of indignation at Harvard’s Rolf Mowatt-Larssen after cancelling a scheduled appearance at the John F. Kennedy, Jr. Forum. The rationale was predictable from a person who pretends to see the world in clearly minted, binary terms, where the warriors of light will vanquish those of the dark. By attending the event, he would be sending a large announcement of betrayal to the former, while giving an incentive to the latter.[2]

Pompeo’s reasoning pans Manning as a felon “found guilty of 17 serious crimes for leaking classified information to WikiLeaks.” He then reiterates a sentiment trumpeted from the start of his tenure: “WikiLeaks is an enemy of the United States akin to a hostile foreign intelligence service.”

It is worth nothing that, for all the efforts made by the prosecution in the Manning case, the charge of supplying classified information to a foreign enemy failed to convince Judge Denise Lind. To have taken that step would have been tantamount to drawing a wide net over the fourth estate, the security state’s ultimate vengeance.

Who, then, should be Fellows, visiting or otherwise? Bill Delahunt, acting director of the IOP, was clear: “We welcome the breath of thought-provoking viewpoints on race, gender, politics and media.”[3] Such enlightenment, such maturity.

It was not a point shared by Pompeo: “Harvard’s actions implicitly tell its students that you too can be a fellow at Harvard and a felon under United States law.” This position is hard to entertain in any credible, intellectual sense, especially coming from the director of an organisation trained in the dark arts of destabilisation, interrogation and extra-judicial killings.

Morell, of course, was singled out by Pompeo as the exemplar of public service. “You have traded a respected individual who served his country with dignity for one who served it with disgrace and who violated the warrior ethos she promoted to uphold when she voluntarily chose to join the United States Army.” Contradiction be damned.

The upshot of this was a whimpering victory for the CIA, a crude one won by the invocations of bullying. The Kennedy School duly rescinded Manning’s title, and did so in the most mealy-mouthed of ways.

“We invited Chelsea Manning,” came the statement from dean Elmendorf, “because the Kennedy School’s longstanding approach to visiting speakers is to invite some people who have significantly influenced events in the world even if they do not share our values and even if their actions or words are abhorrent to some members of our community.”[4] Debate was not justification; discussion did not entail approval.

What Elmendorf then does, after patting the institutional back for intellectual tolerance, is to empty the term “Fellow” of any clear meaning. Don’t presume, we are told, that it has any distinguishing merit to it. A Visiting Fellow, he suggests, is merely a visitor. “In general, across the School, we do not view the title of ‘Fellow’ as conveying a special honour; rather, it is a way to describe some people who spend more than a few hours at the School.”

Manning had only been invited, we are informed, to spend one day at the School, specifically to “meet with students and others who are interested in talking with her, and then to give remarks in the Forum where the audience would have ample opportunity – as with all of our speakers – to ask hard questions and challenge what she had said and done.”

The dean then moves into a mode of apology. “Visiting Fellow” could be construed, mistakenly, as “honorific”, a point that should have been considered. A weighing should have also taken place between educating the Kennedy School community and “the extent to which the person’s conduct fulfils the values of public service to which we aspire.” On this basis, inviting Manning “was wrong.” The term “Visiting Fellow” would duly be stripped from Manning, even though the invitation to still spend a day at the School and speak to the forum would stand.

This entire charming episode shows, regrettably, how spines go on sudden holiday in the academy when political forces knock at the door. Academics tend to be the first to fold when matters of courage are concerned, and often do so in graceless dissimulating prose. The Kennedy School of Government has not just been made safe for the CIA, but for academic hypocrisy.

Notes:
[1] https://twitter.com/Mosheh/status/908367178067574784

[2] https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/DirectorPompeoLettertoHarvard.pdf

[3] https://www.hks.harvard.edu/announcements/institute-politics-harvard-kennedy-school-announces-additional-visiting-fellows

[4] https://www.hks.harvard.edu/announcements/statement-dean-elmendorf-regarding-invitation-chelsea-manning-be-visiting-fellow?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=hks-twitter&utm_source=twitter

By S. Binodkumar Singh*

On September 6, 2017, remains of seven dead bodies were recovered from a Jama’atul Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB) hideout in the capital Dhaka city’s Darus Salam area after the terrorists blew themselves up, ignoring the Rapid Action Battalion’s (RAB’s) repeated calls to surrender. A large quantity of bombs and bomb making materials, including 24 high-impact explosive devices, 60 improvised hand grenades, 70 chemical bombs, 15 kilograms of splinters, nine empty cages, 20 kilograms of charcoal, and 1,500 pieces of igniting cord were also recovered.

On August 27, 2017, a JMB terrorist was killed in an explosion while making bombs at a house in the Kashor area of Mymensingh District. Police recovered four bombs and more than eight kilograms of gunpowder from the house. Of the four bombs, two were pressure cooker bombs, each weighing around 2-2.5 kilograms, and two hand grenades.

On August 25, 2017, a Neo-JMB militant was killed in a gunfight with the Police in Boalia village of Kushtia District. Police recovered a foreign pistol, two bullets and three sharp weapons from the spot.

On August 15, 2017, a Neo-JMB militant was killed by the Police during an operation codenamed ‘Operation August Bite’ at a suspected hideout near the Square Hospital in Dhaka city.

Indeed, Security Forces (SFs) are continuing their unremitting efforts against terrorist formations in Bangladesh. According to partial data compiled by the South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP), since the Gulshan Cafe attack on July 1, 2016, 103 Islamist terrorists have been killed and another 1,284 arrested across Bangladesh. Prominent among those killed were the Neo-JMB leader and mastermind of the Gulshan Cafe attack, Tamim Ahmed Chowdhury aka Shaykh Abu Ibrahim Al Hanif aka Amir (30); the JMB ‘military commander’ for the northern region Khaled Hasan aka Badar Mama (30); Neo-JMB ‘military commander’ Murad aka Jahangir Alam aka Omar; JMB ‘regional commander’ Tulu Mollah (33); JMB ‘regional coordinator’ Abu Musa aka Abujar; Neo-JMB ‘military chief’ Aminur Islam aka Alam (23); Harkat-ul-Jihad-al Islami Bangladesh (HuJI-B) ‘chief’ Mufti Abdul Hannan; and HUJI-B ‘regional commander’ Tajul Islam Mahmud aka Mama Hujur (46) (data till September 17, 2017).

Claiming that there will be no major militant attack in Bangladesh at this moment, Counter Terrorism and Transnational Crime (CTTC) Chief Monirul Islam disclosed on August 8, 2017,

We’ve been able to successfully destroy the operational capacity of the militants. The militants’ operational capacity increased last year, but they don’t have that capacity any more. We’ve destroyed it by carrying out anti-militancy drives across the country. The militants have no capacity to launch any more big attack right now.

Likewise, Dhaka Metropolitan Police (DMP) Commissioner Mohamad Asaduzzaman Mia claimed, on August 16, 2017, that there was no threat of any major terrorist attack or security risk in the country, as the organizational capability of terrorist formations such as Neo-JMB and Ansarullah Bangla Team (ABT) had waned.

Further, to boost the anti-terrorism drives, CTTC Additional Deputy Commissioner Mohammad Sanowar Hossain on August 11, 2017, noted, bomb disposal robots were increasingly being introduced to deal with explosives:

We have been using people instead of bomb disposal robots, which was very risky. The robots will be controllable at a safe distance from the operation sites. They can move swiftly on land and waterways, and can blast open the entrances of locked or barricaded militant hideouts. The robots can send instant pictures of 360-degree views of the hideout. After getting all the information from the robots, the main CTTC team will begin the operation. The robots will be imported from the United States at an estimated cost of BDT 1 crore, and will lead from the front of the CTTC team during anti-militant operations. The procedure of procurement has already begun.

Notably, Home Minister Asaduzzaman Khan, talking to reporters after a meeting of the National Committee on Militancy, Resistance and Prevention at his Ministry on August 21, 2017, observed that intelligence agencies were closely monitoring Facebook, Twitter, Whatsapp and other social media to control all sorts of cyber based militant activities. Separately, Chittagong Metropolitan Police (CMP) officials on September 9, 2017, disclosed that, as with the Dhaka Metropolitan Police (DMP), CPM was going to introduce a full-fledged counter terrorism (CT) unit for the Chittagong region with the aim to expedite the ongoing drives against terrorists and terrorism-related activities. CMP officials said that forming a full-fledged CT unit was a timely move, as Chittagong was geographically vulnerable to terrorism.

However, a new security dilemma for Bangladesh is the problem created by Rohingya refugees. At least 74,000 Rohingyas crossed the border into Bangladesh after Myanmar began a military crackdown in northern Rakhine State. The crackdown followed attacks on border guards on October 9, 2016, in which nine Myanmar Policemen were killed and four were injured when hundreds of armed Rohingya men with knives, slingshots and rifles attacked three separate police posts along the Rakhine border with Bangladesh. Highlighting the Rohingya crisis as an important issue, Foreign Minister Abul Hassan Mahmood Ali stated in the Parliament on June 15, 2017, “Twenty to 25 percent people in Cox’s Bazar are now Rakhine Muslims. Such huge presence of Rakhine Muslims in the area will pose a threat to the national security in future. The Rakhine people have been engaged in various misdeeds, including drug smuggling on bordering areas and arms and human trafficking. They’ve become a national security concern for Bangladesh.” The Minister further noted that some 33,000 Rohingyas, registered as refugees, were living in two camps run by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) in Cox’s Bazar. It is estimated that some three to four hundred thousand unregistered Myanmar citizens (Rohingyas) have been staying in five Bangladeshi Districts, including Cox’s Bazar.

A second wave of refugees swept in after the incident of August 25, 2017, in which hundreds of Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) insurgents armed with machetes and rifles attacked 30 security posts in the Rakhine State, killing 12 Policemen, a soldier and an immigration officer. In response, the military unleashed what it called “clearance operations” to root out the insurgents. On September 14, 2017, the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) claimed that up to 400,000 Rohingya had fled Myanmar for Bangladesh since August 25, 2017, with thousands more arriving every day. Separately, UNHCR Assistant High Commissioner George Okoth-Obbo and International Organization for Migration (IOM) Director Mohammed Abdiker Mohamud in a joint press conference held in Dhaka on September 14, 2017, stated, “The Rohingya influx towards Bangladesh may reach 10 lakh (One million) this year if the refugees fleeing violence in Myanmar’s Rakhine State continues.”

Denouncing Myanmar for the atrocities and calling upon the international community to mount intensified pressure on Naypyidaw to stop the atrocities and take back the refugees, Bangladesh Parliament on September 11, 2017, passed a resolution:

A handful of people of a shadow group had staged the attack which we (Bangladesh) also condemned, but should the entire community of one million populations be punished for that?

Further, in a statement issued on September 13, 2017, the 15-member United Nations Security Council (UNSC) acknowledged the initial attacks on Myanmar Security Forces, but “condemned the subsequent violence,” and called for “immediate steps to end the violence in Rakhine, de-escalate the situation, re-establish law and order, and ensure the protection of civilians.”

Disturbingly, terrorist outfits are looking to cash in on the Rohingya crisis. The terrorist formations both at home and abroad are fishing in troubled waters, trying to provoke their followers to go to Myanmar and fight the country’s military in the name of ‘protecting Islam’ and saving the Rohingya people who face brutality at the hands of the Myanmar Army. On September 3, 2017, in a video message released by al Qaeda’s al-Malahem Media Foundation, Khaled Batarfi called on Muslims in Bangladesh, India, Indonesia and Malaysia to support their Rohingya Muslim brethren against the “enemies of Allah.” Similarly, on September 12, 2017, Pakistan based Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) Chief Maulana Masood Azhar declared, “All of us must do whatever we can for the Myanmar Muslims. Just say your prayers and get up to help them. You don’t need to show off what you are doing: just do it, and never stop.” On the home front, Hefazat-e-Islam (HeI) Secretary General Junaid Babunagari issuing an ultimatum on September 9, 2017, threatened to siege of the Myanmar Embassy at Dhaka on September 19, if the atrocities against Rohingya Muslims in Rakhine state of Myanmar continued. Similarly, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, pasted posters on the street walls in Dhaka, Chittagong and other cities of Bangladesh, condemning the oppression on Rohingyas and urging countrymen to raise their voice.

Bangladesh has taken giant strides against terrorism and Islamist extremism. However, the scope for a coalition of terrorists with the radicalized elements among the Rohingyas who have been forced across the Bangladesh-Myanmar border could create new headaches for authorities. The Rohingya crisis is no longer only a humanitarian calamity but a potential threat to the internal stability and security of Bangladesh as well.

*S. Binodkumar Singh
Research Associate; Institute for Conflict Management

By Giriraj Bhattacharjee*

Suspected militants of the Nationalist Socialist Council of Nagaland-Isak Muivah (NSCN-IM) attacked a combined team of the banned terror outfit People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Manipur Naga People’s Front (MNPF) at Makan village in Kamjong District near Border Pillar No, 8 along the Indo-Myanmar border, on September 12, 2017. NSCN-IM cadres killed five militants of the rival groups, identified as PLA ‘sergeant major’ Richard aka Wareppam Dinesh, PLA ‘sergeant’ Lalloi aka Khundrakpam Sunil, PLA ‘private’ Nanao aka Moirangthem Tomba, PLA ‘private’ Sinthouba aka Konjengbam Shyamsundar and MNPF cadre Raikham Jajo aka Nimai Jazo. The NSCN-IM militants took away the weapons of their slain rivals.

Dead bodies of four suspected Hmar Peoples’ Convention- Democratic (HPC-D) cadres were recovered from Barak River. While two bodies were recovered on June 26, 2017, another two bodies were recovered on June 27, 2017. According to reports, the deceased were shot dead by their fellow cadres at an unspecified place in Pherzawl District, on an undisclosed date, for their alleged involvement in a robbery incident which had taken place in the night of June 21, 2017, at Sivapukar in Pherzawl District.

According to partial data compiled by the South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP), at least 44 fatalities, including 19 civilians, six Security Force (SF) personnel, and 19 militants, have been reported from across Manipur in 2017 (data till September 17, 2017). The 10 Hill Districts accounted for 39 fatalities (15 civilians, five SF personnel and 19 militants) constituting 88.63 per cent of the total. Manipur comprises 16 Districts – 10 in the Hills, and six in the Valley region.

In the corresponding period of 2016, the State had recorded at least 27 fatalities, including 12 civilians, eight SF personnel, and seven militants. The five Hill Districts accounted for 17 of these fatalities (four civilians, seven SFs and six militants), i.e. 62.96 per cent of the total. Through 2016, the State recorded at least 33 fatalities; 23 (69.96 percent) in the 10 Hill Districts.

On December 8, 2016, the pre-existing five Hill Districts were bifurcated and new Districts were formed. Tamenglong District was divided into the Noney and Tamenglong; Churachandpur into Pherzawl and Churachandpur; Chandel into Tengnoupal and Chandel; Ukhrul into Kamjong and Ukhrul; and Senapati into Kangpokpi and Senapati. In Valley, two Districts – Imphal East and Thoubal – were bifurcated: Imphal East into Imphal East and Jiribam; Thoubal into Thoubal and Kakching. The remaining two Valley Districts are Bishenpur and Imphal West.

Significantly, while overall fatalities in the State, on year on year basis, are broadly following a declining trend since 2010, although with sharp spikes in 2012 and 2015, the share of violence in the Hill Districts has been increasing.

In the volatile Hill areas, there are now apprehensions of further danger. Reports indicate that the minority Rohingya Muslims under threat of Government Forces in Myanmar’s Rakhine State, could attempt to sneak into Manipur’s Hill areas. Chief Minister N. Biren Singh on September 9, 2017, thus observed, “The international border with Myanmar is porous and all steps have been taken to check any attempt to sneak into Manipur.” Five out of the 10 Hill Districts – Ukhrul, Churachandpur, Chandel, Tengnoupal and Kamjong – fall along the Indo-Myanmar border. Two (Churachandpur and Chandel) of these have contiguous border with Myanmar’s Chin State, which shares it borders with the Rakhine State. No District in Valley has contiguous borders with Myanmar.

The trouble in the Rakhine State escalated dramatically on August 25, 2017, when Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) militants wielding sticks, knives and crude bombs carried out coordinated attacks on 30 Police Posts and an Army Base – killing one soldier, 10 Policemen, and one immigration officer. Subsequently, the military launched a counter-offensive and media reports indicate that at least 400 people, including at least 59 militants, have been killed since then, and nearly 380,000 Rohingyas have fled into Bangladesh.

Though there are no confirmed reports about the number of Rohingyas residing in Manipur, Chief Minister N. Biren Singh reportedly stated, on September 13, 2017, that there were at least 22 inmates from Myanmar, including 10 Rohingyas, in the Sajiwa Central Jail in Imphal East District, even after their jail terms had expired (date not specified). Reports stated that nine of the 10 imprisoned Rohingyas have been in prison since 2012, and one since 2014.

Any influx of Rohingya Muslims could further destabilize the situation in Manipur at a time when a Joint Committee on the Inner-Line Permit System (JCILPS), a civil society group, on September 4, 2017, had renewed the call for the Inner Line Permit (ILP) system to check the entry of “outsiders” into the State. JCILPS had first raised the demand for the ILP system in 2012.

Manipur has experienced the presence of armed Islamist militant outfits in past, though these secured minimal ‘success’. The People’s United Liberation Front (PULF), founded in 1993, was the most prominent among these. Though the group remains active, the last incident of violence it was found to be involved in was way back in 2013. On March 23, 2013, suspected PULF militants had set ablaze a private truck in the Yairipok area of Thoubal District. The truck owner P. Jiban Singh (32) testified that PULF militants had demanded money some months earlier. The militants hijacked the truck, which was en route to Machi village from Yairipok, on March 22, and the driver was let off. Other lesser known Islamic groups that once operated in Manipur include the Islamic Revolutionary Front (IRF), Islamic National Front (INF), United Islamic Liberation Army (UILA), and United Islamic Revolutionary Army (UIRA). Significantly, most of these groups were under SFs radar again in the aftermath of ethnic clashes between Bodos and Muslims in the Bodoland Territorial Administrated Districts (BTAD) of Assam and the adjoining District of Dhubri (also in Assam) in July 2012, in which at least 80 persons were killed. At that time, the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (UMHA), according to a August 7, 2012, report, had prepared a list of at least 19 Islamist outfits – 14 in Assam and five in Manipur – for their suspected involvement in violence. The five Manipur based groups included – PULF, IRF, INF, UILA, and UIRA, listed above.

Reports indicate that some measures to check any future influx have already been initiated. The media cited an unnamed official source on September 9, 2017, as stating, “The Police Headquarters alerted the Superintendent of Police of the border Districts two days ago, asking them to be on strict vigil to check influx of displaced Rohingya Muslims into Manipur. Police teams, led by respective Sub-divisional Police Officers and officers-in-charge of Police Stations, have been patrolling the border round-the-clock.” Reports also indicated that 46 suspected illegal migrants (not Rohingyas) were detained in the State between September 10, 2017, and September 13, 2017.

Tight vigil along the Indo- Myanmar border and sustained action against surviving militant formations would be necessary to deal with the evolving situation in Manipur, particularly in the Hill Regions.

* Giriraj Bhattacharjee
Research Assistant, Institute for Conflict Management

By Ryan Dagur

The Jakarta city government is working with Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), Indonesia’s largest Islamic organization, to train and educate Islamic preachers to spread messages of unity and peace in a bid to combat a rise in extremism and religious intolerance.

The Islamic organization will train up to 1,000 preachers in a program starting in November.

New Jakarta governor, Djarot Saiful Hidayat, said authorities want to educate preachers “to preach proper Islamic teachings … and a tolerant Islam.”

He said he does not want extremism and intolerance to gain a foothold in the city.

According to Maksum Machfiedz, the deputy head of NU’s central executive board, the training program, to be funded by city authorities will focus on how to make Islam Nusantara (Islam of the Archipelago) a central practice among Muslims in Indonesia.

Islam Nusantara is a concept developed by the NU, based on cultural and pluralist approaches, to propagate peaceful Islam throughout the world.

Activists have welcomed the move, calling it an urgently needed response to the growing threat of extremism, which is increasingly being promoted in places of worship.

Bonar Tigor Naipospos, deputy director of the Setara Institute for Democracy and Peace told ucanews.com on Sept. 14 that intolerant and extremist groups target mosques, especially those in housing areas and near offices to spread their views.

“They try to become the preachers during prayers, especially Friday prayers,” he said.

Naipospos said this was clearly seen during this year’s Jakarta gubernatorial election, where mosques were used by intolerant groups to attack the incumbent Chinese Christian governor, Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, who was later convicted of blasphemy for having complained that voters were being falsely told that voting for non-Muslims was against the Quran.

Naipospos said the joint effort between the Jakarta authorities and the NU needs to be a model that can be applied in other cities.

“We need further efforts to save houses of worship from intolerant groups,” he said.

Father Antonius Benny Susetyo, an activist, said the training initiative was a step forward for people to understand religion in its entirety so as not to be fooled that it is something to be used for political purposes.

“Religion is often used as political tool for the manipulation of truth and to justify violence,” he said.

“We also hope that the cooperation [between the city and NU] will restore the true function of a house of worship as a place of encounter with a merciful God,” he said.

By Nurjamal Djanibekova*

It is back to square one for Kyrgyzstan, as the Central Asian state strives to build a giant hydropower plant. Representatives of a little-known entity from the Czech Republic, which was the surprise winner of a tender last summer, acknowledged on September 18 that they do not have the money to proceed with the project.

Last July, the Kyrgyz government announced that the Czech company, Liglass Trading, had won the rights to a multimillion-dollar project to build and operate power plants on the country’s Upper Naryn cascade, along with several other smaller hydropower facilities.

The story that unfolded in the weeks that followed included unusual goings-on at a shell company in Nevada, a frantic flurry of trading on the US penny stocks market and calls for a parliamentary inquiry. Some in Kyrgyzstan believe there are shady financial machinations afoot, but the investors at the heart of the drama deny all accusations of wrongdoing.

After the story of Liglass Trading’s improbably successful bid for the Kyrgyzstan hydropower contract broke on July 10, media outlets in the Czech Republic scrambled to discover more about a company unknown to pretty much everybody in the business community.

Liglass Trading’s own corporate website initially suggested that it was an outfit with vast experience in running similar projects, not just in the Czech Republic, but also in Armenia and Russia. When investigations revealed this history to be wildly exaggerated, all of the website’s content disappeared, replaced by an “Under Construction” notice.

Later, when journalists from Czech news outlet Aktuálně investigated the address where Liglass Trading was registered, all they found was a crumbling factory with a leaky roof. Liglass Trading’s financial report for 2014 showed it registering losses of around $53,000 — an underwhelming record for a company expected to run a project that could end up costing up to $700 million to complete.

But as an investigation carried out by Kyrgyz activist Edil Baisalov revealed, Liglass Trading was busy elsewhere this year. A marketing prospectus produced by the company, subsequent to the announcement of the hydropower contract, showed that at some point in 2017, Liglass Trading acquired 92 percent of the common stock of China Intelligence Information Systems, Inc., or IICN. It was in effect a reverse merger that seemingly placed the fate of the Upper Naryn cascade project in the hands of an opaque entity.

IICN’s history is convoluted.

It was incorporated in the US state of Nevada in 2004, ostensibly to develop a mineral claim in Canada. It later drastically changed direction, ditching the mineral exploration business in favor of focusing on digital communications in China. In its last known SEC filing, in 2012, IICN announced it was defaulting on millions of dollars in outstanding loans.

At an unspecified date after that, the company passed into the hands of the trio behind Liglass Trading — Jiri Vojtechovsky, Michael Smelik and Juraj Pavol — and lay dormant.

The Kyrgyzstan contract changed everything.

About a week after the announcement, the persistently sluggish IICN stock caught fire. Shares selling on the over-the-counter penny stock market at $0.005 apiece in early July had, by August 18, soared to a historic high of $0.39. The stock closed at $0.16 on September 15.

In Kyrgyzstan, Baisalov, the activist, became suspicious and decided to follow the money. His investigation culminated in an article published by the Bishkek-based news website Respublika that accused Liglass Trading of involvement in a so-called pump-and-dump scheme — artificially inflating the value of stock for one’s own profit.

In an email to EurasiaNet.org, Liglass chief investment officer Juraj Pavol indignantly denied the accusation, insisting that neither he nor his two partners in Liglass and IICN were in any position to make money from trading in shares. “We have possession only of restricted stocks, which cannot be sold and [won’t] be in next [two] years. Otherwise it would be punishable by US law,” Pavol wrote.

Pavol said that he and his colleagues had specifically refrained from making any public statements about IICN in recent weeks. He declined, however, to comment on the details included in the Liglass Trading marketing prospectus, which dwelled in detail on the Czech company’s lucrative Kyrgyzstan contract.

Meanwhile, another figure with business ties to Liglass Trading has been extremely vocal on the internet about IICN and the fortunes of its stock.

Among Liglass Trading partners listed on the Czech company’s website is Florida-based Patienttrac Corp., an outfit run by an American businessman, H. Wayne Hayes, Jr.

Hayes insists that none of the recent stock movement amounted to anything improper. “These specious claims of millions of profits [are] an outrageous lie,” he wrote in a note to EurasiaNet.org. “There has been no pump and secondly you have to own stock to dump. There has been no significant increase in the volume of shares trading, and certainly no indication of a promotion of stock.”

What is certain is that Liglass Trading, with the September 18 announcement, has failed to stump up the $37 million required to buy out the previous leader on the project, Russia’s RusHydro. The State Committee for Energy and Industry had given the Czech company a September 19 deadline to come up with the money.

One particularly vocal MP, Janar Akayev, has demanded the creation of special commission to investigate how the contract came to be awarded to Liglass Trading in the first place.

*Nurjamal Djanibekova is a reporter based in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan.

By Harsh V. Pant

The BRICS declaration of 2017 issued at Xiamen, China, has generated significant euphoria in India. The 43-page declaration, adopted by the five member states, took a strong stance against terrorism for the first time since its inception, expressing “concern” over the security situation in the region and the violence caused by the Taliban, ISIS, al-Qaeda and its affiliates, including Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, the Haqqani network, Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM), Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and Hizb ut-Tahrir.

This is a remarkable turnaround for a grouping that was unwilling to talk about groups like LeT and JeM based in Pakistan till last year. At the 2016 Goa summit of BRICS, China had led the way in scuttling any mention of these groups in the declaration despite India making it a priority issue. This had caused considerable dismay in India with many observers questioning the very utility of a BRICS platform for India.

New Delhi successfully managed to convey its strong feelings on the issue of terrorism to Beijing and Xi Jinping, who wanted to make the BRICS summit a success, had no compunction in taking on the issue as part of the declaration.

Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Geng Shuang justified his country’s stand by suggesting that with this declaration, BRICS countries have “shown their concerns to the violent activities raised by these organisations.”

“These organisations are all sanctioned by the UN Security Council and have a significant impact for Afghanistan issue,” Geng underlined.

That Pakistan saw this as a real challenge was evident in its Foreign Minister Khawaja Asif’s remarks that, “We [Pakistan] need to break our false image. We have no stake but there is baggage. We need to accept the history and correct ourselves.” Islamabad was worried about China’s stance and Asif made it clear that Pakistan needed “to tell our friends that we have improved our house. We need to bring our house in order to prevent facing embarrassment on an international level.”

While there is much to commend in the way Indian diplomacy managed to get Chinese support on this issue and the likely pressure it will put on Pakistan to clean up its act, it is also true that it is unlikely to change much on the ground in so far as Sino-Pak ties are concerned.

Pakistan’s Foreign Minister, too, paid a visit to China recently when he was reassured by Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, that “there has been no change in Chinese policy regarding Pakistan…Pakistan and China are in constant contact regarding regional challenges,” he added, stressing that China supports Pakistan’s stand on terror.

China’s support for the BRICS declaration has merely been a tactical ploy to make the summit a success. Its long-term strategic interest has always been to build Pakistan as an equal to India to block New Delhi’s ascent in the global hierarchy. And this strategy is not going to change anytime soon.

The Xiamen declaration should, therefore, be evaluated accordingly. In any case, India’s bid in the UN Security Council Sanctions Committee 1267 to list action against the JeM chief Maulana Masood Azhar will be back next month. And Chinese actions will speak for themselves.

This commentary originally appeared in DNA.

(RFE/RL) — U.S. President Donald Trump has used his first address to the UN General Assembly to call on members to take a harder line against North Korea and Iran — threatening to “totally destroy North Korea” if the United Nations fails to address the threats it poses, and to abandon Iran’s nuclear deal with world powers.

In his September 19 speech, Trump spoke in tough terms about the threat to global security posed by North Korea’s development of nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles.

He referred to North Korean leader Kim Jung Un as “Rocket Man,” saying he was on a “suicide mission.”

“The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea,” Trump said.

“Rocket Man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime,” Trump said. “The United States is ready, willing, and able. But hopefully, this will not be necessary. That’s what the United Nations is all about. That’s what the United Nations is for. Let’s see how they do.”

Trump welcomed recent UN Security Council sanctions imposed against North Korea over its latest nuclear weapons tests, but told the General Assembly that “we must do much more.”

“It is time for all nations to work together to isolate the Kim regime until it ceases its hostile behavior,” Trump said.

“If the righteous many do not confront the wicked few, then evil will triumph,” Trump said. “When decent people and nations become bystanders to history, the forces of destruction only gather power and strength.”

The UN Security Council has imposed several rounds of sanctions on North Korea over its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs. Pyongyang warned on September 18 that more sanctions and pressure will only make it accelerate its nuclear program.

The Chinese and Russian foreign ministers, Wang Yi and Sergei Lavrov, called for a peaceful end to what they termed a “vicious cycle” on the Korean Peninsula as they met in New York, China’s Foreign Ministry said on September 19.

Moscow and Beijing are calling for North Korea to stop its missile and nuclear tests in exchange for the United States and South Korea holding off on future large joint military drills.

Iran Nuclear Deal ‘Worst, Most One-Sided’

Trump also said it was “far past time” for the countries of the world to confront Iran, which he called “another reckless” and “murderous regime” that is “undermining peace throughout the Middle East.”

He said Tehran cannot be allowed to continue developing its “dangerous missiles.”

Speaking about Iran’s nuclear deal with six world powers, Trump told the General Assembly, “We cannot abide by an agreement if it provides cover for the eventual construction of a nuclear program.”

Trump said the Iran nuclear deal was “one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the United States has ever entered into.”

“Frankly, that deal is an embarrassment to the United States, and I don’t think you’ve heard the last of it. Believe me,” Trump said.

“The Iranian government masks a corrupt dictatorship behind the false guise of a democracy,” Trump said, describing the country as an “economically-depleted rogue state whose chief exports are violence, bloodshed, and chaos.”

“It is time for the entire world to join us in demanding that Iran’s government end its pursuit of death and destruction.”

U.S. and UN watchdogs monitoring compliance have found Iran has adhered to the accord, which eased international economic sanctions on Tehran in exchange for curbs on its nuclear activities.

However, the Trump administration has frequently charged that Tehran breaks the “spirit” of the deal, including by continuing to test-launch ballistic missiles and rockets capable of carrying nuclear warheads. It has also lobbied for tougher nuclear inspections in Iran, including at military sites.

Trump also had criticism for Russia and China, saying, “We must reject threats to sovereignty from Ukraine to the South China Sea.”

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, who is also the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Armed Forces, observed the action of the troops of Russia and Belarus during the main stage of the Zapad-2017 joint strategic military exercises at the Luzhsky training ground in Leningrad Region.

The Zapad-2017 exercises are taking place at Russian and Belarusian training grounds on September 14–20.

They involve about 12,700 troops, about 70 aircraft and helicopters, up to 680 units of combat hardware, including about 250 tanks, up to 200 guns, multiple rocket launchers and mortars, and 10 warships.

According to the Kremlin, the main goals of the drill are to upgrade the operational coordination of various command levels, to integrate troop and weapon advanced command and control systems, to test new charter documents and to allow commanders at all levels to practice combat action planning based on the experience of present-day armed conflicts.

Mr. Secretary General, Mr. President, world leaders, and distinguished delegates: Welcome to New York. It is a profound honor to stand here in my home city, as a representative of the American people, to address the people of the world.

As millions of our citizens continue to suffer the effects of the devastating hurricanes that have struck our country, I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to every leader in this room who has offered assistance and aid. The American people are strong and resilient, and they will emerge from these hardships more determined than ever before.

Fortunately, the United States has done very well since Election Day last November 8th. The stock market is at an all-time high — a record. Unemployment is at its lowest level in 16 years, and because of our regulatory and other reforms, we have more people working in the United States today than ever before. Companies are moving back, creating job growth the likes of which our country has not seen in a very long time. And it has just been announced that we will be spending almost $700 billion on our military and defense.

Our military will soon be the strongest it has ever been. For more than 70 years, in times of war and peace, the leaders of nations, movements, and religions have stood before this assembly. Like them, I intend to address some of the very serious threats before us today but also the enormous potential waiting to be unleashed.

We live in a time of extraordinary opportunity. Breakthroughs in science, technology, and medicine are curing illnesses and solving problems that prior generations thought impossible to solve.

But each day also brings news of growing dangers that threaten everything we cherish and value. Terrorists and extremists have gathered strength and spread to every region of the planet. Rogue regimes represented in this body not only support terrorists but threaten other nations and their own people with the most destructive weapons known to humanity.

Authority and authoritarian powers seek to collapse the values, the systems, and alliances that prevented conflict and tilted the world toward freedom since World War II.

International criminal networks traffic drugs, weapons, people; force dislocation and mass migration; threaten our borders; and new forms of aggression exploit technology to menace our citizens.

To put it simply, we meet at a time of both of immense promise and great peril. It is entirely up to us whether we lift the world to new heights, or let it fall into a valley of disrepair.

We have it in our power, should we so choose, to lift millions from poverty, to help our citizens realize their dreams, and to ensure that new generations of children are raised free from violence, hatred, and fear.

This institution was founded in the aftermath of two world wars to help shape this better future. It was based on the vision that diverse nations could cooperate to protect their sovereignty, preserve their security, and promote their prosperity.

It was in the same period, exactly 70 years ago, that the United States developed the Marshall Plan to help restore Europe. Those three beautiful pillars — they’re pillars of peace, sovereignty, security, and prosperity.

The Marshall Plan was built on the noble idea that the whole world is safer when nations are strong, independent, and free. As President Truman said in his message to Congress at that time, “Our support of European recovery is in full accord with our support of the United Nations. The success of the United Nations depends upon the independent strength of its members.”

To overcome the perils of the present and to achieve the promise of the future, we must begin with the wisdom of the past. Our success depends on a coalition of strong and independent nations that embrace their sovereignty to promote security, prosperity, and peace for themselves and for the world.

We do not expect diverse countries to share the same cultures, traditions, or even systems of government. But we do expect all nations to uphold these two core sovereign duties: to respect the interests of their own people and the rights of every other sovereign nation. This is the beautiful vision of this institution, and this is foundation for cooperation and success.

Strong, sovereign nations let diverse countries with different values, different cultures, and different dreams not just coexist, but work side by side on the basis of mutual respect.

Strong, sovereign nations let their people take ownership of the future and control their own destiny. And strong, sovereign nations allow individuals to flourish in the fullness of the life intended by God.

In America, we do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example for everyone to watch. This week gives our country a special reason to take pride in that example. We are celebrating the 230th anniversary of our beloved Constitution — the oldest constitution still in use in the world today.

This timeless document has been the foundation of peace, prosperity, and freedom for the Americans and for countless millions around the globe whose own countries have found inspiration in its respect for human nature, human dignity, and the rule of law.

The greatest in the United States Constitution is its first three beautiful words. They are: “We the people.”

Generations of Americans have sacrificed to maintain the promise of those words, the promise of our country, and of our great history. In America, the people govern, the people rule, and the people are sovereign. I was elected not to take power, but to give power to the American people, where it belongs.

In foreign affairs, we are renewing this founding principle of sovereignty. Our government’s first duty is to its people, to our citizens — to serve their needs, to ensure their safety, to preserve their rights, and to defend their values.

As President of the United States, I will always put America first, just like you, as the leaders of your countries will always, and should always, put your countries first. (Applause.)

All responsible leaders have an obligation to serve their own citizens, and the nation-state remains the best vehicle for elevating the human condition.

But making a better life for our people also requires us to work together in close harmony and unity to create a more safe and peaceful future for all people.

The United States will forever be a great friend to the world, and especially to its allies. But we can no longer be taken advantage of, or enter into a one-sided deal where the United States gets nothing in return. As long as I hold this office, I will defend America’s interests above all else.

But in fulfilling our obligations to our own nations, we also realize that it’s in everyone’s interest to seek a future where all nations can be sovereign, prosperous, and secure.

America does more than speak for the values expressed in the United Nations Charter. Our citizens have paid the ultimate price to defend our freedom and the freedom of many nations represented in this great hall. America’s devotion is measured on the battlefields where our young men and women have fought and sacrificed alongside of our allies, from the beaches of Europe to the deserts of the Middle East to the jungles of Asia.

It is an eternal credit to the American character that even after we and our allies emerged victorious from the bloodiest war in history, we did not seek territorial expansion, or attempt to oppose and impose our way of life on others. Instead, we helped build institutions such as this one to defend the sovereignty, security, and prosperity for all.

For the diverse nations of the world, this is our hope. We want harmony and friendship, not conflict and strife. We are guided by outcomes, not ideology. We have a policy of principled realism, rooted in shared goals, interests, and values.

That realism forces us to confront a question facing every leader and nation in this room. It is a question we cannot escape or avoid. We will slide down the path of complacency, numb to the challenges, threats, and even wars that we face. Or do we have enough strength and pride to confront those dangers today, so that our citizens can enjoy peace and prosperity tomorrow?

If we desire to lift up our citizens, if we aspire to the approval of history, then we must fulfill our sovereign duties to the people we faithfully represent. We must protect our nations, their interests, and their futures. We must reject threats to sovereignty, from the Ukraine to the South China Sea. We must uphold respect for law, respect for borders, and respect for culture, and the peaceful engagement these allow. And just as the founders of this body intended, we must work together and confront together those who threaten us with chaos, turmoil, and terror.

The scourge of our planet today is a small group of rogue regimes that violate every principle on which the United Nations is based. They respect neither their own citizens nor the sovereign rights of their countries.

If the righteous many do not confront the wicked few, then evil will triumph. When decent people and nations become bystanders to history, the forces of destruction only gather power and strength.

No one has shown more contempt for other nations and for the wellbeing of their own people than the depraved regime in North Korea. It is responsible for the starvation deaths of millions of North Koreans, and for the imprisonment, torture, killing, and oppression of countless more.

We were all witness to the regime’s deadly abuse when an innocent American college student, Otto Warmbier, was returned to America only to die a few days later. We saw it in the assassination of the dictator’s brother using banned nerve agents in an international airport. We know it kidnapped a sweet 13-year-old Japanese girl from a beach in her own country to enslave her as a language tutor for North Korea’s spies.

If this is not twisted enough, now North Korea’s reckless pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles threatens the entire world with unthinkable loss of human life.

It is an outrage that some nations would not only trade with such a regime, but would arm, supply, and financially support a country that imperils the world with nuclear conflict. No nation on earth has an interest in seeing this band of criminals arm itself with nuclear weapons and missiles.

The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea. Rocket Man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime. The United States is ready, willing and able, but hopefully this will not be necessary. That’s what the United Nations is all about; that’s what the United Nations is for. Let’s see how they do.

It is time for North Korea to realize that the denuclearization is its only acceptable future. The United Nations Security Council recently held two unanimous 15-0 votes adopting hard-hitting resolutions against North Korea, and I want to thank China and Russia for joining the vote to impose sanctions, along with all of the other members of the Security Council. Thank you to all involved.

But we must do much more. It is time for all nations to work together to isolate the Kim regime until it ceases its hostile behavior.

We face this decision not only in North Korea. It is far past time for the nations of the world to confront another reckless regime — one that speaks openly of mass murder, vowing death to America, destruction to Israel, and ruin for many leaders and nations in this room.

The Iranian government masks a corrupt dictatorship behind the false guise of a democracy. It has turned a wealthy country with a rich history and culture into an economically depleted rogue state whose chief exports are violence, bloodshed, and chaos. The longest-suffering victims of Iran’s leaders are, in fact, its own people.

Rather than use its resources to improve Iranian lives, its oil profits go to fund Hezbollah and other terrorists that kill innocent Muslims and attack their peaceful Arab and Israeli neighbors. This wealth, which rightly belongs to Iran’s people, also goes to shore up Bashar al-Assad’s dictatorship, fuel Yemen’s civil war, and undermine peace throughout the entire Middle East.

We cannot let a murderous regime continue these destabilizing activities while building dangerous missiles, and we cannot abide by an agreement if it provides cover for the eventual construction of a nuclear program. (Applause.) The Iran Deal was one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the United States has ever entered into. Frankly, that deal is an embarrassment to the United States, and I don’t think you’ve heard the last of it — believe me.

It is time for the entire world to join us in demanding that Iran’s government end its pursuit of death and destruction. It is time for the regime to free all Americans and citizens of other nations that they have unjustly detained. And above all, Iran’s government must stop supporting terrorists, begin serving its own people, and respect the sovereign rights of its neighbors.

The entire world understands that the good people of Iran want change, and, other than the vast military power of the United States, that Iran’s people are what their leaders fear the most. This is what causes the regime to restrict Internet access, tear down satellite dishes, shoot unarmed student protestors, and imprison political reformers.

Oppressive regimes cannot endure forever, and the day will come when the Iranian people will face a choice. Will they continue down the path of poverty, bloodshed, and terror? Or will the Iranian people return to the nation’s proud roots as a center of civilization, culture, and wealth where their people can be happy and prosperous once again?

The Iranian regime’s support for terror is in stark contrast to the recent commitments of many of its neighbors to fight terrorism and halt its financing.

In Saudi Arabia early last year, I was greatly honored to address the leaders of more than 50 Arab and Muslim nations. We agreed that all responsible nations must work together to confront terrorists and the Islamist extremism that inspires them.

We will stop radical Islamic terrorism because we cannot allow it to tear up our nation, and indeed to tear up the entire world.

We must deny the terrorists safe haven, transit, funding, and any form of support for their vile and sinister ideology. We must drive them out of our nations. It is time to expose and hold responsible those countries who support and finance terror groups like al Qaeda, Hezbollah, the Taliban and others that slaughter innocent people.

The United States and our allies are working together throughout the Middle East to crush the loser terrorists and stop the reemergence of safe havens they use to launch attacks on all of our people.

Last month, I announced a new strategy for victory in the fight against this evil in Afghanistan. From now on, our security interests will dictate the length and scope of military operations, not arbitrary benchmarks and timetables set up by politicians.

I have also totally changed the rules of engagement in our fight against the Taliban and other terrorist groups. In Syria and Iraq, we have made big gains toward lasting defeat of ISIS. In fact, our country has achieved more against ISIS in the last eight months than it has in many, many years combined.

We seek the de-escalation of the Syrian conflict, and a political solution that honors the will of the Syrian people. The actions of the criminal regime of Bashar al-Assad, including the use of chemical weapons against his own citizens — even innocent children — shock the conscience of every decent person. No society can be safe if banned chemical weapons are allowed to spread. That is why the United States carried out a missile strike on the airbase that launched the attack.

We appreciate the efforts of United Nations agencies that are providing vital humanitarian assistance in areas liberated from ISIS, and we especially thank Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon for their role in hosting refugees from the Syrian conflict.

The United States is a compassionate nation and has spent billions and billions of dollars in helping to support this effort. We seek an approach to refugee resettlement that is designed to help these horribly treated people, and which enables their eventual return to their home countries, to be part of the rebuilding process.

For the cost of resettling one refugee in the United States, we can assist more than 10 in their home region. Out of the goodness of our hearts, we offer financial assistance to hosting countries in the region, and we support recent agreements of the G20 nations that will seek to host refugees as close to their home countries as possible. This is the safe, responsible, and humanitarian approach.

For decades, the United States has dealt with migration challenges here in the Western Hemisphere. We have learned that, over the long term, uncontrolled migration is deeply unfair to both the sending and the receiving countries.

For the sending countries, it reduces domestic pressure to pursue needed political and economic reform, and drains them of the human capital necessary to motivate and implement those reforms.

For the receiving countries, the substantial costs of uncontrolled migration are borne overwhelmingly by low-income citizens whose concerns are often ignored by both media and government.

I want to salute the work of the United Nations in seeking to address the problems that cause people to flee from their homes. The United Nations and African Union led peacekeeping missions to have invaluable contributions in stabilizing conflicts in Africa. The United States continues to lead the world in humanitarian assistance, including famine prevention and relief in South Sudan, Somalia, and northern Nigeria and Yemen.

We have invested in better health and opportunity all over the world through programs like PEPFAR, which funds AIDS relief; the President’s Malaria Initiative; the Global Health Security Agenda; the Global Fund to End Modern Slavery; and the Women Entrepreneurs Finance Initiative, part of our commitment to empowering women all across the globe.

We also thank — (applause) — we also thank the Secretary General for recognizing that the United Nations must reform if it is to be an effective partner in confronting threats to sovereignty, security, and prosperity. Too often the focus of this organization has not been on results, but on bureaucracy and process.

In some cases, states that seek to subvert this institution’s noble aims have hijacked the very systems that are supposed to advance them. For example, it is a massive source of embarrassment to the United Nations that some governments with egregious human rights records sit on the U.N. Human Rights Council.

The United States is one out of 193 countries in the United Nations, and yet we pay 22 percent of the entire budget and more. In fact, we pay far more than anybody realizes. The United States bears an unfair cost burden, but, to be fair, if it could actually accomplish all of its stated goals, especially the goal of peace, this investment would easily be well worth it.

Major portions of the world are in conflict and some, in fact, are going to hell. But the powerful people in this room, under the guidance and auspices of the United Nations, can solve many of these vicious and complex problems.

The American people hope that one day soon the United Nations can be a much more accountable and effective advocate for human dignity and freedom around the world. In the meantime, we believe that no nation should have to bear a disproportionate share of the burden, militarily or financially. Nations of the world must take a greater role in promoting secure and prosperous societies in their own regions.

That is why in the Western Hemisphere, the United States has stood against the corrupt and destabilizing regime in Cuba and embraced the enduring dream of the Cuban people to live in freedom. My administration recently announced that we will not lift sanctions on the Cuban government until it makes fundamental reforms.

We have also imposed tough, calibrated sanctions on the socialist Maduro regime in Venezuela, which has brought a once thriving nation to the brink of total collapse.

The socialist dictatorship of Nicolas Maduro has inflicted terrible pain and suffering on the good people of that country. This corrupt regime destroyed a prosperous nation by imposing a failed ideology that has produced poverty and misery everywhere it has been tried. To make matters worse, Maduro has defied his own people, stealing power from their elected representatives to preserve his disastrous rule.

The Venezuelan people are starving and their country is collapsing. Their democratic institutions are being destroyed. This situation is completely unacceptable and we cannot stand by and watch.

As a responsible neighbor and friend, we and all others have a goal. That goal is to help them regain their freedom, recover their country, and restore their democracy. I would like to thank leaders in this room for condemning the regime and providing vital support to the Venezuelan people.

The United States has taken important steps to hold the regime accountable. We are prepared to take further action if the government of Venezuela persists on its path to impose authoritarian rule on the Venezuelan people.

We are fortunate to have incredibly strong and healthy trade relationships with many of the Latin American countries gathered here today. Our economic bond forms a critical foundation for advancing peace and prosperity for all of our people and all of our neighbors.

I ask every country represented here today to be prepared to do more to address this very real crisis. We call for the full restoration of democracy and political freedoms in Venezuela. (Applause.)

The problem in Venezuela is not that socialism has been poorly implemented, but that socialism has been faithfully implemented. (Applause.) From the Soviet Union to Cuba to Venezuela, wherever true socialism or communism has been adopted, it has delivered anguish and devastation and failure. Those who preach the tenets of these discredited ideologies only contribute to the continued suffering of the people who live under these cruel systems.

America stands with every person living under a brutal regime. Our respect for sovereignty is also a call for action. All people deserve a government that cares for their safety, their interests, and their wellbeing, including their prosperity.

In America, we seek stronger ties of business and trade with all nations of good will, but this trade must be fair and it must be reciprocal.

For too long, the American people were told that mammoth multinational trade deals, unaccountable international tribunals, and powerful global bureaucracies were the best way to promote their success. But as those promises flowed, millions of jobs vanished and thousands of factories disappeared. Others gamed the system and broke the rules. And our great middle class, once the bedrock of American prosperity, was forgotten and left behind, but they are forgotten no more and they will never be forgotten again.

While America will pursue cooperation and commerce with other nations, we are renewing our commitment to the first duty of every government: the duty of our citizens. This bond is the source of America’s strength and that of every responsible nation represented here today.

If this organization is to have any hope of successfully confronting the challenges before us, it will depend, as President Truman said some 70 years ago, on the “independent strength of its members.” If we are to embrace the opportunities of the future and overcome the present dangers together, there can be no substitute for strong, sovereign, and independent nations — nations that are rooted in their histories and invested in their destinies; nations that seek allies to befriend, not enemies to conquer; and most important of all, nations that are home to patriots, to men and women who are willing to sacrifice for their countries, their fellow citizens, and for all that is best in the human spirit.

In remembering the great victory that led to this body’s founding, we must never forget that those heroes who fought against evil also fought for the nations that they loved.

Patriotism led the Poles to die to save Poland, the French to fight for a free France, and the Brits to stand strong for Britain.

Today, if we do not invest ourselves, our hearts, and our minds in our nations, if we will not build strong families, safe communities, and healthy societies for ourselves, no one can do it for us.

We cannot wait for someone else, for faraway countries or far-off bureaucrats — we can’t do it. We must solve our problems, to build our prosperity, to secure our futures, or we will be vulnerable to decay, domination, and defeat.

The true question for the United Nations today, for people all over the world who hope for better lives for themselves and their children, is a basic one: Are we still patriots? Do we love our nations enough to protect their sovereignty and to take ownership of their futures? Do we revere them enough to defend their interests, preserve their cultures, and ensure a peaceful world for their citizens?

One of the greatest American patriots, John Adams, wrote that the American Revolution was “effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people.”

That was the moment when America awoke, when we looked around and understood that we were a nation. We realized who we were, what we valued, and what we would give our lives to defend. From its very first moments, the American story is the story of what is possible when people take ownership of their future.

The United States of America has been among the greatest forces for good in the history of the world, and the greatest defenders of sovereignty, security, and prosperity for all.

Now we are calling for a great reawakening of nations, for the revival of their spirits, their pride, their people, and their patriotism.

History is asking us whether we are up to the task. Our answer will be a renewal of will, a rediscovery of resolve, and a rebirth of devotion. We need to defeat the enemies of humanity and unlock the potential of life itself.

Our hope is a word and world of proud, independent nations that embrace their duties, seek friendship, respect others, and make common cause in the greatest shared interest of all: a future of dignity and peace for the people of this wonderful Earth.

This is the true vision of the United Nations, the ancient wish of every people, and the deepest yearning that lives inside every sacred soul.

So let this be our mission, and let this be our message to the world: We will fight together, sacrifice together, and stand together for peace, for freedom, for justice, for family, for humanity, and for the almighty God who made us all.

Thank you. God bless you. God bless the nations of the world. And God bless the United States of America. Thank you very much. (Applause.)

Transcript released by White House, 9/19/2017

By Jim Hightower*

The self-described “Geniuses of Wall Street” are being stupid. Again.

In 2007, their stupid schemes and frauds crashed our economy, destroying middle-class jobs, wealth, and opportunities. Far from being punished, however, the scofflaws were bailed out by their Washington enablers — so the moral lesson they learned was clear: Stupid pays! Go Stupid!

Sure enough, here they come again.

Rather than investing America’s capital in real businesses to generate grassroots jobs and shared prosperity, Wall Street is siphoning billions of investment dollars into speculative nonsense — such as bundles of high-risk, subprime auto loans.

It works like this: Car dealers, eager to goose up sales, hawk new vehicles to lower-income people, offering quick loan approval, even to those with poor credit ratings. Banks — eager to hook more people on monthly car payments — okay these subprime car loans without verifying the buyer’s ability to pay.

Then, a Wall Street bank’s investment house buys up thousands of these iffy individual loans, bundles them into multimillion-dollar “debt securities,” and sells them to wealthy global speculators.

Last year alone, Bloomberg reports, banks sold $26 billion worth of these explosive bundles of car loans.

This is a gaseous repeat of Wall Street’s subprime mortgage bubble that burst a decade ago. The scam generates easy money at the start for speculators and banksters. But as more and more buyers are unable to make their car payments, defaults build up — and the whole financial bubble pops.

Wasting America’s much-needed investment capital on a scheme that intentionally puts people in cars they can’t afford with loans they can’t repay isn’t only stupid, but immoral — and it’s killing our real economy. Why are we letting elite Wall Street loan sharks do this to us?

*OtherWords columnist Jim Hightower is a radio commentator, writer, and public speaker. He’s also the editor of the populist newsletter, The Hightower Lowdown. Distributed by OtherWords.org.

On September 19th, in a closed-door session with several prominent members of the US media, Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani delivered a defiant yet conciliatory message to the United States.

Responding to various questions on the nuclear accord, Yemen, Syria, the Kurdish quest for independence, US-Iran relations, etc., Rouhani spoke confidently about the improving regional climate marked with the growing defeat of terrorist groups and the stability role played by Iran in the neighboring crises.

“Isn’t fighting terrorism our collective responsibility?” Rouhani asked rhetorically, adding that we “live in a chaotic region” and Iran takes credit for the current setbacks faced by the terrorist groups in Iraq and Syria. Defending Iran’s foreign behavior, Rouhani dismissed the US’ criticisms and openly wondered if the “deafening silence” on the Saudi atrocities in Yemen would be happening if it weren’t for the lucrative financial and military deals made between US and other Western governments with the Saudis, who are clueless about elections and participatory democracy.

With respect to the nuclear accord and the present US attempts to scuttle it, Rouhani began by reminding the audience of the long and arduous negotiations among seven nations, crediting the agreement to smart multilateral diplomacy, highlighting the accord’s benefits in terms of a “foundational shift” resulting in drastic improvement of relations between Iran and Europe in particular.

Stressing that only the UN’s atomic agency is responsible for verifying Iran’s compliance with the agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Rouhani warned against any unilateral attempts to supplant the IAEA and issue arbitrary declarations on Iran’s (non) compliance.

Viewing the US sanctions as both ineffective and a “mistake,” Rouhani hinted at Iran’s choosing an alternative path should the Trump administration deliver on its threat to scrap the agreement. Yet, he fell short of stating that in a such a scenario Iran would abandon the historic agreement that was reached two years ago. Citing Iran’s improved trade relations with the rest of the world since the agreement, Rouhani predicted that in the event of a walkout by the US other countries would continue to do business with Iran in line with their own economic interests.

Portraying Iran’s defense build-up as purely defensive, Rouhani criticized the huge arms inflow to the region and viewed them as “destabilizing.” He cautioned against a runaway arms race in the region and counseled the Western governments to refrain from their addiction of arms sales to Iran’s neighbors in Persian Gulf.

On the question of Iraqi Kurd’s plan for a referendum, Rouhani was adamant that it was a “dangerous move” and could trigger unwanted instabilities and even “multiple wars” in the region. “This would create great tensions in the region,” Rouhani warned, predicting a “domino effect.”

In conclusion, Rouhani struck a defiant yet conciliatory message to the US that will likely be repeated on a grand scale on Wednesday when he takes up the podium at UN General Assembly a day after Trump’s speech interlaced with Iranophobic sentiments. What this means in terms of the deteriorating US-Iran relations will remain to be seen.

The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania has released a new survey on the public’s knowledge of basic constitutional rights; it is disturbing on many levels.

Every totalitarian movement in history, beginning with the French Revolution, has sought to crush conscience rights. That is because conscience rights are inextricably linked to religious rights, making freedom of religion the one right that totalitarian rulers fear most. This alone justifies a well-crafted civics program in the public schools. It is also cause for despair after reading the Annenberg survey.

More than a third of Americans, 37 percent, can’t name any of the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. Nearly half, 48 percent, list freedom of speech as a guaranteed right, but only 15 percent can name freedom of religion. The results of other survey houses indicate that matters have gotten worse.

The First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University has been tracking this issue for decades. In 2014, it found that 68 percent were able to identify freedom of speech as a guaranteed right, but only 29 percent could name freedom of religion. Twenty years ago, the respective figures were 49 percent and 21 percent.

Why is it that knowledge of our First Amendment right to freedom of religion always trails our awareness of freedom of speech? Is it because the rights crusade that began in the 1960s is more often associated with free speech rights? Yet the efforts by Rev. Martin Luther King were anchored more in religious rights than free speech rights.

Why is it that we are apparently going backwards on both measures, especially on religious rights? To be exact, between 1997 and 2017, our knowledge of free speech as a First Amendment right slipped by 2 percent, but our knowledge of freedom of religion dropped by 29 percent. Is it because the public schools harbor a phobia, or worse, about religious expression?

We are currently witnessing an assault on our First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and in both instances it is emanating largely from the schools: colleges and universities are doing a pitiful job defending freedom of speech on campus, and religious rights are increasingly imperiled at the elementary and secondary levels.

Freedom depends, in part, on our vigilance in protecting fundamental human rights. If the first freedom to go is freedom of religion—history shows that it is—then these survey findings are not encouraging. We are not likely to defend rights we barely know exist.

Diabetes is characterised by a deficiency of insulin. The opposite is the case in congenital hyperinsulinism: patients produce the hormone too frequently and in excessive quantities, even if they haven’t eaten any carbohydrates. Since the function of insulin is to metabolise sugars, excess production of insulin leads to chronic hypoglycaemia. The brain, which devours vast quantities of energy, is perpetually undernourished.

The disorder can therefore lead to serious brain damage and even death in the worst cases. A team at the University of Geneva (UNIGE), Switzerland, supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) has succeeded in precisely describing the effects of a frequent genetic mutation in cases of congenital hyperinsulinism. This discovery, which has been published in Human Molecular Genetics, could pave the way for new therapies.

Congenital hyperinsulinism starts exerting its effects from birth. Although it is considered to be a rare disease, affecting roughly one in every 50,000 newborn babies, it may be underdiagnosed. “Unless you are looking for it, hypoglycaemia can easily go unnoticed in an infant,” explained Pierre Maechler, a researcher at the Faculty Diabetes Center from the Faculty of Medecine, UNIGE and the lead author of the study. “Without intervention it can rapidly take a dramatic course.”

The researchers focused on a genetic mutation known to be associated with hyperinsulinism. This gene produces a protein known as GDH, which instructs the pancreas to release insulin. It normally behaves differently once the level of blood glucose passes a certain threshold. Then GDH opens up to receive a molecule known as an accelerator that binds to it. In this way the protein moves into the active phase, which in turn sends a signal to the pancreas, causing it to produce more insulin.

In congenital hyperinsulinism the mutant gene causes the structure of the protein to change. The protein remains permanently receptive to the accelerator molecule, whatever the level of glucose in the blood. As a result, it constantly sends signals to the pancreas, telling it to release insulin, which it then does excessively.

Insulin promotes the transfer of glucose to the muscles. If there is a constant surplus of insulin, it leads to undernourishment of the brain, which in turn results in brain damage and intellectual retardation, and to coma and even death in the most critical cases. Sugar is not the main culprit, though. “In these patients, even a meal consisting solely of protein will trigger the production of insulin,” Pierre Maechler said.

People with this mutation also develop a surplus of ammonia – known as hyperammonaemia – which can equally have serious repercussions on brain function. This work, which was carried out by the PhD student Mariagrazia Grimaldi, showed that the cause of this problem is exactly the same: the mutant version of the GDH protein, which is always receptive to its accelerator, also causes excess production of ammonia in the liver.

The treatments currently available for congenital hyperinsulinism are problematic: they range from almost total removal of the pancreas, which produces diabetes artificially, to administration of drugs which regulate the activity of the pancreatic cells more or less precisely but have major side effects.

This new study could pave the way for new treatments. “We can imagine developing a drug that inhibits the GDH accelerator by occupying the same site, which would reduce the production of insulin,” Pierre Maechler said. A drug of this type might also be used to treat obesity: if there is no insulin in the body, the person does not gain weight. The researcher points out that “the protein GDH could enable the production of insulin to be regulated. This type of approach, while appearing to offer an extremely simple solution, would of course raise questions and ethical problems. But we know that in some cases diets don’t work, and gastric bypass surgery is by no means a harmless solution either.”

The team working with Pierre Maechler is also studying the role of fructose in the development of type 2 diabetes. In a forthcoming publication it shows that this sugar leads to glucose hypersensitivity, which manifests as increased insulin production. This discovery could confirm the suspected links between the massive use of fructose by the food industry since the 1980s and the sharp increase in the number of people with type 2 diabetes a few years later.

Thanks to the international pet trade, populations of exotic animals are popping up in unexpected places worldwide. One of these successful invaders is the monk parakeet: a small, green parrot native to South America that now flies free in cities across North America, Europe, and elsewhere around the world.

In a new paper published in PLOS ONE, Elizabeth Hobson and colleagues describe a recent, rapid, and ongoing invasion of monk parakeets in Mexico, and the regulatory changes that affected the species’ spread.

The authors point out two regulatory decisions that shifted the global market for pet monk parakeets from Europe to Mexico. In 2007, the European Union banned imports of wild-caught birds, concerned that they might carry avian flu. The very next year, Mexico cracked down on the pet trade of its own native parrots.

As a result, nearly half a million birds — almost all originally from Uruguay — were imported into Mexico over the course of five years. Prior to this influx, people had reported seeing monk parakeets flying free in Mexico City in 2005. And in 2008 — the year Mexico implemented its restrictions — the parakeets were reported in just five cities. But by the end of 2015, people had seen the birds in 97 different cities across all regions of Mexico.

“It’s a really unusual invasion,” said Hobson. The new populations all began to appear around the same time, and they seem to have emerged independently; that is, the populations probably haven’t grown through individuals moving from one city to the next, but rather, through escaped or released pets in each city. “The pet trade in Mexico provided a giant influx of individuals, setting the conditions for this kind of invasion to happen.

In 2016, Mexico declared the monk parakeet an invasive species and is now beginning to consider management steps.

“As a critical first step, they need to know when the species got there and where they are. This paper is setting that foundational basis by drawing data from a lot of different sources,” said Hobson.

Hobson and her co-authors — Grace Smith-Vidaurre, a Fulbright fellow in Uruguay, and Alejandro Salinas-Melgoza, a professor in Mexico — first developed this research idea during a meeting at the Santa Fe Institute. Hobson, a postdoctoral fellow with the ASU-SFI Center for Biosocial Complex Systems, anticipates exploring several other research questions around this unique monk parakeet invasion in the future.

Walk into a room, see a chair, and your brain will tell you that you can sit in it, tip it over or lift it up, but you wouldn’t even consider drinking it, promoting it or unlocking it. As humans, explains Brigham Young University computer science professor David Wingate, we know intuitively that certain verbs pair naturally with certain nouns, and we also know that most verbs don’t make sense when paired with random nouns.

“Consider the monitor on your desk: you can look at it, you can turn it on, you can even pick it up or throw it, but you cannot impeach it, transpose it, justify it or correct it,” said Wingate. “You can dethrone a king or worship him or obey him, but you cannot unlock him or calendar him or harvest him.”

That intuition, for the most part, doesn’t exist with computer artificial intelligence agents, who are good at identifying objects but less so in knowing what to do with them. So Wingate and three student researchers, including lead author Nancy Fulda, developed a method for teaching agents about affordances — the set of actions that can be done with an object. They recently presented their work at the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence.

The team’s ambitious end goal is to help build androids that can walk around the world and interact with it intelligently. Such an android “has incredible potential to do good, to help people,” said Fulda, who is finishing her Ph.D. in computer science. An example she gives is elderly care: a robot who is told to “get me my glasses” could figure out what glasses look like, where they’re likely to be, how heavy they are, how best to lift them and how to get them to the person requesting them.

As it stands right now, explains BYU computer science undergrad and research co-author Ben Murdoch, there are plenty of artificial intelligence agents who can identify what they’re looking at, but they can’t go beyond the ID: they might know they’re looking at a phone but don’t necessarily know what a phone is good for.

“When machine learning researchers turn robots or artificially intelligent agents loose in unstructured environments, they try all kinds of crazy stuff,” said Murdoch. “The common-sense understanding of what you can do with objects is utterly missing, and we end up with robots who will spend thousands of hours trying to eat the table.”

Because the hand-coding needed to help an agent understand which verbs make sense with which nouns would be a laborious, slow-moving process, BYU’s research team instead found a way to put linear algebra and Wikipedia to use. Understanding that Wikipedia offers a vast corpus of mostly up-to-date language use, they downloaded it, ran it through a previously established algorithm that looks at words in their contexts, “and voila! The computer is equipped with common-sense knowledge about things that make sense,” said Wingate, who recently received a National Science Foundation Career Award to help fund his artificial intelligence work.

For this project, the team tested their method in a series of text-based adventure games, which allow a player and agent to have back and forth text interactions, with the agent offering a situation and the player responding with a written phrase. Their method improved the computer’s performance on 12 out of 16 games.

Even with help from Wikipedia, the team’s agent makes mistakes with its language use. But he’s made progress: unlike he tried to do in one of their early games, “he doesn’t bulldoze Santa,” said Fulda. “I love it when the agent does something that surprises me in a good way. I’m like, it did it: it figured it out all by itself. It’s kind of like watching your child take their first steps.”

There’s plenty of work still to be done before reaching the team’s end goal of having a functioning android, said co-author and BYU computer science master’s student Daniel Ricks. “But it’s really exciting to see the progress we’ve made.”

He was there with his entourage, a face unmoved bar the occasional muscle flex. “There’s Malcolm Turnbull!” exclaimed drinking companions at the Curtin on Melbourne’s famed Lygon Street, the artery of culinary matters Italian.

It wasn’t: Bill Shorten, the leader of the Australian Labor Party and contender for the Prime Ministership of Australia, was nursing a drink this Friday evening, treating it with the sort of caution one reserves for a lice infested child.

Various appellations and amalgams come to mind: Malcolm Shorten; Bill Malcolm; Malcolm Bill. Leaving aside the statistical dimension of who is the preferred person for prime minister, a poll that Shorten tends to lose, their similarity on much ground is stunning. Bill goes for the poor zinger-heavy speech; Malcolm goes for the fluffy slogan (growth, jobs) and the hunt for the tedious moniker to give his opponents. Substance is only optional.

Who, then, to turn to? Between the union machine hack and the uninspiring sloganeering merchant banker, Australian politics is suffering a death by boredom, the stifling middle belt that resists radical reform. The stage, then, is set for the next spectacular – this, after all, is the age of Donald Trump, where the absurd is scripted as a daily show.

The mad monk comes to mind, so mad he turns Australian politics inside out with an extreme touch, simple yet purely animal. That mad monk, the fab loon, the reactionary: Tony Abbott. There are others, the sort who infuriate, and trick, the spin doctor and the public relations entourage who distort and cloak. Their version of democracy is the controlled press statement, damage control and staged popularity. But former prime minister Abbott was always impossible to muzzle, allergic to modern forms of containment. Before Trump-Bannon, there was Abbott-Credlin.

If Australian forces would have to go it alone in Iraq, even without US air cover, he would say so with flag waving enthusiasm. On November 25, 2015, Abbott put forth the suggestion to staff and planners that 3,500 Australian soldiers could be deployed to deal with the Islamic State.

The Australian, a Murdoch paper usually in favour of drum beating reactionary politics, found this particular idea dazzling for its original stupidity. “The proposal to invade Iraq raises the issue of Mr Abbott’s judgment – it was made two months before his decision to award a knighthood to Prince Philip.”[1] Trump would have been impressed with both.

If deploying Australian armed personnel into a Ukrainian war zone to consolidate an air crash site was possible, he would also step up to the mark. This nugget surfaced in the revelations of former Australian Army officer James Brown, who called this “the clearest case in recent times of a prime minister struggling to grasp the limits of Australian military power”.[2]

Covering him in the news would be like encapsulating a typhoon of verity. However detestable, he remained, and remains, pure to his loathing, dedicated to principle. It is the purity he carries with him to his cosy position at Radio 2GB, where he is feted by the shock jock family.

On the issue of same-sex marriage, he is evidently at home, the revolutionary who prefers to attack, rather than govern. For those against the measure to change the marriage laws, he is gold dust, giving the impression of tolerance while making sure that his position is left clearly combative.

“Like most,” he explained in the Fairfax Press, “I have tried to be there for friends and family who are gay. They are good people who deserve our love, respect and inclusion but that doesn’t mean that we can’t continue to reserve the term ‘marriage’ for the relationship of one man with one woman, ideally for life and usually dedicated to children.”[3]

Marriage as the sacred, reserved institution, special, biological, and for the heterosexuals to make or break. Besides, claims this authentic article, same-sex couples already have “marriage equality” despite not having it, the existence of something by another name.

A similar genuine article, Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, also teeters in mad territory, a fabulous counterweight to Turnbull. Here is a person who will make international waves attacking a Hollywood actor for evading quarantine regulations. He will snipe at environmentalists while defending the use of pilfered water from the Murray Darling system. Joyce has a mouth which will go on vacation when it needs to.

Through Australia’s upper chamber, we also see the colourful expressions of the genuine article. There is Pauline Hanson to shore up a form of extremism that tends to find diluted form in the centre of politics; there are such figures as Derryn Hinch and Jacqui Lambie. (“You have no moral values and to go after the public broadcaster is an absolute disgrace,” she thundered in a late-night Senate speech on the government’s media reforms.)

Such figures rarely attain the top position, being monitoring spoilers, the shock troops of controversy. Abbott was rewarded with the prime ministership, briefly, and was knifed by his own party. Joyce may well find that he is ineligible to sit in Parliament, courtesy of New Zealand citizenship he did not believe he had. But no one would ever confuse them for Bill Malcolm, or Malcolm Shorten.

Notes:
[1] http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/investigations/tony-abbott-sought-military-advice-on-goitalone-invasion-of-iraq/news-story/3722eb9a8b921322d58aee677508aa80

[2] http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/tony-abbotts-office-floated-sending-australian-troops-into-ukraine-conflict-defence-expert-claims-20160612-gphbab.html

[3] http://www.smh.com.au/comment/tony-abbott-on-why-same-sex-marriage-would-fundamentally-change-society-20170912-gyfi4f.html

A cornerstone of the Trump administration’s approach to Israeli-Palestinian peace, involving a restructuring of relations between erstwhile Middle Eastern foes appears to be taking shape: Gulf states are making long-standing covert ties to the Jewish state overt without establishing formal diplomatic relations. In the process, the Palestinians are being pressured to fall into line.

The willingness of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain to be more open about their long-standing relations with Israel reflects their growing common interest with the Jewish state in countering Iran and groups that they include in their sweeping definitions of terrorism; countering mounting criticism of their tarnished human rights records by forging closer ties to Jewish leaders in the United States; and supporting US President Donald J. Trump.

The moves boost Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu who has talked for months about ‘breakthroughs’ in Israel-Arab relations and recently asserted that cooperation “is much larger than any other period in Israel’s history”.

In the clearest sign to date, of an upgrading of ties between the three Gulf states and Israel, Bahrain’s King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa authorized Rabbi Marvin Hier, the dean and founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles who delivered a benediction at Mr. Trump’s inauguration, to announce a series of gestures towards Israel at a ceremony at the centre’s Museum of Tolerance.

The Bahrain-funded ceremony was attended by the king’s son, Prince Nasser bin Hamad al Khalifa, who as commander of Bahrain’s Royal Guard and president of the country’s National Olympic Committee has been accused of abusing the human rights of opponents of the government as well as athletes and sports executives who in 2011 participated in peaceful anti-government protests. Bahrain blames the protest on Iran and views Shiite opponents as Iranian stooges.

The centre released at the event a Bahrain Declaration on Religious Tolerance authored by King Hamad, the first of its kind by an Arab head of state. Prince Nasser and Mr. Hier signed the declaration at the ceremony.

To be fair, Bahrain’s minority Sunni Muslim government, while brutally cracking down on Shiites, who constitute a majority of the population and have been demanding equal rights and an end to discrimination, has long had a record of religious tolerance towards non-Muslims.

The country has Jewish representatives in parliament and at one point had an ambassador to the United States who was both female and Jewish. Nancy Khedouri, a Jewish MP, attended a recent gathering of the World Jewish Congress where she publicly met Israeli Transportation and Intelligence Minister Yisrael Katz.

Gulf states hope that they can benefit from the Jewish community’s influence in the United States. Their approaches come, however, at a time that the community is split in its attitude towards Mr. Trump.

Jewish religious leaders this year backed away from organizing a conference call with the president to mark the Jewish high holidays in protest against Mr. Trump’s refusal to identify neo-Nazi’s as responsible for a the killing of a woman in Charlottesville during a white supremacist march in which anti-Semitic slogans were raised.

Mr. Heir told the ceremony that he and Rabbi Abraham Cooper, the centre’s associate dean, had been authorized to make public a series of statements made to them by King Hamad during a meeting in February. In those statements, the king denounced the long-standing Arab boycott of Israel and announced his intention to build by the end of this year a museum of tolerance of his own.

Bahraini officials reportedly recently discussed with Israel the institutionalization of mutual visits, allowing Bahraini nationals to freely travel to Israel, and opportunities for trade between their two countries. Gulf states legally ban their citizens from visiting the Jewish state.

Saudi and UAE troops helped the Bahrain government crush the 2011 popular revolt. Bahrain has since hued close to Saudi policy and would not have made its gestures towards Israel without Saudi approval.

The Bahraini overtures came a month after US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson castigated Bahrain for discriminating against Shiites. “Members of the Shia community there continue to report ongoing discrimination in government employment, education, and the justice system. Bahrain must stop discriminating against the Shia communities,” Mr. Tillerson said.

Saudi Arabia and the UAE are also in the firing line because of the brutal conduct of their 2.5-year-old ill-fated invasion of Yemen as well as iron-fisted domestic abuse of human rights.

Weeks before Bahrain’s public moves, Israeli media reported that a member of a Gulf ruling family, believed to be a Saudi prince, had secretly visited Israel in a bid to kickstart Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

Hamas, the Islamist faction that controls Gaza, said last week it was willing to negotiate with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas about joint rule of the strip and move towards long overdue elections. Debilitating rifts among the Palestinians have complicated failed peace talks.

Hamas’ willingness to bury its hatchet with ailing Mr. Abbas’s Fatah movement came as a result of a pincer movement in which the Palestinian leader sought to strangle Gaza economically while the UAE worked to engineer the return to Palestine of its protégé, Mohammed Dahlan, a controversial Abu Dhabi-based former security chief with presidential ambitions.

The UAE effort, coupled with Gulf gestures towards Israel, stroke with the Trump administration’s efforts to create an environment conducive to Israeli-Palestinian peace by first strengthening informal ties between the Jewish state and key Arab nations. The administration has been pushing for more open relations on issues like trade as well as more open contact built on a common front against Iran and militant Islam.

The UAE in effect initiated the process when in 2015 it allowed Israel to open its first diplomatic mission in the Gulf.

Gulf states have offered to establish relations with Israel if it were to accept a 1982 Arab-endorsed Saudi plan for Israeli-Palestinian peace that called for an Israeli withdrawal from territory occupied during the 1967 Middle East war and the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. As a result, Israel’s mission is accredited to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) in Abu Dhabi rather than the UAE government but serves as an unofficial embassy to the Gulf.

The ink on Bahrain’s declaration of religious freedom had barely dried by the time that the gestures towards Israel became mired in the 3.5-month-old Gulf crisis that pits Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Jewish leaders targeted by the three countries condemned efforts by Qatar emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani to meet with the Jewish community during his visit to New York to attend the United Nations General Assembly. Sheikh Tamim hired a Jewish PR firm to organize meetings.

Reflecting the divisions among American Jewry, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach organized a full-page ad in The New York Times to denounce Jews willing to meet with the Qatari leader. “It is a shameful episode for our community when those who fund the murder of Jews in Israel are being embraced by Jews in the United States,” the ad said, referring to Qatari relations with Hamas that have been endorsed by the United States.

By Manpreet Sethi*

As the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), popularly referred to as the Ban Treaty, opens for signature on 20 September 2017, it is most likely that it will garner the 50 endorsements that are necessary for its entry into force. After all, it was adopted in the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) on 7 July 2017 by a vote of 122 in favour with one against (Netherlands) and one abstention (Singapore). But having entered into force, would the treaty, as Ambassador Elayne Gomez of Costa Rica, president of the Conference negotiating the instrument said, bring the world “one step closer to the total elimination of nuclear weapons”? Will the treaty facilitate universal nuclear disarmament?

The answer, at this juncture, is not a clear yes since all nuclear weapon possessors have shunned the treaty. The US, UK and France have even described themselves as “persistent objectors” to the treaty, expressing that they do not “intend to sign, ratify, or even become party to it”. The three have accused the treaty of creating “even more divisions at a time when the world needs to remain united in the face of growing threats.” China and Russia too have voiced similar objections and rue the absence of a feasible, comprehensive, verifiable and enforceable nuclear disarmament regime.

Given this response of the nuclear weapon states (NWS), the ability of the treaty to further the cause of universal elimination of nuclear weapons is doubtful. The treaty prohibits development, testing, production, manufacture, acquisition, transfer, possession, stockpiling of nuclear weapons as well as their use or threat of use. But only the non-possessors seem to be accepting its mandate. For the states possessing nuclear weapons, it is fairly certain that the dawn of 21 September will be no different from those before. These countries have made it clear that they cannot yet visualise a world without nuclear deterrence. Rather, each one is engaged in updating, upgrading or modernising its nuclear arsenal in view of the growing rifts in their relationships – US-Russia; US-China; US-North Korea; Russia-France; China-India; India-Pakistan – none of the nuclear dyads is in a comfortably stable situation right now. The salience of nuclear weapons appears to be at an all-time high since the end of the Cold War. Who then amongst these is interested in the Ban Treaty?

Supporters of the treaty, however, emphasise that it would increase normative pressure on the NWS, especially in forums such as the NPT RevCon or at the UN High Level Conference on Nuclear Disarmament due in 2018. However, any such impact is yet to be seen. In fact, nearly all nuclear weapon possessors have pretty much bandied together in criticising the treaty for being low on details on how to bring about a real elimination of nuclear weapons. For instance, the treaty lays down that a NWS could join it so long as it agrees to remove its nuclear weapons “from operational status immediately and to destroy them in accordance with a legally binding, time-bound plan…for the verified and irreversible elimination of that State Party’s nuclear weapon-programme, including the elimination or irreversible conversion of all nuclear weapons related facilitates.” Legal eagles have already punched holes in these statements. How, they ask, does one define “operational status,” “destruction of nuclear weapons,” “legally binding, time bound plan of elimination,” and who would determine and enforce it? For the NWS, these issues are of major concern. Given that these countries consider nuclear weapons as central to national security, it becomes difficult for them to envisage their elimination in the absence of definitely laid out processes and mechanisms that would enforce necessary verifications.

Non-nuclear weapon state (NNWS) supporters of the treaty respond to this criticism by saying that the treaty has only created a framework and that it should now be the task of the NWS to flesh in the details. However, at this juncture, none of the NWS appears in a mood to do so. In the immediate future then, it appears that the entry into force of the Ban Treaty will be hailed and celebrated by the scores of NNWS who voted for it at the UNGA as also the non-governmental organisations and civil society movements that put their weight behind it. Meanwhile, states with nuclear weapons and those under the nuclear umbrella are likely to ignore the development and carry on their business as usual for now.

The next RevCon in 2020, however, might be the first major battleground where the relationship between the NWS and NNWS and the normative strength of the Ban Treaty will be tested. The interaction between both sides on the matter to stop their divide from deepening and threatening the NPT will be something to watch out for.  For the sake of stability and survival of the NPT, it is necessary that both sides find a way to work together on furthering nuclear disarmament. The significance of the Ban Treaty, the first multilaterally negotiated legally binding instrument with the objective of eliminating nuclear weapons, cannot and should not be discounted. However, the treaty would be able to live up to its promise only with the cooperation of the nuclear weapon possessing states.

Therefore, it is in the interest of the NNWS supporting the treaty to find ways of engaging with the NWS to gradually bring them on board. Meanwhile, if non-proliferation has to be sustained in the coming decades, the NWS must heed the concerns of the NNWS and discover pathways to a nuclear weapons-free world. The future depends on the sagacious and patient interaction of these two sets of states. Are they up to the task? More importantly, do they understand how important it is for them to bridge the divide? Otherwise, the Ban Treaty will be successful enough to enter into force, but end up banning the bomb for only those who anyway do not have them.

*Manpreet Sethi
Senior Fellow and Project Leader, Nuclear Security, Centre for Air Power Studies (CAPS), New Delhi

Globalization, as a phenomenon, within all its aspects, has been controversial in the past three decades and has attracted many analyses, books, and debates just as postmodernism was a form of a novelty and controversial issue of the 1980s of the last century, which has continued even today, in the first decades of the XXI Century.

A large number of theorists emphasize that the world is organized by the acceleration of globalization, which strengthens the dominance of the world capitalist society. We can argue about this, both scientifically and from the everyday, human aspect, and especially within the former socialist countries where people are publicly accused of disintegration within the system of disrupted values ​​over the last three decades only because of that:

1. They are not members of one or those political options – not any of the political party;
2. They are not resourceful in legal, hypocritical theft in the style of “nobody is guilty because he does not know”;
3. They do not want to accept as idols people from black media chronicles.

Modern capitalism, in my opinion, although I myself was part of those who had written (in the mid-eighties of the last century) in that non-existent, single-party system — “Gulliver’s Prediction, the Liliputian Realization” — of the simulation of self-imposed taxes and never realized that for helping those who are in need there is nothing more than a realistic awareness of the power of the people on power, of the capital and manipulation that is implemented at the expense of the weak and insufficiently educated world. For those who defend global capitalism, and globalization marks the triumph of capitalism and its market economy, (who mentioned the crisis of 2008?)  I recommend Michael Moore’s movie “Capitalism, Love Story”.

Discourses on globalization were initially polarized with pros and cons, praises and attacks. For critics, the term globalization covers the concept of global capitalism, and imperialism and is accused of being a different form of cover for global capitalism and markets in larger areas of the world and the sphere of life. In other words, capital does not know boundaries and wants to multiply by expanding, against the logic of respecting societies and the concepts of the societies it is focused on. For those who defend it, globalization is a continuation of modernization, and it is the power of progress, the increase of wealth, freedom, democracy, and happiness, and the champions of globalization represent it for the benefit of everyone as it generates fresh economic opportunities, political democratization, cultural diversity and the opening up towards a thrilling new world.

I do think that it wouldn’t be bad to contact the underdeveloped countries to confirm or deny the “calumniators” theories who see globalization as damaging that leads to increased domination of developed countries over the poor, underdeveloped countries where hegemony increases “of those who have” over “those who do not have.” At the same time, globalization critics point out that globalization undermines democracy, cultural homogenization and increased destruction of the natural environment and species on the planet Earth.

Joseph Straubhar explores ways in which public television and national identity can be re-affirmed against the global, regional and local level of the world television, emphasizing that the discussion on globalization has become more complex. He is proposing the development of a multilevel approach to global trends in television and culture that explores the global, national, regional and local motions of the cultures as the shape of production and reception mentioned above.

In fact, by attacking the myth that globalization is creating mystification and homonegression, he explores both ways that globalization forces and television travel around the world and which are linked to the development of market capitalism, as well as in which way cultural hybridity is deepened through national, regional and local distribution of global forms. The result is an image of globalization that is more complex, historically nuanced and open to distribution, transformation and opposition.

On the other hand, Richard Kahn and Douglas Kellner1 argue that with the continued growth of the Internet, both as a form of mainstream media and as a tool for the organization of democratic social interactions, it is necessary to re-consider the Internet policy from the standpoint of being critically focused and reconstructive. What does that mean? Namely, their approach is critical to all corporative forms and the hegemonic use of the Internet, but they are on the line of opposition implementation of opinions that represent different groups within a goal aimed at a progressive cultural and political struggle. They are proud to show how blogs and wikis can democratize the media and improve opposition movements and politics.

Internet has just made it easier appearances, on the world level, anti-globalization, anti-war protests and anti-capitalist movements. It is necessary, within the development of democracy, to use the revolutionary nature of new technologies, media and communications to promote changes in society on a daily basis. A concrete example is the attitude of the author of this essay which had reflected online both on its official website and on social networks (Facebook and Twitter) in 2014, the protest in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina:

“Not to support the justified protests of disempowered workers and citizens in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (one, out of two entities within Bosnia and Herzegovina) for engaging intellectuals today is as signing the capitulation in front of Hitler in 1941. My name, knowledge and art supports everything that leads to a consociation shape of the polylogue with a view to satisfy the process targeting the prosecution all those who have been exploiting the period 1990 – 2014 with the aim of satisfying hoydenish robbery ambitions. But we must not allow that Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks (read: Muslims) and others are guilty to the Serbs, Bosniaks (Read: Muslims), Croats, and others because of the above. The thief has no nationa name and national surnam. In one word – he/she is a thief. In all languages, races and within all nations.

A non-party, expert government at all levels of power is a prerequisite for making possible an alternative against “organized anarchy” that responds to the name of modern, current Bosnia and Herzegovina. But, at the same time, the creation of a so-called “revocation mechanism” that is activated within six(6) months of appointment on the position, if it turns out to have just a form and not the essence of power for the people, from the people.

Our Election Law does not include the option of extraordinary elections and they cannot be implemented except at the level of the whole country. For that, it is a fact and for sure, we will not have consensus in both entities and it must be clear to everyone, no matter how painful it is. I am convinced that it is far better, instead of the extraordinary elections now (which would certainly have been manipulated by the spin-masters of this or that party) to introduce a non-party, expert governments into the FBiH on all levels with a deadline until October 2014. and that they are trying to save the continuation of the robbery and the impoverishment of the people, introduce 1 KM (aprox. 0,5 Euros) monthly fee for all formerly employed councilors / member of the Parliaments at all levels of legislative authority, and to introduce salaries to employees at the governmental institution in FBiH on average level (approx. 420 Euros instead of between 1,000.00 and 2,500.00 Euros as it is now).

And in October 2014, play on the new and only new names on the lists by introducing the rule in the Election Law that no one, even though nobody who was once elected and in one mandate was engaged, cannot be re-elected again. Even the American president can only be President in two mandates, and as far as I know, there are people in the ministerial armchairs and parliamentary benches for whom we can say that they are there since their legal age. P.S. transparency is painful, but healthy … to pain, not just for one’s own. “(Sabahudin Hadžialić, 2014).

Today in, aside of that it is still being painfully actual, 2017, this moment represents the bonding (proliferation, multiplying) of new media and global forms of culture, as well as global political movements. From “Battle in Seattle” in 1999, an abundance of world social movements have emerged from the above that are opposed to the forms of corporate globalism by creating movements  based on human rights struggles, struggles for the rights of workers, women rights struggle, minority groups, and the struggle for the environment and peace, above all. These movements are increasing by using global forms of communication such as the Internet and new technology to make all of them complex, challenging within the united world, a more perfect world for us all. The new virtual culture, which requires proper Media Literacy, is on the horizon and is becoming more and more an integral part of our daily life, increasing the dematerialization of culture as well as its globalization.

New media formats require new models of theoretical analysis, from which we continually participate in, let’s call it that, the turbulence of changes conditioned by new media, both within the media and the culture itself, as we deeper and deeper get into the new millennium.

The solution is in front of us.

It is up to us to across the river which is deep and wide.

Notes:
1. Richard Kahn and Douglas M. Kellner, “Oppositional politics and the internet: A critical/ reconstructive approach.” In Cultural Politics, 1:1 (2005). © 2005 by Richard Kahn and Douglas Kellner.

A powerful 7.1 earthquake has struck southern Mexico, according to the US Geological Survey (USGS). The tremor shook buildings in the country’s capital.

The earthquake was initially reported as being of 7.4 magnitude.

The quake’s epicenter was 8 kilometers southeast of Atencingo in the Mexican state of Puebla at a depth of 51 kilometers, USGS said.

Videos and pictures are being posted online from Mexico City, capturing the tremors and crowds in the streets.

Thousands of people were seen fleeing their shaking houses witnesses told media.

Computer monitors toppled over, pictures fell off walls and other objects were shaking in the Mexican capital, witnesses said, adding that some office workers hid under their desks.

The quake has caused serious damage in Mexico City, with images of collapsed facades of buildings and streets filled with debris appearing online.

The stock exchange in the Mexican capital announced that it’s suspending trading due to the earthquake.

Tuesday’s quake hit just hours after many in the country took part in earthquake drills, held on the anniversary of the devastating 1985 quake, which killed more than 5,000 people in Mexico City.

Mexico City is situated on a former lakebed, a location that magnifies the effect of earthquakes even if they are located hundreds of kilometers away.