Boston Medical Center’s (BMC) psychiatry team is studying a drug called lorcaserin, which targets the brain’s serotonin receptors and could help reduce cocaine cravings as well as dampen the rewards associated with taking cocaine.

Research with lorcaserin, and other medications that have similar effects on serotonin receptors in the brain, suggest that it may help people to reduce cocaine use and the risk of returning to use after quitting. Lorcaserin is currently FDA approved for adults who are obese or overweight and have weight related medical problems to help them lose weight.

According to Eric Devine, PhD, the study’s principal investigator, there are currently no medications approved by the FDA to treat Cocaine Use Disorder.

“Finding a medication to help people stop using cocaine would be a real game changer. We don’t know if lorcaserin will help people with cocaine problems, but prior studies suggest the potential that it will help people” said Devine.

Devine and his team focus on evaluating medications to treat alcohol and drug problems with the goal of finding medications currently approved for other disorders that may help to treat addiction.

“Patients are frequently surprised to hear that there are medications out there that could help reduce their cravings or reduce drug reward” said Devine.

The multi-site study underway at BMC is intended to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lorcaserin to treat cocaine problems. The study will last 21 months, and Devine hopes to enroll 23 people at BMC.

“Our center helps bridge the gap between an industry that is not heavily invested in developing and marketing drugs to treat addiction, and the need for effective treatments,” said Devine.

By studying medications already approved by the FDA for other conditions, treatments are more likely to get to the market sooner than starting from scratch, including drug development, which can take years – even decades.

“Within two years, we will know if we have a drug (lorcaserin) that can help people to cut back or quit using cocaine,” said Devine.

Devine cautions that lorcaserin will not be a “kill switch” for people’s desire to use cocaine – if this medication works, a person who takes lorcaserin may have less craving for cocaine and feel less reward after using cocaine. Research subjects who enroll in the trial will take lorcaserin or a placebo for a 12 week period of treatment. He says lorcaserin is not a medication that would be prescribed long-term to treat cocaine problems.

“The goal of this medication trial is stabilization – getting people to where they can begin to make lifestyle changes during the treatment period of the study. It’s a model of care that has worked really well for other addiction treatments,” said Devine.

All research subjects enrolled in the study will receive cognitive behavioral therapy, a current standard of care for cocaine problems. Participants will also be asked if they would like to enroll in an optional four session alcohol intervention, as the researchers recognize that people may want to limit other substances that may be a trigger for using cocaine.

It is widely recognized that rainfall over the Yangtze River valley (YRV) strengthens considerably during the decaying summer of El Niño, as demonstrated by the catastrophic flooding suffered in the summer of 1998.

Nevertheless, the rainfall over the YRV in the summer of 2016 was much weaker than that in 1998, despite the intensity of the 2016 El Niño having been as strong as that in 1998. A group of scientists from the Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, have now revealed the remarkable role played by the mid-latitude circulation in this surprising feature.

“The different nature of the YRV between these two super El Niño years was caused by the sub-seasonal variation, principally in August,” said Dr. Chaofan LI, first author of the study. “We found that the YRV rainfall anomaly was clearly negative in August 2016, which was opposite to that in August 1998, and different to June and July.”

Remarkable midlatitude circulation anomalies, including the anomalous “Silk Road Pattern” (an anomalous zonal wave-like teleconnection pattern in the upper-troposphere along the Silk Road) and anomalous geopotential height over the Urals region, occurred in August 2016, which were strongest in the latest 40 years, but quite weak in August 1998.

These anomalies would have resulted in significant anticyclonic circulation anomalies over midlatitude East Asia, reducing the climatological wind and further giving rise to the negative YRV rainfall anomaly in August 2016.

“Given the unique sub-seasonal variation of the YRV rainfall in summer 2016, more attention should be paid to midlatitude circulation — besides the signal in the tropics — to further our understanding of the predictability and variation of YRV summer rainfall.” LI suggests.

In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful

Mr. President,

Mr. Secretary-General,

Excellencies,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I wish at the outset to congratulate your election to the Presidency of the General Assembly and Secretary-General Guterres’ election to his high office and wish him every success in his crucial responsibilities.

Four months ago, over 41 million people—constituting 73% of Iran’s total eligible voters—came to the polls in the country’s 12th presidential election and once again expressed confidence in my platform, which calls for moderation and respect for human rights and prosperity and economic revitalization at home, and constructive engagement around the world. Their vote manifested the maturity of the electorate in a society that has experienced free and democratic governance for only four decades. This was not merely a vote for a president, but a huge political investment by our population; a resilient people who truly constitute our most reliable asset.

Human and citizens’ rights, along with the quest for justice and Islamic values, have constituted the most pivotal demands of the Iranian people in over 150 years of struggle, and particularly in the Islamic Revolution of 1979. In its first term, while pursuing nuclear negotiations internationally, my government focused at home on the deliberation and articulation of citizens’ rights leading to the promulgation of “The Charter of Citizens’ Rights” and its issuance for implementation. Adoption of this Charter conformed to the demands of a people who rose against dictatorial regimes, aspiring to restore their rights and human dignity 111 years ago in the Constitutional Revolution, and again in the Islamic Revolution 39 years ago.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I declare before this august global assembly that moderation is the inclination as well as the chosen path of the great Iranian people. Moderation seeks neither isolation nor hegemony; It implies neither indifference, nor intransigence.

The path of moderation is the path of peace; but a just and inclusive peace: not peace for one nation, and war and turmoil for others;

Moderation is freedom and democracy; but in an inclusive and comprehensive manner: not purporting to promote freedom in one place while supporting dictators elsewhere;

Moderation is the synergy of ideas and not the dance of swords;

And finally, the path of moderation nurtures beauty. Deadly-weapons exports are not beautiful; rather, peace is.

We in Iran strive to build peace and promote the human rights of peoples and nations. We never condone tyranny and we always defend the voiceless. We never threaten anyone; but we do not tolerate threats from anyone. Our discourse is one of dignity and respect, and we are unmoved by threats and intimidation. We believe in dialogue and negotiation based on equal footing and mutual respect.

In today’s globalized world, peace, security, stability and the progress of all nations are intertwined. It is not possible that a rogue and racist regime trample upon the most basic rights of the Palestinians, and the usurpers of this land enjoy security. It is simply impossible for anybody to aspire to attain long-term stability, prosperity and development, while Muslims in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Bahrain, Afghanistan, Myanmar and so many other places live in misery, war and poverty.

Mr. President,

Throughout its history, Iran has been the bastion of tolerance for various religions and ethnicities. We are the same people who rescued the Jews from Babylonian servitude; opened our arms to welcome Armenian Christians in our midst, and created the “Iranian cultural continent” with a unique mix of diverse religions and ethnicities. I represent the same Iran that has historically assisted the oppressed: centuries ago, we supported the rights of the Jewish people and today we insist on the restoration of the rights of the Palestinian people. Iran is the still the same country: supporting justice and seeking tranquility.

Today, we are on the frontlines of fighting terror and religious extremism in the Middle east; not for sectarian or ethnic reasons, but for an ethical, humanitarian and strategic one.

Iran does not seek to restore its ancient empire, impose its official religion on others, or export its revolution through the force of arms. We are so confident in the depth of our culture, the truth of our faith and tenacity and longevity of our revolution that we will never seek to export any of them in the way neo-colonialists do, with the heavy boots of soldiers.

To promote our culture, civilization, religion and revolution, we enter hearts and engage minds. We recite our poetry and engage in discourse on our philosophy.

Our ambassadors are our poets, our mystics and our philosophers. We have reached the shores of this side of the Atlantic through Rumi and spread our influence throughout Asia with Saadi. We have already captured the world with Hafez; we therefore are in no need of new conquests.

Excellencies,

The call of moderation is from a nation that has been committed to it. We are not preaching moderation, but practicing it. The JCPOA is a case in point.

The deal is the outcome of two years of intensive multilateral negotiations, overwhelmingly applauded by the international community and endorsed by the Security Council as a part of Resolution 2231. As such, it belongs to the international community in its entirety, and not to only one or two countries.

The JCPOA can become a new model for global interactions; interactions based on mutual constructive engagement between all of us. We have opened our doors to engagement and cooperation. We have concluded scores of development agreements with advanced countries of both East and West. Unfortunately, some have deprived themselves of this unique opportunity. They have imposed sanctions really against themselves, and now they feel betrayed. We were not deceived, nor did we cheat or deceive anyone. We have ourselves determined the extent of our nuclear program. We never sought to achieve deterrence through nuclear weapons; we have immunized ourselves through our knowledge and – more importantly — the resilience of our people. This is our talent and our approach. Some have claimed to have wanted to deprive Iran of nuclear weapons; weapons that we have continuously and vociferously rejected. And, of course, we were not and are not distressed for forgoing an option that we in fact never sought. It is reprehensible that the rogue Zionist regime that threatens regional and global security with its nuclear arsenal and is not committed to any international instrument or safeguard, has the audacity to preach peaceful nations.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Just imagine for a minute how the Middle East would look had the JCPOA not been concluded. Imagine that along with civil wars, Takfiri terror, humanitarian nightmares, and complex socio-political crises in West Asia, that there was a manufactured nuclear crisis. How would we all fare?

I declare before you that the Islamic Republic of Iran will not be the first country to violate the agreement; but it will respond decisively and resolutely to its violation by any party. It will be a great pity if this agreement were to be destroyed by “rogue” newcomers to the world of politics: the world will have lost a great opportunity. But such unfortunate behavior will never impede Iran’s course of progress and advancement. By violating its international commitments, the new U.S. administration only destroys its own credibility and undermines international confidence in negotiating with it, or accepting its word or promise.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Four years ago, the Islamic Republic of Iran sponsored the initiative of the World Against Violence and Extremism (WAVE) in this Assembly. We consider dialogue and negotiations based on a positive-sum paradigm as the only path towards the resolution of global and regional crises. We have made a conscious decision to strengthen relations with our neighbors and the region, and to enhance cooperation with all friendly countries. It is impossible to navigate through the complex and dangerous challenges in this turbulent transitional global phase without expanding interactions and exchanges and institutionalizing dialogue between nations and states.

The ignorant, absurd and hateful rhetoric, filled with ridiculously baseless allegations, that was uttered before this august body yesterday, was not only unfit to be heard at the United Nations – which was established to promote peace and respect between nations – but indeed contradicted the demands of our nations from this world body to bring governments together to combat war and terror.

I wish to underscore here that the defense capabilities of the Islamic Republic of Iran, including our missiles, are solely defensive deterrents for the maintenance of regional peace and stability and the prevention of adventurist tendencies of irrational aspirants. We cannot forget that civilians in many of our cities became the targets of long-range missile attacks by Saddam Hussein during his 8-year war of aggression against us. We will never allow our people to become victims of such catastrophic delusions again.

Instability and extremist violence have only been exacerbated in our region through the military interventions of extra-regional actors – the same powers that try to sell ever more of their deadly weapons to other states by accusing Iran of fomenting instability. I want to emphasize that foreign intervention and the imposition of alien wishes on the people of the region will only widen and deepen the crises in our region. The crises in Syria, Yemen and Bahrain do not have military solutions and can only be resolved through cessation of hostilities, and the acceptance of the will and wishes of the populaces.

The United States Government should explain to its own people why, after spending billions of dollars of the assets of the people of America and of our region, instead of contributing to peace and stability, it has only brought war, misery, poverty and the rise of terrorism and extremism to the region.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Over the past 4 years, Iran’s economy demonstrated that it has unparalleled potential for expansion and growth. Economic sanctions not only did not impede Iran, but instead solidified popular resolve to enhance domestic production. Achieving the highest global growth rate last year proved that Iranian economy can become the most vibrant emerging economy within the next twenty years, with a trillion-dollar growth potential. Our strategic choice for achieving such sustainable and balanced growth is extensive global partnership. We are of the firm belief that development and security can only grow together, and common interests can bind us regionally and globally to guarantee both regional and global security.

Iran, enjoying the world’s largest gas and oil reserves, is prepared to engage in long-term cooperation to advance global energy security. We are eager to expand international transit corridors through joint ventures in sea, rail and road infrastructure projects. Our achievements in enhancing economic infrastructures in the fields of a nation-wide gas pipeline, national electricity grid, and rail and road transport, have made it possible for various industries to produce at lower cost, with easy access to national and regional markets. With the current conducive legal environment, many delegations of foreign investors have come to Iran, leading to an ever-increasing number of investments, joint ventures and financing agreements in various fields.

It is the policy of my government to continue to steadily enhance the entrepreneurial environment, protect intellectual property rights, continuously improve corporate governance, and engage in a robust campaign against money-laundering in order to enhance a conducive legal climate for business and economic investments in various fields, particularly in knowledge-based enterprises.

The Iranian nation is resolutely determined to build a free and advanced Iran and participate in the development of a secure and stable region based on ethics and respect for international law. In this endeavor, we welcome the participation and cooperation of all investors, intellectuals and innovators from across the globe. From this global podium, and as the representative of the people of Iran – who are world-famous for their hospitality – I invite all those who seek peace, security and progress through partnership and cooperation among nations to visit Iran and join us in building this future of hope.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

If we truly believe in our collective decision four years ago here in this General assembly to make a WAVE – a World Against Violence and Extremism – we can turn the discourse of imposition, unilateralism, intimidation and war into the logic of dialogue, synergy and peace so that moderation can become the dominant voice across the globe.

I thank you for your attention.

The above text was released by the Office for Iran’s President.

Iran will respond “decisively” to any violation of the 2015 nuclear deal by “any party,” President Hassan Rouhani said in his speech at the UN General Assembly on Wednesday, as he hit back at US President Donald Trump.

“I declare before you that the Islamic Republic of Iran will not be the first country to violate the agreement,” the Iranian president said, adding that Tehran “will respond decisively and resolutely to its violation by any party.”

He went on to say that “it will be a great pity if this agreement were to be destroyed by ‘rogue’ newcomers to the world of politics – the world will have lost a great opportunity,” apparently referring to Trump, who earlier called the Iranian nuclear deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), “one of the worst and most one-sided transactions” and an “embarrassment” to the US.

Rouhani then warned that “by violating its international commitments, the new US administration only destroys its own credibility,” and once again said that Tehran does not plan to withdraw from the deal and return to nuclear weapons development.

However, in August, Iran’s president warned that Tehran is ready to withdraw from the deal within “not a week or a month but within hours” and return to its nuclear program should Washington impose new restrictions against it.

The Iranian leader then criticized the US president’s Tuesday speech to the General Assembly, calling it “ignorant, absurd and hateful rhetoric filled with ridiculously baseless allegations.”

In his speech, Trump called Iran a “depleted rogue state whose chief exports are violence, bloodshed, and chaos,” saying that it funds “terrorists that kill innocent Muslims and attack their peaceful Arab and Israeli neighbors.”

Last week, Trump hinted that the US might not re-certify Iran’s compliance with the nuclear agreement in October, adding that Tehran “violated the spirit” of the deal.

On Wednesday, the US envoy to the UN, Nikki Haley, downplayed Trump’s statements by saying that the US president’s speech at the UNGA does not mean that the US plans to disown the deal.

At the same time, she said that the White House has “grounds” not to re-certify Iran’s compliance with the agreement in October.

It seems to have reached a point of near exhaustion. What will the President of the United States do next? The money was on some diplomatic mayhem, a series of insults, and a trashing of various aspects of the organisation some Americans regard as a world government. But Donald Trump surprised those at the United Nations with a modest tone, and not one the current UN Secretary General disagrees with.

History provides some context on what might have been, but it proves to be a poor tool. In terms of predicting the next Trump move, betting agencies should be raking in a fortune, the odds always slanted in favour of the spontaneous and unscripted. He is a creature that abides by winds of unchecked strength and volatility, a true Aeolian spirit.

With Trump, matters with the UN, as with so much else, had been personal. He failed, for instance, in winning a contract to refurbish its New York headquarters in the early 2000s, claiming that he could do the job at a third of the price (half-a-billion as opposed to the projected cost of $1.5 billion). Given the organisation’ insatiable appetite for self-perpetuation and growth, this was a blow indeed.

Prior to heading to the White House, Trump mined the quarries of American resentment, sharpening the America First line which entailed putting the UN last. The organisation, he asserted, was no “friend of democracy”, inimical to freedom, and even unfriendly to the United States.

To show his disdain for all matters UN, he took the unilateral position to take the US out of the Paris climate agreement, only to then suggest the possibility of remaining on renegotiated terms. Trumpland lends itself to fickle refrains and adjustments, booming promises and drastic revisions.

The opening words in his UN address promised some customarily cringe-worthy entertainment. For one, pronouncing the name of the Secretary General António Guterres seemed a bit beyond him, the emphasis all too strong on “Gutter” followed by “ez”.

Then there was that little matter of real estate. “I actually saw great potential right across the street,” he explained in the context of Trump Tower’s proximity to the UN building. “[I]t was only for the reason that the United Nations was here that it turned out to be such a successful project.”1 Then came modest, almost banal reflection. Had the voice of moderation seeped into Trump?

“In recent years, the United Nations has not reached its full potential because of bureaucracy and mismanagement.” Hardly a clanger, and certainly one the grand poobahs would agree with. “We encourage the secretary general to fully use his authority to cut through the bureaucracy, reform outdated systems, and make firm decisions to advance the UN’s core mission.”

Rather than unleashing withering salvos, Trump had time to afford a few carefully chosen words of sugary praise. “The United Nations was founded on truly noble goals.” These goals, in turn had been advanced “in so many ways: feeding the hungry, providing disaster relief, and empowering women and girls in many societies across the world.”

Trump’s accommodating tone has as much to do with necessity as anything else. While boisterous unilateralism might work on some domestic level, Washington has required the assistance of other UN member states to push such agendas as the containment of North Korea.

“The net result,” writes Richard Gowan, “is that a president who once promised a unilateralist, or outright isolationist, foreign policy, is leaning hard on the world’s main multilateral body to manage the main crisis on the agenda.”2 Problematic a beast as it might be, the body is providing, on some level, indispensable.

The reform agenda remains problematic because any such agenda always has trouble sailing through the behemoth that is the UN. Where states are involved, interests will conflict. Bureaucracies will also battle cutters of the red tape. The old issues persist: the burden of dues paid by wealthier countries; the scepticism of poorer states that such efficiency policies are cover for bullying and undue influence.

Trump’s points, to that end, seem matters of aspiration rather than functional realities. “To honour the people of our nations, we must ensure that no one and no member state shoulders a disproportionate share of the burden, and that’s militarily or financially.”

Peacekeeping missions, asserted the president, should also be seen in terms of “defined goals and metrics for evaluating success.” All to the good, till these make it to the nigh-impossible task of implementation. The UN can only be as good, or as efficient, as what its members want to make it.

(Civil.Ge) — Russian Minister for the North Caucasus Affairs Lev Kuznetsov visited Tskhinvali on September 19, discussing with local leaders Moscow’s financial aid to the region.

At his meeting with Tskhinvali leader Anatoly Bibilov on September 19, Lev Kuznetzov said that the Russian Federation would keep up its financing of the region. “In these not-so-easy times for the federal budget, Russia confirms and accepts all the commitments previously undertaken in assisting South Ossetia,” he noted.

According to the Russian federal budget for 2017 (as of September 1, 2017), 7.266 billion rubles (USD 125.6 million) are assigned under the article “Providing financial assistance to the Republic of South Ossetia.” Additional 16.677 million rubles (USD 288.3 thousand) are designated for paying pensions of Russian citizens residing in the region.

The budget also includes plans for the funding in 2018 and 2019. 6.017 billion rubles (USD 104 million) will be transferred to Tskhinvali in 2018, and 6.179 billion rubles (USD 106.8 million) in 2019 under the article of “Providing financial assistance to the Republic of South Ossetia.” Pensions funding for 2018-2019 is not specified.

The budgetary figures for the Russian spending in Tskhinvali Region/South Ossetia do not include funds designated for Russia’s military and security forces in the region.

During his two-day working visit, Kuznetsov inspected a number of construction sites in Tskhinvali funded by the Russian Federation, including hospital and university buildings.

By Michael Lelyveld

China appears to be coming into increasing conflict with the International Monetary Fund as it ignores warnings about “dangerous” levels of debt.

On Aug. 15, the IMF said that China’s attempts to spur economic growth with loose lending policies have put it on a perilous path.

“International experience suggests that China’s credit growth is on a dangerous trajectory, with increasing risks of a disruptive adjustment and/or a marked growth slowdown,” the multilateral lender said in a staff paper accompanying its annual consultative report.

The statement marked at least the third time in a little over a year that the fund has used the highly-charged term “dangerous” to describe trends in China’s debt-fueled growth policies.

In August 2016, James Daniel, IMF mission chief for China, said the country’s “vulnerabilities are still rising on a dangerous trajectory” due to debt problems, The Wall Street Journal reported.

Last October, the fund warned in its updated World Economic Outlook that “the economy’s dependence on credit is increasing at a dangerous pace, intermediated through an increasingly opaque and complex financial sector.”

The latest signal comes with a sharp rise in China’s projected debt levels as compared with gross domestic product since the last forecast.

The fund now estimates that total domestic non-financial sector debt will rise from 251 percent of GDP this year to 296.7 percent of GDP in 2022.

The IMF previously estimated that debt would peak at 270 percent of GDP, the Financial Times said.

In supporting its conclusion of “dangerous” debt growth, the IMF staff said it had identified 43 cases of countries with increases of more than 30 percentage points in their credit-to-GDP ratios over a five-year period.

Only five of the cases ended without a “major growth slowdown or a financial crisis immediately afterwards,” the paper said.

Even with those exceptions, all of the credit booms that started when credit-to-GDP ratios topped 100 percent “ended badly,” the IMF said.

Promises, promises

In China’s case, the culprit behind credit risks is the Communist Party’s promise in 2010 to double the country’s GDP by 2020, locking in a commitment to high growth rates.

In 2012, former President Hu Jintao doubled down on the policy by pledging that both GDP and per capita GDP would double in the decade by 2020.

But the IMF noted that the effectiveness of easy loans in generating more growth has deteriorated over time.

In 2007-08, it took about 6.5 trillion yuan (U.S. $993 billion) of new credits to pump up the economy by 5 trillion yuan (U.S. $764 billion) per year. In 2015-16, the economy needed 20 trillion yuan (U.S. $3 trillion) in loans to boost GDP by the same amount, the IMF staff said.

China has reacted to the IMF warnings with a series of denials.

In a commentary for the official English-language China Daily, the director of the China Academy of New Supply-Side Economics, Jia Kang, said the IMF assessments “are exaggerations, which could mislead public opinion.”

Jia said China is a “special case, as its economy is still centered on indirect finance,” resulting in a double-count of some debt. But he conceded that it was “somewhat true that China’s debt level is high.”

Like other defenders of China’s credit policies, Jia argued that the debt ratio of China’s public sector, under what the IMF calls a “narrow definition,” is at a “safe level” of less than 50 percent of GDP.

“Hence, we should regard the IMF’s remarks as a prewarning, but we don’t have to be too worried about it,” Jia said.

But since the world financial crisis in 2008, China’s total debt has more than quadrupled to U.S. $28 trillion (183 trillion yuan) at the end of last year, the Financial Times said.

China’s representative at the IMF has rejected the fund’s warning of an abrupt slowdown due to debt troubles as “highly unlikely,” the paper reported.

An Aug. 31 report by the official Xinhua news agency on the IMF’s annual assessment glossed over the debt warning, focusing on the fund’s increased projection of GDP growth to 6.7 percent for this year.

“The economy is performing reasonably and stably,” the Xinhua report said, without mentioning the controversy over “dangerous” debt levels. “The quality also forges ahead,” it said.

Last week, the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) announced that new bank lending August of 1.09 trillion yuan (U.S. $166.5 billion) rose 32 percent from a month earlier, topping market forecasts.

The silence on the debt issue reflects an attempt to avoid rocking the boat on economic policy before the Communist Party’s pivotal 19th National Congress scheduled to start on Oct. 18.

“In a world experiencing zigzag recovery, China is opening up a bright prospect by performing arduous reform tasks and moving forward one step at a time,” Xinhua’s assessment said.

Lowell Dittmer, a China scholar and political science professor at University of California Berkeley, said that the stage setting for the congress has placed limits on official reactions to the debt controversy.

“Their general policy is very repressive right now about information that does not reflect positively on the leadership and the process going forward,” Dittmer said.

Repeating the mantra

The promise to double GDP by 2020 has been at the core of the Communist Party’s pledge to create a “moderately prosperous society in all respects” in time for the one-hundredth anniversary of its founding.

President Xi Jinping and Premier Li Keqiang have repeated that mantra frequently this year.

For much of last year, China’s leaders appeared to be committed to a gradual decline in GDP growth rates as the government threatened limits on lending to “zombie” state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and heavily-indebted industries.

But an increase in GDP growth from 6.7 percent last year to 6.9 percent in this year’s first half may be a sign that the government shied away from the risk of underperforming on its GDP pledge.

In the run-up to the party congress, official commentaries on China’s economy have stressed long-term achievements with political rhetoric, paying scant attention to the pressing problem of escalating debt.

“From large-scale industrial construction to creating a moderately prosperous society, the CPC (Communist Party of China) has accomplished the greatest modernization project history has ever seen over the past 60 years,” Xinhua said in a laudatory analysis in August.

But Dittmer argued that the conflict of growth and debt has become the driving force behind many of China’s problems, including industrial overcapacity, unneeded infrastructure projects, unoccupied housing and pollution.

The government has launched major initiatives to deal with all of those issues, but none of the efforts has risen in importance to displace the commitment to double GDP and the economic model of debt-fueled growth.

“That’s what their priority is right now, to maintain this growth, and they’ll sacrifice dealing with it for the time being until the party congress,” Dittmer said.

In one other possible sign that growth remains China’s top priority, the Ministry of Environmental Protection warned on Sept. 4 that the seasonal onset of winter smog in Beijing has started earlier than expected this year, despite the closure of coal-fired power plants and tougher enforcement of emissions rules.

Municipal readings of smog-causing particles known as PM2.5 have already jumped to nearly two-and-a-half times last year’s average, which in turn was nearly three times higher than safe levels recommended by the World Health Organization.

City authorities blamed the smog outbreak on “unfavorable air conditions and high local vehicle emissions,” Xinhua said.

The government is expected to shut down factories and traffic in the city to help assure clear skies in the city for the party congress next month.

By Yossi Mekelberg*

Former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill once asserted that “in politics there are no permanent friends or enemies, only permanent interests.” If anyone wants evidence of that, they need look no further than the new missile deal between Russia and Turkey.

There is a touch of irony in that two years after Turkish warplanes shot down a Russian one on the Syrian border, the two countries signed a deal whereby Russia will supply Turkey with the advanced S-400 air defense system. In November 2015, when the warplanes incident took place, relations hit rock bottom, sparking deep animosity. Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov accused Turkey of a planned provocation; and at the height of the crisis Russian protesters attacked the Turkish embassy in Moscow, flights from Russia to Turkey were suspended and Turkish food imports were banned.

It took seven months for Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to acknowledge the severity of the rift with Moscow, and apologize. Nevertheless, relations have not entirely recovered. A major area of contention between Turkey and Russia revolves around their conflicting interests in Syria. They are on opposing sides in the Syrian conflict. Moscow has thrown its full backing behind Syria’s President Bashar Assad, while Ankara is supporting rebels who are fighting to topple the Syrian president and his regime. Turkey has also served as a staging ground for the Syrian opposition. Furthermore, the Kurds in Syria and how they affect the Kurdish question in Turkey are also factors in Ankara’s calculations.

Since the end of the Cold War there has always been a strong element of inconsistency and unpredictability in the relations between Russia and Turkey in political and economic spheres. In both, they simultaneously compete and cooperate with each other on a wide range of issues. Conflicting interests vis-a-vis ethno-religious issues in neighboring countries, transport routes for hydrocarbon energy, reliance on Russian natural gas, Moscow’s policies toward Iran or the supply of arms to Cyprus have all been major issues of contention. Russia on the other hand is concerned with Erdogan’s neo-Ottoman approach, and Russian-Turkish rivalry in the Black Sea and the Caucasus dates back centuries.

During the Cold War, Turkey was central to NATO’s strategy of containing the Soviet Union. It was at the forefront of securing the southern flank of this collective organization in face of potential Soviet aggression against the West. This danger had receded by the 1990s as a result of the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the decline of the country at its heart — Russia. The complex relations between Moscow and Ankara that have evolved since then must be seen in the context of both nations being ruled by leaders with ambitions for their countries to return to their past glory. Add to this two single-minded, populist presidents who are holding on to power for longer than it is healthy or desirable for any society, together with common and conflicting interests, and the picture of these uneasy, murky relations becomes somewhat clearer.

Erdogan’s announcement that the first down payment on the S-400 missile system had already been made to Russia was greeted with understandable apprehension and criticism in Europe and the US. It is almost the ultimate act of defiance by a NATO member, in times of rising tensions with a major rival. The Turkish president protests time and again that these are decisions “regarding our independence and we are obliged to take the necessary measures in defense and security.” For both military operational and especially political reasons, NATO perceives the Russian-Turkish arms deal as undermining the organization’s interests and proper functioning. It is a dangerous precedent for NATO, a serious crack in its unity, though one that has been in the making for some time.

Both Russia and Turkey are at a low point in their relations with the West. Sanctions were imposed on Russia following its annexation of Crimea and its instigation of an armed revolt in eastern Ukraine. Moscow’s interference with last year’s US presidential elections has cast a long shadow on relations with Washington. Turkey for its part is entangled in an ongoing feud with Germany, which suspended all major arms exports to Turkey due to the worsening human rights situation in that country and growing mutual animosity.

Erdogan recently interfered in the German elections, calling the main parties there enemies of Turkey who should be shunned by German-Turkish voters. This drew, as might be expected, an angry response from German leaders. Erdogan himself is still reeling from the German government’s refusal to allow his allies to campaign for him in Germany before the recent Turkish vote on extending his executive powers. Not a man to mince his words, keep his grudges to himself or bury the hatchet very quickly, he described this behavior as “Nazi-style.”

His suspicion of the West grew tremendously following the failed coup last year, for which he blamed the US-based Fethullah Gulen, accusing both the US and Germany of protecting Gulen and his supporters. Erdogan constantly complains about the refusal of the US and its allies to supply him with advanced military equipment such as drones. Thus his purchase of the S-400 system is not only an important strategic decision, but also represents a personal triumph.

For the US and the EU the newfound Putin-Erdogan intimacy is far from being a match made in heaven. However, both have their vulnerabilities in economic terms, regional rivalries and internal strife, and their act of defiance might encourage NATO to exploit these more persistently and more forcefully.

• Yossi Mekelberg is professor of international relations at Regent’s University London, where he is head of the International Relations and Social Sciences Program. He is also an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House. Twitter: @YMekelberg

The world’s first legally-binding treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons opened for signature today at United Nations Headquarters in New York at a ceremony at which speakers from international organizations, governments and civil society hailed this milestone in achieving a world free of such arsenals as well as the work that remains to be done.

“The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons is the product of increasing concerns over the risk posed by the continued existence of nuclear weapons, including the catastrophic humanitarian and environmental consequences of their use,” UN Secretary-General António Guterres said at the ceremony, held on the margins of the General Assembly’s high-level debate.

“The Treaty is an important step towards the universally-held goal of a world free of nuclear weapons. It is my hope that it will reinvigorate global efforts to achieve it,” he added, acknowledging the contributions made by civil society and the hibakusha – the atomic bomb survivors.

At the same time, Mr. Guterres, highlighted the difficult road ahead by recalling that there remain some 15,000 nuclear weapons in existence. “We cannot allow these doomsday weapons to endanger our world and our children’s future,” he said.

The Treaty – adopted on 7 July this year at a UN conference in New York by a vote of 122 in favour to one against (Netherlands), with one abstention (Singapore) – prohibits a full range of nuclear-weapon-related activities, such as undertaking to develop, test, produce, manufacture, acquire, possess or stockpile nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, as well as the use or threat of use of these weapons.

However, nuclear-armed States and most of their allies stayed out of the negotiations. Immediately following its adoption, the United States, the United Kingdom and France issued a joint press statement saying that they “have not taken part in the negotiation of the treaty… and do not intend to sign, ratify or ever become party to it.”

The Treaty will enter into force 90 days after it has been ratified by at least 50 countries.

At today’s ceremony, chaired by UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs Izumi Nakamitsu, 42 countries signed the Treaty, with more expected later in the day. The Holy See and Thailand not only signed but also ratified it.

The President of the General Assembly, Miroslav Lajcák, noted at the ceremony that the Treaty demonstrates the will of Member States to bring about change.

“It will raise public awareness about the risks of nuclear weapons. It will keep us on track for achieving our goal of a world in which nuclear weapons exist only in movies or books. But we need to do more to get the whole way there.”

By Jonathan Power*

“It’s not over until the fat lady ends her song” – so goes the adage, referring to the often-overweight soprano who sings the last aria in Wagner’s opera, Götterdämmerung.

British Prime Minister Theresa May is not fat in a bodily sense, but she is fat-headed, convinced of her own righteousness over Brexit, although she herself voted Remain in the Brexit referendum and then changed her opinion so she could win enough votes from Brexit members of parliament to become Prime Minister.

Fortunately, for those who believe that the European Union is a force that welds together the former warring nations of Europe who precipitated World Wars 1 and 2 into a well-run economic and political union and thus has ensured that Europe has achieved its longest period of peace in 2000 years, the fat lady has just got going on her long aria.

Indeed, her voice is gaining timbre as it becomes clear that the Remainers still have a chance of defeating May and her inward looking, self-destructive, supporters who would have had Winston Churchill on their backs if he were still alive – he was a great believer in a unified Europe.

Fortunately for Europe, as Prime Minister May goes backwards, Chancellor Angela Merkel goes forward. Certain to win her re-election on September 24, and thus overtake Vladimir Putin for longevity in office, she has Europe sewn into her gut. She has lived through it all, in the sense that the Berlin she grew up in as a girl was a bombed-out ruin, slowly being rebuilt with concrete boxes.

Merkel is one to take her time and find the right moment to strike. She doesn’t believe that the UK leadership is being rational. How could it renounce its powerful position in Europe when only 37% of the electorate voted for Leave, many of them hoodwinked by the lies of Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson, the present foreign secretary? (Dominic Cummings, the chief organizer of the Leave vote, has now said it was all a mistake.)

Chancellor Merkel will continue to support a hard, even harsh, negotiating stance with the UK over Brexit. She will partner with President Emmanuel Macron of France to strengthen the EU’s financial management to ensure another Greek-type crisis is avoided and so that Europe can unleash further its economic potential.

I guess she won’t be averse to strengthening Germany’s and the EU’s links with Scotland, so to drive home that a self-confident Scotland could compel May to realize that if she leaves Europe Scotland will leave Britain – and be welcomed to stay in the EU. In short, a re-elected Merkel will fight very hard for the Europe she has long craved for – a united, anti-far right, anti-communist, pro-melting pot, peaceful, compassionate and cooperative continent. Merkel is a tougher and more experienced piece of work than May.

Jenni Russel wrote recently in the Guardian newspaper: “Nothing could be less helpful to our collective psyche as the country blunders toward Brexit. We hear much about American “exceptionalism”, but Britain feels it too. We are the nation of empire, whose recent ancestors once controlled a quarter of the globe, we are the mother of parliaments, we stood alone against Hitler; we have not been conquered for a thousand years. We feel remarkable.”

At the same time, the latest figures from the Western governments’ joint think tank, the OECD, show that scores for literacy and numeracy of 16-24 year olds in England, Wales and Northern Ireland rank in the lowest four of the EU’s 35 countries. Alongside the Americans the British have the worst technological skills. There aren’t enough British workers with the right attitudes and skills to fill the country’s jobs.

The result is that the UK imports large numbers of migrants. Nearly 25% of university staff come from other EU countries – some of them are already packing to leave. A third of new nurses each year come from the EU. A recent report by the non-partisan Office for Budget Responsibility, warns that public finances are in worse shape than before the 2008 financial crash. Rising debt, plummeting tax revenues, and the lowest economic growth rate in Europe are the curse of the UK.

Britain, as we know it, is on its way to self-destruction. How can this be stopped? Not yet. The government must go through the pain of intense Brexit negotiations with the EU; the economy has to fail even more than it is.

Is there a way out? Perhaps there could be a deal whereby the EU concedes that the UK has the right to control its own immigration flows, since immigration was the main issue in the Leave’s campaign. Sweden quite recently did that. It was no great big deal. Then British public opinion would shift to Remain.

At that point there has to be another referendum.

*Note: For 17 years Jonathan Power authored “Like Water on Stone- the History of Amnesty International” (Penguin). He was a foreign affairs columnist for the International Herald Tribune – and a member of the Independent Commission on Disarmament, chaired by the prime minister of Sweden, Olof Palme. He has forwarded this and his previous Viewpoints for publication in IDN-INPS.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas spoke at the 72nd United Nations General Assembly meeting on Wednesday night in New York, and stated that Israel’s half-century occupation would come to end through an independent Palestinian state or “equal rights for all inhabitants of the land of historic Palestine” — referring to a one-state solution, which has gained support over the years among Palestinians and activists.

Abbas’ speech at the General Assembly slammed Israel’s half-century occupation of the Palestinian territory and the international community’s complicity in Israel’s “settler colonial process.”

Abbas said that Israel was “playing with fire” by attempting to change the historical integrity of religious sites in occupied East Jerusalem, particularly Al-Aqsa Mosque, where Israeli security restrictions fueled a two-week mass civil disobedience campaign among Palestinians in Jerusalem. Abbas hailed these protests for their peaceful organization.

He warned Israel not to transform their “political conflict” into a religious one by increasing tensions in East Jerusalem.

Abbas said that the Palestinians had “exerted all efforts to make peace with our Israeli neighbors,” but Israel has consistently rejected all initiatives. “Israel’s rejection of the two-state solution puts the entire region in jeopardy,” Abbas added.

The status quo in Palestine has “continued to deteriorate because of Israel’s continual violation of law,” Abbas said, adding that Palestine was running out of space to form an independent state owing to Israel’s relentless settlement building on Palestinian territory, considered illegal under international law.

While Abbas reiterated the need for a two-state solution, he noted that Israel’s rejection of the two-state solution risked “entrenching a system of apartheid” in Israel and the occupied territory.

He questioned the international community’s support of Israel in the context of widespread human rights violations, saying: “Apartheid was abolished in South Africa, but it’s still alive in Palestine. How is this acceptable?” — referring to the international boycott and condemnation of the South African government during the years of apartheid.

“Freedom is coming. It is inevitable,” Abbas declared. “The occupation shall come to an end. It will be either through the independence of the state of Palestine or, if they wish, equal rights for all inhabitants of the land of historic Palestine, from the river to the sea.”

A number of Palestinian activists have criticized the two-state solution as unsustainable and unlikely to bring durable peace given the existing political context, proposing instead a binational state with equal rights for Israelis and Palestinians.

Abbas demanded that the UN member countries recognize the state of Palestine, and urged them to support the two-state solution by only recognizing the state of Israel on its 1967 borders. “If you support the two-state solution, you cannot only recognize one of the states,” he said.

In addition, Abbas demanded that the international community provide an exact time frame for the end of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory, to implement Resolution 194 — which guarantees the Right to Return to Palestinians who were made refugees during Israel’s creation in 1948, to provide international protection to Palestinians until the end of Israel’s occupation, and for the international community to end its complicity in Israel’s “settler colonial process,” suggesting they emulate the behavior of the international community during apartheid South Africa, which was in part based on an international boycott movement.

Addressing the besieged Gaza Strip, Abbas said that “there will be no state in Gaza. And there will be no Palestinian state without Gaza,” before expressing his “relief” regarding reconciliation efforts with Hamas in Cairo, when on Sunday Hamas pledged to dissolve its administrative committee, which runs Gaza independently of the West Bank.

Abbas said that Palestinian Authority (PA) officials would travel to the Gaza Strip next week to “take over responsibilities” and noted that general elections could take place in the future.

However, according to recent polls an election would most likely end in a loss for Abbas. A public opinion poll released by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research on Tuesday showed that two-thirds of Palestinians demand the resignation of Abbas and half of the public views the PA as a burden on the Palestinian people.

The poll further showed that if a new presidential elections were held today and only Hamas chief Ismail Haniyeh and Abbas were nominated, the former would receive 50 percent of the vote and the latter 42 percent of the vote — compared to 45 percent each three months ago.

Furthermore, Abbas expressed hope that a “historic agreement” could be forged between Palestinians and Israelis with the help of US President Donald Trump, who has been attempting to spearhead the peace process in the region.

Earlier on Wednesday, Trump and Abbas met during the assembly and discussed political developments in the region, while Abbas reportedly expressed his confidence in Trump’s ability to mediate an agreement between Palestine and Israel.

According to Palestinian news agency Wafa, Abbas had reportedly said that Trump meeting with the Palestinian leader for the fourth time during Trump’s first term “proves the seriousness of Trump to achieve the deal of the century in the Middle East during this year or in the coming months.”

Abbas had also met with Secretary-General of the UN Antonio Guterres on the sidelines of the assembly, where the two reportedly discussed the latest developments in the political process and intra-Palestinian reconciliation efforts.

Meanwhile, during Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to the UN General Assembly and following his own meeting with Trump, Netanyahu said that “Israel is committed to achieving peace with all our Arab neighbors, including the Palestinians,” and said that he and the US president discussed the issue “at great length.”

“I appreciate President Trump’s leadership, his commitment to stand by Israel’s side, his commitment to advance a peaceful future for all. Together, we can seize the opportunities for peace, and together we can confront the great dangers of Iran,” he said.

Netanyahu also met with Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah al-Sisi in New York Monday night, when Sisi reportedly told Netanyahu he thought an Israeli-Palestinian peace accord would create a new reality in the region, strengthening stability, and security throughout the Middle East.

Egyptian-mediated reconciliation talks with Abbas’ Fatah and with Hamas were credited with influencing Hamas’ decision to dissolve its administrative committee and launch talks with the Fatah and the PA.

By Sergio Duarte, Ambassador, former U.N. High Representative for Disarmament Affairs*

The opening for signature of the Treaty on the Prohibitions of Nuclear Weapons on September 20 at the United Nations in New York marks a milestone in the long history of efforts by the international community to eliminate the most destructive and cruel of all weapons invented by man.

The wide adherence to the negotiating process of the Treaty, carried out with the strong support of civil society organizations, reflected a growing global recognition that a ban on nuclear weapons is an integral part of the normative framework necessary to achieve and maintain a world free of such weapons. It is not a hasty or impromptu movement born out of frustration for the protracted lack of concrete progress on nuclear disarmament or by humanitarian considerations. Rather, it responds to a longstanding aspiration of humanity.

Humanitarian concerns were responsible for the first agreements on chemical weapons, concluded after the end of World War I. The multilateral process that led to the complete outlawing of such means of warfare took several decades: bacteriological (biological) weapons were outlawed in the 1970’s and the Convention on chemical weapons entered into force in the 1990’s.

For its part, the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons has long been the subject of international debate at the United Nations since 1946. Unfortunately, however, it did not yet reach a fully satisfactory solution. The very first Resolution of the General Assembly decided to create a Commission charged with, inter alia, “making specific proposals for the elimination from national armaments of atomic weapons”.

The rivalry and mistrust between the two major powers of the time prevented any progress and efforts were abandoned a few years later. Since then, a number of partial measures were negotiated, all of them dealing with the prevention of the proliferation of nuclear weapons. However, the conclusion of irreversible, legally binding multilateral agreements on the elimination of such weapons has proven elusive. According to estimates, over 15.000 nuclear weapons still remain in the possession of nine countries – the United States and Russia together accounting for 13,800.

The quest for the elimination of nuclear weapons continued over the decades. A notable effort was the proposal by Costa Rica and Malaysia of a draft Nuclear Weapons Convention in 1997, which was updated in 2007. Former Secretary General of the United Nations Ban Ki-Moon brought this idea again to the fore in his 5-point nuclear disarmament plan in 2008. All States agree on the need to do away with nuclear weapons, an objective also recognized in the NPT (Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons) and in many other international agreements.

The possessors of nuclear arsenals and most of their allies have so far taken a negative attitude toward the Prohibition Treaty. But the new instrument does not seek a ban in isolation of other measures. Neither does it disregard the consideration of the global security environment in the action leading to the elimination of nuclear weapons.

No one disputes that the international community faces serious security challenges. Incidentally, many of such challenges result in fact from the very existence of nuclear arsenals. Early involvement and participation in the ban process would have enabled nuclear weapon States to raise and explain the security concerns that seem so overwhelmingly important to them.

The assertion that the conditions that would make the negotiations realistic do not exist right now has served to justify the indefinite maintenance of the current status quo. Such conditions, by the way, have never been clearly formulated. An open discussion with the States holding that view would have been useful to clarify many points of mutual interest.

Another allegation against the negotiations on a ban was that they would not be based on a consensus and would therefore risk increasing the schism between haves and have-nots. That schism is an inherent feature of the NPT, which instituted a division of the world into two groups of States.

The Prohibition Treaty is meant to apply erga omnes and aims at eliminating the gulf between the two groups of States. The credibility and effectiveness of the NPT is being undermined not by calls to implement Article VI but by the perceived lack of compliance by the armed States with their commitments to nuclear disarmament. The obligation contained in Article VI was clarified by the International Court of Justice in 1996. It requires not only that its Parties engage in good faith negotiations for the achievement of nuclear disarmament, but also to bring them to a conclusion.

Over seventy years since nuclear weapons first appeared and forty-seven years after the entry into force of the NPT, the words and deeds of the nuclear weapon States amount to an indefinite postponement of the fulfillment of that obligation.

The United Nations General Assembly decided to establish September 26 as the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons. This year’s celebration of that date follows the opening for signature of the Prohibition Treaty. The General Assembly also decided to convene a UN High Level Conference on Nuclear Disarmament no later than 2018 in order to evaluate progress and advance further the elimination of nuclear weapons.

Recent UN High Level Conferences have been very successful, such as the ones on Climate Change, on Oceans and on Migration. States must avail themselves of the opportunity to participate in a process aimed at bringing new impetus to the non-proliferation and disarmament debate and at promoting concrete progress in this field, with the active participation of civil society organizations. Rather than dismissing the newest instrument, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, as unhelpful or counterproductive, States are expected to ensure that it is used as a new and effective tool toward the common objective of ridding the world of nuclear weapons.

*Sergio Duarte was the UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs with the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (2007-2012). He was the President of the 2005 Seventh Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. A career diplomat, he served the Brazilian Foreign Service for 48 years. He was the Ambassador of Brazil in a number of countries, including Austria, Croatia, Slovakia and Slovenia concurrently, China, Canada and Nicaragua. He also served in Switzerland, the United States, Argentina and Rome. Since end of August he is President of the Pugwash Conference on Science and World Affairs.

The Muslim world appreciates Pope Francis’s stance on false claims linking Islam to extremism and violence, Dr. Mohammed bin Abdulkarim Al-Issa, secretary-general of the Muslim World League (MWL), told the pope during a meeting at the Vatican on Wednesday.

The two men exchanged views on a number of topics of mutual concern, notably cooperation between the Vatican and the Islamic world on issues related to peace and coexistence.

Pope Francis has said in the past that violence is not directly related to Islam, and that all religions have some extremist followers.

After their meeting, the pope and Al-Issa exchanged gifts.

The MWL chief gave the pope a religious symbol representing Islamic civilization and its communication with other civilizations.

Pope Francis gave Al-Issa a memorial pen marking the 500th anniversary of St. Peter’s Basilica in 2006, and a medal commemorating his fifth year as head of the Roman Catholic church.

During his visit, the MWL chief will meet senior figures from the Vatican administration and leading Italian officials, and will attend a number of religious and cultural functions in Rome.

By Abdulrahman Al-Rashed*

A news agency recently attributed to the White House a statement claiming that President Donald Trump managed to prevent Saudi Arabia and the UAE from invading Qatar. However, an hour later, the US President issued a statement denying the report.

Then another story surfaced claiming that President Trump had rebuked the emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim, when they met in New York, and showed him secret information proving that Qatar continued to finance terrorism even after it signed a commitment with the Americans to stop doing so weeks before.

Many stories have been circulated for political purposes, despite the availability of facts to the contrary. The nature of the crisis and the early entrenchment of Qatar by the American bases and international military alliances defy the logic of such ways of thinking. Nevertheless, Qatar has resorted to this propaganda since June to generate sympathy, in Kuwait for instance, and to depict its opponents as evil states.

But the reality is quite the opposite. Qatar has been trying for years to weaken and target states such as Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Egypt. Its targeting of the state of Bahrain, through supporting the opposition which wants to topple the regime, is no secret. Moreover, it has been financing the Saudi extremist religious opposition in London since the 1990s. This Saudi opposition, which calls openly for toppling the government in Saudi Arabia, participated in the assassination plot against late King Abdullah bin Abdul-Aziz. As for Egypt, observing the Qatari media for one night only would be enough to hear clear calls for toppling the Sissi government by force, in addition to the large and incessant involvement of Qatar in financing the Egyptian opposition.

Nevertheless, none of the affected countries worked on an armed or provocative project against Qatar at the time. Even Hosni Mubarak, the former president of Egypt, who was targeted the most by Qataris, refrained from responding to the Qatari plots and chose to simply ignore them.

The Anti-Terror Quartet, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the UAE and Bahrain, declared openly their program against Qatar, and there are more than 10 other Arab countries that silently support the Quartet against Qatar. The agenda against Qatar is based on the strategy of isolating and weakening it, with the hope of achieving one of two objectives: Either forcing it to change its policies or at least weakening it to prevent it from meddling in others’ affairs. But no one has suggested, or even hinted at, any intention of toppling the regime of Qatar or its ruler.

Many people think, and they may be right, that the present emir, Sheikh Tamim, is helpless, and that the real person who is calling the shots and creating problems in Qatar is his father, who abdicated, in name only, four years ago.

Since the beginning of the crisis, Doha has been asking the Turks, the Americans, and even the Iranians, for help, alleging that the Saudis and Emiratis have been plotting against it, and that they have been stifling Qatar in an unprecedented blockade. No logical person can believe this Qatari gibberish, which has been copied from the manuals of Gaza, about a country full of Ferraris and caviar. In short, the problem is that the spoilt rulers of Doha do not want to stop playing the role of a big regional state, but are unwilling to bear the consequences of their actions.

• Abdulrahman Al-Rashed is a veteran columnist. He is the former general manager of Al Arabiya news channel, and former editor-in-chief of Asharq Al-Awsat, where this article is also published. Twitter: @aalrashed

Minsk is promoting the Belarusianization of Belarus while Mmoscow is pushing its re-Sovietization. But because both are being imposed from above, specialists on that country say, it is unclear whether the former will promote cultural security or the latter undermine it.

That is the conclusion of a panel on the relationship of “soft Belarusianization” and Russian “soft power” that occurred during the Seventh International Congress of Researchers on Belarus that occurred in Warsaw last weekend (thinktanks.by/publication/2017/09/19/kangres-dasledchyka-belarus-bylo-nyaprosta-ale-forum-udasya.html and camarade.biz/node/26089).

Vadim Mozheykov, a specialist on Belarusian culture, said that “’soft Belarusianization’ consisted of “the gradual, voluntary to the maximum extent broadening of the use of the Belarusian language, the support, development and dissemination of Belarusian culture, [and] the preservation and promotion of the historical-cultural heritage.”

Such a policy, he continued, will help “form and strengthen national identity, help counter cultural and information threats and the challenges of disinformation and propaganda.” Those involved in the business of soft Belarusianization are divided between “those motivated by patriotic motives” and those who are exploiting it to make money.

The Belarusian state plays a role but hardly the lead one — at least in public because “there is the need after Crimea to balance the influence of the Russian world with the other side” but that “any sharp move” away from Russian influence will have exactly the opposite impact that Minsk wants.

Three things make this difficult task even more so, Mozheyko says, “the absence of a tradition of a strong strategy of cultural policy,” “the infiltration of the state apparatus by supporters of the Russian world,” and “the previous policy which for many years was pointed in exactly the opposite direction.”

Another participant in the panel, Andrey Vardomatsky of Warsaw’s Belarusian Analytic Center, said that “there is another process taking place in the country besides Belarusianization which is no less important. This is re-Sovietization, and it is also from above but not from Minsk but rather from Moscow.”

“This concerns us directly for you know that the ratings of the Russian media in Belarus are higher than those of Belarusian outlets,” he continued. And he argued that one still doesn’t feel any impact “in the mass consciousness” of the government’s support of “soft Belarusianization.”

What one sees, he said, is that “the orientation toward Russia has not been reduced, the orientation toward Europe has not increased, and the process in the masses is not yet sufficiently developed to be felt … And Belarusianization has been de-depersonalized, and unlike for example Polish identity which has an enormous number of names and events.”

The plight of Myanmar’s persecuted Rohingya minority is becoming the Muslim world’s latest rallying call, emulating the emotional appeal of the Palestinians in the second half of the 20th century. It has also become an arena for the Muslim world’s multiple rivalries. Calls for military intervention on behalf of the Rohingya reflect efforts by competing Muslim states and non-state forces to be seen as defenders of a community under attack.

They also echo a greater assertiveness of Muslim states amid perceptions of waning American power as well as a jihadist effort to reposition themselves in the wake of the demise of Islamic State’s territorial base in Iraq and Syria.

Assertive Muslim States

To be sure, Muslim states are unlikely to marshal an expeditionary force capable of intervening in Myanmar. Nonetheless, calls for action signal thinking especially among bitter Middle Eastern rivals, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Iran, that favours Muslim states projecting an independent military force.

That thinking is reinforced by concerns about expansion of jihadist groups beyond the Middle East into regions like Southeast Asia and worry that the militants will gain an upper hand in projecting themselves as the true defenders of the faith compared to Muslim governments who do little more than pay lip service and at best provide humanitarian relief.

Beyond Middle Eastern rivalries and competition with militants for hearts and minds, the plight of the Rohingya could complicate Pakistan’s rejection of US pressure to halt support for select extremist groups. It could also put it at odds with China that has backed the Myanmar government, and potentially move Chinese suppression of its Uighur minority in the province of Xinjiang into the Muslim firing line.

Iranian Deputy Parliament Speaker Ali Motahar this week raised the bar by calling on the Muslim world to form a Muslim expeditionary force to go to the rescue of the Rohingya. Calling on Muslims to set up a NATO-like joint military force that can intervene in such situations, Motahar said the crimes of the government of Myanmar will not be halted without using military force.

The deputy speaker’s remarks were at the same time a stab at Iran’s arch rival, Saudi Arabia, which had initiated the trend towards greater Muslim military assertiveness with the creation two years ago of a 37-nation military alliance commanded by a Riyadh-based retired Pakistani general.

Mohsen Rezaee, the secretary of Iran’s Expediency Council and former chief commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards, sought to further put the Saudis on the spot by calling on Iran, Turkey, Syria and Iraq to establish an Army of the Prophet. Predominantly Sunni Muslim Turkey would provide the alliance its non-sectarian credentials.

Calls for Rohingya Aid

The Rohingya question, however, is complicated by the complexity of Muslim identity in Myanmar. To the vast majority of Myanmar people, they are exercising their democratic will in supporting Aung San Suu Kyi and the military against the Rohingya. To a large number of today’s Myanmar people, Muslims in Myanmar comprise four groups:

• those who were brought in or welcomed by the ancient Arakanese rulers as praetorian guards;
• those who came to “Burma” during the time of the Mughals in India and those remnants of the Mughal empire when the latter collapsed eventually;
• those who worked for the British colonial administration or came as manual workers during the time of British India and settled in Burma; and
• those from Chittagong and frontier areas who moved into the Rakhine region during the time of East Pakistan or when East Pakistan broke with West Pakistan; and those who harbour support for Pakistan even though East Pakistan has become Bangladesh today.

The last category is not accepted in Myanmar by the Muslims and non-Muslims. This category forms the core of what is described as the Rohingya today.

So far, competition between Saudi Arabia and Iran,when it comes to the Rohingya issue, seems a battle between paper tigers. The two countries are each other’s match in rhetoric and lack of deeds. As a result, accusations by Myanmar that Muslim countries are supporting Rohingya militants may be less targeted at Saudi Arabia and Iran and more at Pakistan and Turkey; Ankara has delivered aid to Rohingya fleeing into Bangladesh and described the crackdown as a genocide.

Further Complexity

Myanmar press reports quoted Bangladesh and Indian intelligence as having intercepted two phone calls between Hafiz Tohar, a leader of the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) that sparked the crackdown with attacks in late August on Myanmar security forces, and an alleged operative of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Pakistan’s main intelligence agency, as well as a third call with an alleged representative of Islamic State (IS).

The reports suggested that the ARSA attacks were timed to follow a report by a group headed by former UN Secretary General Kofi Anan that warned Myanmar risked fuelling “extremism” if it did not lift restrictions on the freedom of movement and right to citizenship of its Rohingya minority.

There was no independent confirmation of the press reports nor was it immediately clear what interest Pakistan would have in destabilising Myanmar and causing Bangladesh heartburn. That is not to say that there are no links between the Rohingya militants and Pakistan as well as Saudi Arabia.

ARSA leaders are believed to have roots in Saudi Arabia, to have been trained in Pakistan, and gained experience in Afghanistan. ARSA, nonetheless, insists that it has no ties to militants outside Rakhine state and that its aim is to protect the Rohingya rather than wage global jihad.

Geopolitical Implications

Allegations of a Pakistani link comes at a time that China is discreetly debating its hands-off approach to Pakistani links to militancy. China has so far shielded Islamabad by vetoing UN Security Council designation of Masood Ashar, the fugitive leader of an anti-Indian group, as a terrorist. China has also defended Pakistan against US criticism.

The Rohingya issue could swing the pendulum in the Chinese debate. China, like India, has invested in Myanmar infrastructure. The last thing China wants is to be on the receiving end of inflamed Muslim public opinion that embraces the plight of the Rohingya and targets supporters of the government. That is even truer given China’s Achilles heel: brutal suppression of basic rights of the Uighurs, a Turkic Muslim group in Xinjiang.

China’s massive energy imports and huge infrastructure investments in the Muslim world as part of its Belt and Road Initiative have so far spared it criticism of its crackdown in Xinjiang that targets the Uighur’s religious identity. That could change if the plight of the Rohingya becomes the Muslim world’s new rallying cry.

This article was published at RSIS.

The recent arrest of two Singaporeans under the Internal Security Act (ISA) highlights the pivotal role IS ideology plays in current radicalisation processes. The key to effectively challenge IS propaganda is to invalidate its claim of religious legitimacy.

By Mohamed Bin Ali and NurulHuda Binte Yussof*

The self-proclaimed Islamic State (IS) has proven its technological prowess to extend its ideological reach and impact. Though reeling from physical losses in Iraq and Syria, IS ideology has gained ground globally, driving self-radicalisation initiatives and inspiring lone wolf attacks. Singapore is not immune to this as recent arrests have shown.

There is strong correspondence between those arrested and their acceptance of IS as the only qualified Muslim religious authority. This belief is manifested in unreserved allegiance to the group’s leader and the active promotion of IS propaganda online. This worldview of an exclusive religious authority drives IS supporters’ acceptance of its politico-religious objectives including a global Islamic Caliphate. This translates to acceptance of the group’s chosen means to achieve it, including the use of violence on specific groups.

Challenging IS Claims to Religious Legitimacy

Recognising that religious legitimacy is at the heart of the IS propaganda machinery, the key to deconstruct IS ideology is therefore to invalidate its religious legitimacy.

IS gains its religious legitimacy by espousing absolutist positions across religious and political issues with selected and distorted use of Islamic scriptures. These absolutist positions advocate two things: the physical act of ‘letting go of worldly affairs’, and associating ‘immersing oneself with the Hereafter’ with participating in the objectives of the group.

Additionally, IS has claimed for itself as the absolute unit of governance that will take on the ‘religious responsibility’ of establishing an Islamic Caliphate. These ideas of a Caliphate and committing to moral uprightness are powerful pull factors for many Muslims worldwide, although not in the IS sense.

It is through these elements that IS managed to pull individuals into the pathway of radicalisation and to convince the radicalised individuals to take action in its name.

How IS Translates Its Ideology

The IS approach in doing this is best demonstrated in its Dabiq magazine. Articles are written by IS members whose chain of knowledge is unknown. Their religious content can be characterised by having Sunni-versus-Shiite rhetoric, circular discourses on religious concepts and the extensive use of eschatological or “End Times” narratives.

In comparison, traditional scholars gain their legitimacy through scholarship and strictly abiding by the Islamic chain of knowledge. The invalidation of IS’ religious legitimacy comes from contrasting the IS’ “shotgun” approach to religious scholarship with the long, rigorous process of conventional Islamic scholarship.

Efforts can focus on educating Muslims generally with the skills to separate superficial religiosity from the rich wisdom of the Islamic traditional knowledge. While one stokes the emotional faculties and is devoid of the values of the religion, the other is steeped in the proper etiquette of knowledge acquisition (adab) and requires the active engagement of reasoning faculties.

IS Politico-Religious Objectives

IS materials use religious concepts to justify a political end. For example, to establish a caliphate as governance, the group packages the narrative of a collective conspiracy of the West against Islam. This is characterised by narration of global injustices against Muslims thus presenting the establishment of the Caliphate as its strongest retaliation.

Hence, unquestionable obedience to the Caliph is demanded as part of its pursuit in ‘avenging’ the religion. This ‘unquestionable obedience’ is to be offered in the form of religious obligations like making hijrah (migration), executing jihad (fighting) and pledging allegiance.

What needs to be emphasised is that IS propaganda instructs violence and destruction – something that is antagonistic to Islamic teachings. From this, IS clearly cannot be regarded as either a legitimate religious entity or a political one.

Strong Red Flags: Hate Spin Messages

A key feature of IS propaganda is its hate spin messages. Hate spin refers to the strategy in which political entrepreneurs use incitement and offence-taking to mobilise supporters and coerce targeted groups. IS propaganda contains hate spin messages for a range of specified groups which it defines as its political enemies.

This is particularly relevant to the Singaporean community whose social fabric is diverse in its religious and political beliefs. This makes Singaporean society particularly vulnerable to hate spin messages propagated by IS, where the Muslim minority population can be influenced to take on the victim role. Socio-economic woes can also be easily weaved into this narrative, thereby increasing the likelihood of radicalisation.

One approach that can be taken in Singapore is to tap into the cultural assets of the nation, namely the total defence mechanism. It must be made a part of Singapore’s social defence to resist hate speech and hate spin mindsets against the characters of fellow Singaporeans. Not only will it strengthen the nation’s social defence, it will also aid in the national effort to prevent the spread of intolerance.

In the final analysis, IS propaganda will continue even if IS ceases to exist. To confront it, there is a need for robust tools to critically and continuously invalidate the heart of the IS ideology, namely its questionable religious legitimacy, especially amongst its adherents. Religious scholars must step forward and guide the community against misguided religious views.

It is only with acute understanding of the religion that the wisdom of Islam’s various nuances can be realised. Contextualisation ability can then be strengthened from within, thereby making it less likely for the radicalisation process to take root, irrespective of the ever-changing political and social climate facing the community.

*Mohamed Bin Ali is Assistant Professor with the Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore and NurulHuda Binte Yussof is a final year student in the Public Policy and Global Affairs programme at the School of Social Sciences (SSS), NTU.

By Sinisa Jakov Marusic

Amid questions over his continued leadership, former Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski has insisted he will ‘bear responsibility’ if his former ruling party loses the October local elections.

Asked whether he would resign if his party loses the October 15 local elections in Macedonia, former PM Gruevski – whose VMRO DPMNE party ran Macedonia for 11 years until recently – said only that he would assume responsibility for the result, whatever it was.

In that case, “the party leader bears the biggest responsibility”, Gruevski briefly told the Albanian-language TV station Alsat on Tuesday. However, he insisted he was confident of victory in the local election.

After losing power in May following a prolonged political crisis in which he was accused of masterminding a massive wiretapping scheme and of other crimes, the local elections are seen as an important test of whether Gruevski will be able to remain party leader, amid growing discontent within the party’s ranks.

Macedonia’s Special Prosecution, SJO, which is tasked with probing high-level crime, has filed several charges against him and has opened several other investigations.

However, he has denied guilt of any offences.

“That is a classical politically-motivated witch hunt,” Gruevski said, accusing the now ruling Social Democrats, SDSM, who took power in May, of instigating it.

“This witch hunt is mostly directed against VMRO DPMNE and officials from the past government. The goal is to defocus the public. Instead of dealing with problems that are of concern to citizens, like wages, jobs, subsidies for agriculture and EU and NATO membership, they [the new government] instigate witch hunts,” he said.

Formed in autumn 2015 as part of an EU-sponsored crisis agreement, the SJO has pressed charges in 20 cases, mostly against officials from VMRO DPMNE. It is also working on more than 120 investigations and pre-investigation procedures.

Among other things, the SJO has sought Gruevski’s arrest on charges of electoral fraud.

But Gruevski again denied that his party’s 11-year reign was marred by corruption and undemocratic practices, again accusing NGOs financed by US billionaire George Soros of waging a campaign against him.

“In reality, there is no ‘captured state,'” Gruevski said, referring to the term that the European Commission used in last year’s progress report to describe Macedonia under his government.

“Macedonia was a free country of free citizens who freely expressed their opinions in elections and lived freely. Everything else is a grave campaign, which has fooled many [people]. The term ‘captured state’ is part of the propaganda against VMRO DPMNE, aimed at its demise,” he insisted.

In a rare appearance before an Albanian-speaking media outlet, Gruevski admited he had made a mistake by not paying more attention to the large Albanian community in the country, comprising about 20 per cent of the population.

He said this had resulted in the spread of a false idea that he had conducted anti-Albanian policies.

In the general elections last December 11, the Social Democrats, SDSM, won support from many ethnic Albanians who had turned against Gruevski and his party.

Asked to comment on the wiretapped recordings of official conversations that the SDSM published in 2015, in which his former Interior Minister, Gordana Jankulovska, was heard calling the Albanians “Indians”, Gruevski stuck to his previous standpoint – that the wiretaps were either doctored or fake.

“I don’t know if she called them that way. We are talking about created material,” Gruevski said. “I condemn all offensive speech towards anyone. If offense was directed against Albanians, I condemn it.”

Following the revelation of the wiretaps, Gruevski contested their authenticity, insisting they were “created” or had been been tampered with.

Gruevski has also claimed that the wiretaps were created by unnamed foreign intelligence services and given to the then opposition as part of a wider plot to discredit him and his government.

By Anuradha Yagya*

Concerted measures are necessary for India to meet the demands of its ever-growing urban population. Indeed, the country’s urban-policymakers have been making efforts to adapt their strategies to the growing challenges of urbanisation. The period before the enactment of the Constitution (74th amendment) Act, 1992 emphasised on the creation of housing stock and provision of basic urban amenities to the poor. The 1992 Act sought to empower urban local bodies. Subsequently, in 2005, the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) was launched to improve urban infrastructure and strengthen urban governance. The most recent initiative by the Government of India, launched in 2015, is the Smart Cities Mission. Under the mission, the Centre is supporting state governments in the creation of 100 ‘smart cities’.

Urban growth and development issues in India vary across cities and are determined by their spatial/physical location as well as the sociopolitical characteristics of the state where they are located. There are significant regional variations in development achievements and performance across the country. For example, while some northeastern and northern states of India face physical challenges (such as isolation due to difficult terrain), other states such as Bihar, Jharkhand and Rajasthan hurdle less issues of topography and more of sociopolitical and economic constraints.

India being a federal republic, the challenges with respect to governance vary across the states as urban development is a state subject. Planning and development authorities (regional and town planning) fall under the jurisdiction of the state government. The central government can issue directives, provide advisory services, set up model legislation and fund programmes that states can follow at will.^[1] Therefore, development efforts and their outcomes are subject to the state-level initiatives.

Himachal Pradesh is a hill state located in the northern part of the country. It is the least urbanised state in India, with just 10.4 percent of its population residing in urban areas. Its annual exponential growth, too, is recorded to be the lowest amongst all states and Union Territories (UT), at 1.45 percent. The reason behind the low rate of urbanisation is that the urban centres are not able to fulfil the defined criterion of accommodating population density of at least 400 persons per sq. km. Many places have lesser population density and fail to qualify due to the hilly terrain.^[2] The challenges to sustain even this level of urbanisation in Himachal Pradesh are manifold due to its mountainous ecosystem that makes it extremely fragile. Development efforts are constrained due to issues like higher vulnerability of the state to natural disasters, and less availability of built up space. Yet the same physiographic conditions that serve as obstacles to development also make the state an important tourist destination.

Shimla is the capital city of the state of Himachal Pradesh. Being a hill city, Shimla faces urban management issues that are different from those for the cities in plain terrain. For one, land resources—critical for urban growth—are in short supply in Shimla. Resource efficiency, therefore, is key to ensure sustainable development of the city. The city was selected—through a competition process, wherein the Shimla Municipal Corporation submitted a smart city proposal that was accepted by the Ministry of Urban Development—under the Smart Cities Mission in June 2017.

This report seeks to describe the key urban development and management challenges in Shimla, and offer ideas and suggestions to overcome them. It aims to serve as a policy input for the ongoing smart city project in Shimla. The report presents an overview of the city and discusses key features of the city with respect to its physical location and growth, infrastructure and service provision, mobility, tourism potential, and institutional setup for urban management. The report specifically brings to light key policy revisions and reforms undertaken by the Government of Himachal Pradesh to promote sustainable development. It concludes by identifying some key suggestions for urban development. The information presented here is based on a review of literature and a two-day workshop on smart cities conducted in Shimla on 19–20 May 2017. The workshop gathered subject experts from Shimla as well as other parts of the country. Key government officials were also in attendance and discussed policy issues with respect to urban development and management in Shimla. 

Shimla City: An Overview

Shimla is connected to the city of Kalka—a foothill town situated in the adjoining state of Haryana—by one of the longest narrow-gauge railway in India. It is also connected by road and airline services. The city is approximately 100 km from Panchkula, the nearest major city, and 365 km from New Delhi.

Shimla’s population has been constantly growing from about 55,000 in 1971 to 186,000 in 2016.^[3] As per the 2011 Census, Shimla had a population of 169,578. Figure 1 shows the population change of Shimla city over the decades. However, while the absolute population is growing, percent decadal change shows a declining trend. It is the only Class-I urban centre (population over 100,000) in the state, with about 25 percent of the state’s urban population living in the city. 

Figure 1: Decadal Change in Population of Shimla

The city is governed by a municipal corporation and has an area of around 35.34 sq. km. The density of population is 47.98 persons per sq. km. The city is built on top of seven hill ranges and has 25 percent of land under forests and 41 natural springs that gives it a unique natural setting. The city has 82 listed heritage sites, six demarcated heritage zones, one ASI protected monument, and a museum. The Kalka–Shimla railway line built by the British is a UNESCO world heritage site.

Shimla’s urban development issues may not seem very different from those in other cities of the country–mobility, congestion and land management, spatial growth and management, infrastructure, and service inadequacy. However, the context—as discussed in the subsequent sections—must be understood with specific reference to Shimla. 

Urban Development Situation in Shimla

This section analyses the various urban development features of the city, including the physical location and the urban growth characteristics, the state of infrastructure and services, the characteristics of urban mobility, the impacts caused by tourism activities, and the energy situation of the city.

Physical Location and Urban Growth

The city is spread over seven hill spurs, namely, Jakhoo Hill, Elysium Hill, Museum Hill, Prospect Hill, Observatory Hill, Summer Hill and Potters Hill. These spurs are interconnected by roads. Thus, the development pattern in Shimla is governed by topographical constraints such as steep slopes, elongated hilly spurs, forest areas and zones of perpetual sunshades. About 90 percent of the city is built on unstable, 60-degree slopes, covered in four- to five-storey structures, although construction is prohibited on slopes above 45 degrees. However, there is a need for greater vigilance on construction activities. Extensive deforestation happened in the 1980s and 1990s, and Shimla has since lost a lot of its green cover.^[5]

Shimla’s physiographic conditions impose many constraints on urban development and growth. These include:

1. Scarcity of buildable land, leading to the construction of unsafe structures on slopes. Most of the population is concentrated on the southern slopes, which are more amenable to construction. Shimla is still learning to balance its natural environment with its manmade one. Being a tourist destination, many problems get accentuated. The city is witnessing large-scale expansion.
2. The spatial expansion of the urban area is along linear corridors, and several areas are completely inaccessible through motorised transport. The movement of vehicles and people face several difficulties due to reduced width of roads in some areas.^[6]
3. The city lies in Seismic Zone IV (high-damage risk zone). Due to construction on hilly terrain and steep slopes, Shimla is extremely vulnerable to natural hazards such as landslides, sinking of land and earthquakes. Several areas of the city are in sinking zones. About 25 percent of the old town is in the sinking zone, and unless improvements are made in the drainage and sewerage systems of the upper reaches, more areas will become prone to sinking, thus endangering life and property. The reasons for sinking of land include unregulated dumping of debris on slopes, resulting in loose soil; increasing pressure of people and buildings on slopes; and poor drainage and sewerage systems. It is important to improve the drainage system to facilitate run-off, especially in monsoon season, to reduce the risk of sinking.^[7]

To ensure planned and regulated growth, the Government of Himachal Pradesh constituted Shimla Planning Area (SPA) through notification in November 1977. The SPA comprises the following:^[8]

1. Shimla Municipal Corporation;
2. Recently merged Special Areas of Dhalli, New Shimla, and Tutu; and
3. Special Areas of Kufri, Shoghi and Ghanahatti.

The geographical spread of the SPA is roughly 100 sq. km, in which approximately 32 sq. km falls under the municipal limit, including newly added areas of New Shimla, Dhalli and Tutu. 

Infrastructure and Service Provision

Shimla faces management and planning challenges with respect to provision and maintenance of essential services such as liquid and solid waste disposal and water supply (Table 1). Shimla is an administrative node and an educational hub for the rest of the state. Moreover, due to influx of tourists and floating population, especially during summer (which is the peak tourist season), there is great pressure on infrastructure and services.

The city faces acute water shortage. Because of the closure of a groundwater supply scheme (GWSS), the net water availability has further reduced. The per capita water supply is below the 135 litres per capita daily (LPCD), the standard set by the Central Public Health and Environmental Engineering Organisation guidelines.

In terms of solid and liquid waste, too, the situation is critical. As a result of poor utilisation of available treatment facility in the sewage treatment plant, only 11 percent of the total sewage is treated. The untreated water is released into open streams and drains that cause severe damage to environment, flora and fauna.^[10]

Around 80 percent of the city is covered by door-to-door waste collection services (Table 1). During peak tourist season, however, more waste is generated. The community bins often overflow, even in the tourist areas. Waste is regularly dumped in the open drains, leading to blockages in natural drainage channels.

Urban Mobility

Most of the hill towns have severe mobility constraints due to a lack of land to accommodate increased traffic flow. Shimla is no exception (Table 2). Vertical mobility is more critical for the city with such variations in elevation.

However, presently, there is only one public lift for tourists and residents alike. Only 16 percent of the motorable roads have footpaths, although 42 percent of the trips are covered on foot. The availability of public conveyance, too, is inadequate, with only 308 buses available for public transport.

The vehicular volume has grown by 23 percent, thereby increasing the parking demand in the city. The city has only 4,311 ECS parking available, while the demand is currently at 14,500 ECS parking. New parking lots are under development in PPP mode. Traffic congestion is very frequent in Shimla, especially in the tourist season, when traffic comes to a standstill for several hours on the major roads.

Tourism

The city witnesses a large influx of domestic and foreign tourists as well as a floating population. Shimla is a preferred tourist destination. The number of tourists has increased from 7.14 million in 2005 to 18.45 million in 2016.^[12] The floating population,^[13] too, has increased from around 56,000 in 2001 to around 80,000 in 2016; these people are primarily engaged in tourism and service-provision activities.^[14]

The peak season for tourists is the summer months. Moreover, Shimla is a weekend destination for people living in Delhi and Chandigarh. The city, however, is not equipped to deal with the rising tourist numbers. Therefore, the tourist season puts a severe strain on the infrastructure, with respect to availability of water supply, garbage disposal and mobility. The floating population, too, burdens the existing infrastructure and contributes to encroachments and unauthorised constructions, which are incompatible to natural areas.

Energy Needs

The energy need of urban areas is becoming one of the most critical issues in urban management. Shimla requires energy for heating during winter months. There is a ban on the use of wood for heating purposes. In the recent years, focus has shifted to renewable energy. Renewable energy sources, such as hydropower, supply the total energy demand. Two solar plants, installed under the solar city plan, currently generate 35 KWP (kilowatt peak) capacity. A recently commissioned waste-to-energy plant is now producing 1.7 MWH (megawatt hour) of energy. There is also a plan to convert streetlights into solar-powered lamps.^[15] 

Urban Management

Urban management agencies face numerous challenges in managing urban growth and development. The Constitution (74th Amendment), 1992 gave the urban local bodies (ULB) the power to manage creation and provision of urban services. However, in many states, the actual transfer of services from the state to local government is yet to take place.

In Shimla, several state departments are still actively involved in urban services management (Table 3). In many cases, they have joint responsibility with the Shimla Municipal Corporation (SMC). For instance, the bulk water supply is planned, constructed and managed by the State Department of Irrigation and Public Health. The SMC is only responsible for the supply and distribution of water. This partial division of responsibilities for water supply results in inefficient management of services, as the planning and distribution of water are carried out by separate agencies. In the case of sewerage and drainage services, the planning and construction of the infrastructure is done by the state department, whereas the operations and maintenance are overseen by the SMC. The SMC entirely manages solid waste management and the internal roads. However, the SMC faces shortage of technical personnel. Vertical mobility, which is a key element in Shimla due to its hilly terrain, is managed by the Public Works department and not by the SMC. The SMC is also not responsible for essential aspects such as urban housing in the city, which is directly managed by the state department of HIMUDA.

Table 3: Institutional Setup for Urban Management

Source: Bhavna Karki, 2015.^[16]

Note: SMC: Shimla Municipal Corporation; I&PH: Irrigation and Public Health; PWD: Public Works Department; HPSEB: Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board; HIMUDA: Himachal Pradesh Housing and Urban Development Authority; DoUD: Department of Urban Development; NGO: Non-Government Organisation; HRTC: Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation; HPBMDA: HP Bus Stand Management and Development Authority; TCP: Town and Country Planning.

With respect to the financial condition of the local body, the SMC has been in deficit for the last few years. The ULB is dependent on the state to meet its revenue expenditures. Its decision-making and fiscal powers are still not fully devolved from the state government.

The State Finance Commission recommends that 2.75 percent of the state’s own tax and non-tax revenues be given to the local bodies. So far, the state has not complied with this, and only 0.12 percent of the tax sources are given to the local institutions. Moreover, the SMC has received only 18 percent of the aggregate amount of the grants distributed by the state government, which is low as compared to its population share of 25 percent.^[17] The SMC needs to strengthen its revenue-generating capability. The cost recovery of operation and maintenance expenses is still inadequate. Given that the municipal corporation will be playing a greater role in urban service delivery, its capacity must be built in the areas of tax collection and recovery. 

Policy Reforms to Promote Sustainable Development

In the last decade, the SMC and the Himachal Pradesh government have adopted important policy changes and new policy resolutions, to promote sustainable urban development in the city. Some of these include:

2009. Use of renewable energy: The Ministry of Renewable Energy has prepared a solar masterplan for the city. Solar passive building design is now mandatory in public/government buildings and has been incorporated in the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Rules, 2009. The conversion of city streetlights to solar lights is underway.
2010. Water conservation: Mandatory sloping of two-thirds of the roof area to promote rainwater harvesting, as part of the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Rules, 2009.
2011. Protection of natural environment: Policies such as avoiding construction of building settlements on river sites, complete ban on felling trees, ban on firewood and coal for heating, and ban on smoking in public spaces.
2012. Waste management: Ban on use of polythene bags in the city.
2013. Use of alternative energy: A waste to energy plant, in operation since January 2017.
2014. Parking policy: New vehicle registration in Shimla is allowed only if parking is available. It is the second state in India to have this policy. Furthermore, in terms of overall urban transportation, there is a need to reduce vehicle ownership in the city. This will substantially reduce the traffic congestion.

Some of these policy changes are critical in retaining the natural heritage of Shimla. However, city residents, too, need alternative options. Escalators/lifts and ropeways are important components of vertical mobility that can ease the mobility issues of the residents as well as the tourists.

Smart alternatives are required to solve the many issues of urban development in the face of resource—natural, manpower, financial—constraints. In Shimla, due to its physiographic and climatic conditions, there is a need for constant innovation to unlock potential resources and ensure frugal use. The Ministry of Urban Development—now called Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs—has chosen Shimla under the Smart Cities Mission to be developed as a smart city in June 2017. The Shimla Municipal Corporation prepared a detailed smart city proposal describing aspects that require immediate attention for the sustainable development of Shimla. The proposal contains plans and initiatives to accomplish the much-needed improvements in service levels through optimal resource utilisation. There is significant emphasis on the use of modern technologies to improve various aspects of city life, including mobility and liveability. Table 4 summarises the key proposals given in the smart city plan that aim at sustainable urban development.

Conclusion

Hill states have fragile ecosystems and must adopt a development path that does not disturb their ecological balance. Shimla needs to rethink its development strategy. Critical issues such as land availability, energy, water and waste management, mobility, and infrastructure provision need to be dealt with particular care and must be tailor-made for Shimla through smart, urban solutions aided by smart technology, good governance and active civic participation. This can help bring in the much-needed transformation towards sustainable development.

In light of the features of Shimla’s urban development presented in this report, the following suggestions are proposed:

1. The city of Shimla houses 25 percent of the state’s urban population. It is necessary to look beyond the city by undertaking a regional planning exercise to identify and develop newer urban centres. Such a measure will not only significantly reduce the pressure on Shimla but also bring about regional development.
2. There is a need for policy change regarding the notification of urban centres, given the fact that many settlements in Himachal Pradesh do not qualify as “urban” simply because they do not have the minimum density threshold of 400 persons per sq. km. Thus, the density threshold must be revisited in the light of settlement structure in the hill areas, which are spread thinly on available built up space.
3. Greater convergence of activities and programmes undertaken by the various departments in the city must be ensured under a common policy framework. This will help improve service provision. Such an initiative will also benefit the Special Purpose Vehicle, proposed to be created for implementing the smart city mission.
4. Facilitation of know-how/knowledge and technology transfer between Shimla and other hill cities of the state—e.g., Dharamsala—is essential to manage critical issues such as urban mobility, meeting energy needs and managing waste disposal.

Acknowledgements

This report is an outcome of a collaborative workshop on smart cities organised in Shimla on 19–20 May 2017. The workshop was organised with the support of the German House for Research and Innovation (DWIH), Heidelberg Centre South Asia (HCSA), School of Planning and Architecture, Delhi (SPA), and the Shimla Chapter of Indian Institute of Architects (IIA). This publication is supported by the Friedrich Naumann Stiftung für die Freiheit (FNF).

The author is grateful to the distinguished workshop speakers and participants for sharing their valuable experiences. For their insightful comments on the manuscript, thanks are also due to Dr. Rumi Aijaz, Senior Fellow, Observer Research Foundation; and Mr. Radu Carciumaru, Resident Representative, Heidelberg Centre South Asia, German House for Research and Innovation.

About the Author

*Anuradha Yagya is an alumna of the School of Planning and Architecture, Delhi. She works as an independent development consultant.

ORF’s partner organisations in this research:

Endnotes:

^[1] Batra, Lalit. “A Review of Urbanisation and Urban Policy in Post-independent India.” Working Paper Series (New Delhi: Centre for Law and Governance, JNU, April 2009).

^[2] Mishra, Rishabh. “Urbanomics in India: Detailed Analysis of Trends and Patterns of Urbanisation in India.” IOSR Journal of Economics and Finance 7, no. 4, Ver. I (July–August 2016): 40–60.

^[3] Ministry of Urban Development and CRISIL. Capacity Building for Urban Development. Rapid Baseline Assessment of Shimla City, Draft Report, October 2013.

^[4] Ibid.

^[5] TERI. Green Growth and Buildings Sector: Himachal Pradesh. Report prepared for Department of Environment, Science and Technology, Government of Himachal Pradesh, 2015.

^[6] Ganguly, Rajiv and Shabnam Thapa. “An Assessment of Ambient Air Quality in Shimla City.” Current Science 111, no. 3 (August 2016).

^[7] Karki, Bhavna. “Urban Risk Reduction through Effective Disaster Management Plan: A Case Study of Shimla City, Himachal Pradesh.” International Journal of Scientific and Technological Research 4, no. 2 (February 2015).

^[8] “Planning.” Municipal Corporation Shimla. Accessed 15 August 2017. http://www.shimlamc.org/MC/admin/Pages/page/CDPChap7.aspx.

^[9] Shimla Municipal Corporation. Smart City Plan Proposal. June 2017.

^[10] Ibid.

^[11] Ibid.

^[12] Himachal Tourism. Accessed 15 August 2017. http://himachaltourism.gov.in/.

^[13] Floating population is a terminology used to describe a group of people who reside in a given population for a certain amount of time and for various reasons, but are not generally considered part of the official Census count. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_population.

^[14] Bhavna Karki. Op. cit.

^[15] Shimla Municipal Corporation. Smart City Plan Proposal. June 2017.

^[16] Bhavna Karki. Op. cit.

^[17] Ministry of Urban Development and CRISIL. Op. cit.

^[18] Shimla Municipal Corporation. Smart City Plan Proposal. June 2017.

By Giancarlo Elia Valori*

At least since 2014 the presence of Iranian forces in the Syrian war has certainly ensured both political stability and military success on the ground for Assad’s regime. Some Syrian sources maintain that since December 2013 Iran’s engagement in the Syrian conflict has cost at least 6 billion US dollars a year, while other Western sources think the financial support provided has been twice as much.

With at least 3,200 soldiers and officers from the Revolutionary Guards and other Shiite semi-official organizations, composed mainly of Afghan and Pakistani militants, Iran is second only to the Russian Federation in terms of engagement in the Syrian war to support Assad.

Moreover, Hezbollah – the Lebanese militant Shiite faction – is present in Syria with at least 4,500 soldiers and officers, but there are other Shiite groups, such as the People’s Mobilization Units (PMU), the former “popular defence brigades”, operating in the Syrian region.

In all likelihood, it was Iran to persuade Russia to intervene in support of Assad, but the logic of Russia’s presence in the Syrian war is much more complex than it may appear at first glance.

In fact, the Russian Federation has placed the war against Daesh-Isis at the centre of its presence in the Syrian region, thus creating a new network of relations with the whole Arab world, including the one previously connected to the United States.

Russia made it clear it was necessary to eradicate the most immediate and severe danger for all Sunni Arab States, namely jihad, and this has led to its establishing new and effective relations with all those States.

Furthermore, Russia’s presence is a sign conveyed to Westerners that Syria’s “cantonization” will never be accepted by the Assads’ Russian traditional ally because this would mean creating missile, terrorist, geoeconomic and naval positions that would directly undermine Russian interests in both the Mediterranean and the Greater Middle East, up to the Southern borders of the Federation.

Let us examine, however, the forces still operating in the Syrian war, including the smallest ones.

In addition to the friendly countries operating on the ground, support for Syria – including at military level – is provided by China, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the Polisario Front, also in clear contrast with Morocco, which indirectly supports – also through Saudi Arabia – the forces of the Syrian Democratic Army that is armed and supported mainly by the United States.

Besides the aforementioned Russia, Iran and Hezbollah, on the ground there are also some Palestinian groups and some Iraqi forces supporting Syria, especially with regard to intelligence and military activities on the border between Syria and Iraq.

Diplomatic support to Assad-led Syria is provided by Oman, Bolivia, Venezuela, Pakistan, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Armenia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

The Syrian Alawite regime is also backed militarily and economically by Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia, Vietnam and India.

Russia has also sent to Syria some Chechen and Dagestan battalions as combat forces.

However, the opponents of the Assad regime – and hence of Russia, Iran and Hezbollah – include many groups of various origins, obviously all Sunni. Let us analyse them.

Jabhat al-Nusra, now called Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, is a network created by al-Qaeda in Iraq and Syria in 2011 – which became known in January 2012, during the possible Syrian “Arab Spring” – which also operates in the Lebanon, as well as in Syria.

Since its inception said movement was supported by Qatar and Turkey.

Harakat Ahrar al-Sham al-Islamiya is a coalition of jihadist groups supported by Saudi Arabia, Turkey, as well as Kuwait and Qatar.

Therefore, if Syria remains a Shiite Iran’s ally, at geoeconomic and political levels the strategic risk for the Gulf Emirates and for Saudi Arabia itself may become very high, especially in a phase of oil and financial crisis such as the current one.

Iran’s control over the Greater Middle East and the Persian Gulf would block any geopolitical autonomy of the Emirates and Saudi Arabia, with evident repercussions on the management of their oil resources.

The groups opposing Assad’s regime also include Asala wal-Tamiya, a coalition supported by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the United States. Indeed, it was armed precisely by the United States and in the past it had operational links with Daesh-Isis.

Jabhat al-Shamiyah is an alliance of nineteen jihadist groups originating from the Muslim Brotherhood and this is exactly the reason why a Syrian ally like Egypt tacitly supports Assad’s Alawite regime.

Jaysh al-Muhjahiddin is a further alliance of various Sunni guerrilla groups, all trained in Qatar, which in December 2016 merged with two other jihadist groups and later joined Ahrar al-Sham.

Therefore tribal equilibria, strategic and operational advantages, as well as interests of the funding countries, are at the origin of this multiplying and merging of militant jihadist groups.

Ajnad al-Sham is a typically Salafi group, always operating closely with Ahrar al-Sham.

Jaysh al-Islam, identified as terrorist organization by Russia, Egypt, Iran and Syria, is the second main pole of the Saudi indirect presence in Syria.

On the contrary, the groups siding with the Syrian Baathist government include Quwat Muqatili al-Ashair, a tribal force in which there is also a Druze contingent.

The list of these groups also include Liwa al-Jabal, consisting of five units originating from the Suwayda Governorate.

The pro-Assad forces count also Saraya al-Tuhid, the fully Druze force allied with Hezbollah, which was created in October 2016.

It is also worth recalling Labuat al-Jabal, the female Druze brigade created in July 2015.

Again in the Suwayda Governorate there is Qatib Jalamid Urman, patrolling mainly the border between Syria and Jordan. The Druzes operate also with Qatib Humat al-Diyar.

The Syrian Christians contribute to defend Assad’s regime with Asad al-Qarubim, a brigade created in 2013 after the attack on the Saidnaya Monastery.

There are other five Christian brigades, divided between Damascus, Homs and Quraytin, which were established to defend the Christian holy places in Syria and currently operate – together with Hezbollah and the Syrian Arab Army – throughout the Syrian national territory.

Conversely, Quwat al-Ghabab are the brigades created by the Greek-Orthodox communities and operate in Hama, Latakia and Tal Uthman.

The list of the groups siding with Assad’s regime also include Quwat Wad al-Sadiq, created in 2012 at the Sayyidah Zaynab Shiite Shrine near Damascus, which is connected with Hezbollah and composed of both Shiites and Druzes.

It is also worth recalling Liwa Muqtar al-Thiqfi, created in 2016 in memory of the ancient commander who attempted to avenge – against the Umayyads – the sacrifice of Imam Husseyn.

It operates on the Latakia front and is directly linked to Iran’s Revolutionary Guards.

Unlike the other smaller brigades, it is a force of approximately 5,000 units.

Again in the Latakia area, there is Saraya al-Arin, a Shiite group founded in 2015, while Liwa Sayf al-Mahdi is present in the ​​Sayda Zaynab region, the centre of the traditional Shiite presence in Syria.

The group Liwa al-Imam Zayn Abidin, created in 2013, operates in Deir el Zur, the place at the core of the clash between what remains of Daesh and the Syrian regime, which has just been liberated by the “tigers”, namely the special forces of the Syrian Arab Army.

On the contrary, Liwa al-Jalil, the Galilean brigade founded in 2015, is a secular, leftist, nationalistic, Arab and pro-Palestinian organization.

The Syrian-Palestinians also operate within Quwat al-Jalil, created in 2011, while the “Leopards of Homs” (Fuhud Homs), a special operations regiment, operates in the desert areas around Homs and have also participated in the Syrian Arab Army’s actions in the Daraya region.

Also Liwa Qibar, established in 2013 and counting 4,000 units, is active in Homs.

It has also operated at Hama and al-Mansura.

Qatib al-Jabalui is an Alawite military structure operating in Homs, Dara, and in the Jazal areas.

Another of the many pro-Assad groups, namely Fuj Mughuyr al-Badiya, set up in 2015, has carried out its actions in the desert of Homs and Aleppo. It is connected to the Shaytat tribe that is active in Deir El Zur.

Also Liwa Asad al-Huseyn was created in 2015 and is mainly active in Latakia.

Liwa Dir al-Watan was founded in 2015 and designed with the specific aim of defending Damascus.

These are the main groups supporting Assad’ Syrian Arab Army, accounting for 50% of its forces.

This means that all the brigades listed here are worth 50% of the Syrian Arab Army.

Furthermore, in Syria, Hezbollah immediately divided into two groups: Jaysh al-Imam al-Mahdi, fighting mainly in the Tartus and Aleppo regions, and Quwat al-Ridha, operating in Damascus and in the neighbouring areas.

Both groups operate in close contact with Assad’s forces.

While Russia wages its war in Syria, Iran tightens the clamps on the Syrian forces.

In the Qalamun region there is also Quwat Dir al-Qalamun, namely people’s brigades trained by the Syrian Arab Army that control the Al-Hadath pipeline and participate in the clashes against jihadists between Aleppo and Nassiriya.

People’s brigades coordinated by the Syrian Air Force military intelligence operate also in Hama.

Finally, the Fifth Assault Corps is a counterinsurgency organization set up in 2012 within the Syrian Armed Forces with the fundamental support of Hezbollah and Iran.

It is present in nine Syrian provinces and supervises enlistments, as well as closely controlling Syria’s civil society.

Hence what does Iran want to obtain with its engagement in Syria?

Firstly, Iran obviously need to establish safe transit routes to logistically support Hezbollah in the Lebanon.

This is the real strategic danger for Israel, rather than the danger constituted by the Golan Heights, which have somehow already been made safe.

Secondly, an equally important Iranian goal is to closely monitor the Euphrates valley, which is rich in oil deposits that must not be acquired by the United States and its allies, still present north of the Euphrates.

With a view to accomplishing this strategic linkage, the Shiite Republic must transit through Iraq so as to reach Aleppo from Palmira.

Another Iranian route to penetrate the Syrian desert could start exactly from Deir El Zor and later expand into the Hasakah Province.

In fact, Iran has already sent over 3,000 Revolutionary Guards and People’s Mobilization Units (PMU), namely the Shiite paramilitary forces, to the area between Tanaf and Deir El Zor.

As to the other channel, considering that there are no significant Shiite, Druze or Alawite forces in the region, the Pasdaran are dealing directly with the Sunni tribes between Hasakah and Aleppo.

Russia, however, is backing the Iranian operations with its air forces.

Nevertheless Russia will not accept Iran’s gradual penetration of the Syrian State and military structures for a long period of time.

For the time being, precisely with a view to blocking Iran’s influence, the Russian Federation’s proposal has been to quickly establish a Fifth Division of the Syrian Arab Army.

This would obviously serve to absorb – under the Syrian command – the tribal and territorial forces that could soon become pawns of the Iranian game in the Syrian desert.

Nevertheless – as is locally customary, and considering that the ongoing war has even enhanced these traditions – the various militias that have so far agreed to enter the Fifth Division have maintained their chain of command and their tactical and strategic autonomy.

Hence, Assad, is about to accept – de facto if not de iure – the Iranian droit de regard enabling it to control his territory and his armed forces.

Therefore, in the absence of a rational US strategy in Syria and vis-à-vis Iran, Russia thinks that the best thing to do – at least for the time being – is to support Iran in Syria and Iraq so as to exploit its potential against the United States and keep the Turkish ambitions on Western Syria under control.

This happens while the Kurds are turning into a pro-Western militia to control Turkish operations in Syria – in tacit agreement with Russia.

Moreover, the United States has already decided to defend the YPG Kurds (and, in the future, the PKK ones) only against the Turkish aims, while Iran and Russia will try to control all Syrian borders, including those with Turkey where US interposition forces are currently present.

Hence either the United States sends other troops to control Iran’s expansion within Syria – for the time being favoured by Russia – or the United States is bound to withdraw completely from the Syrian-Iraqi region.

About the author:
*Professor Giancarlo Elia Valori is an eminent Italian economist and businessman. He holds prestigious academic distinctions and national orders. Mr Valori has lectured on international affairs and economics at the world’s leading universities such as Peking University, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Yeshiva University in New York. He currently chairs “La Centrale Finanziaria Generale Spa”, he is also the honorary president of Huawei Italy, economic adviser to the Chinese giant HNA Group and member of the Ayan-Holding Board. In 1992 he was appointed Officier de la Légion d’Honneur de la République Francaise, with this motivation: “A man who can see across borders to understand the world” and in 2002 he received the title of “Honorable” of the Académie des Sciences de l’Institut de France.

Source:
This article was published at Modern Diplomacy