By Ajmal Sohail*

China’s ambitious global geo-political objective has raised concern among American strategists, which China attempts to Isolate America at the global level. The claim has become more evident during the G20 summit when China curbed president Trump effort to pass a joint declaration in order to condemn North Korea’s recent ICBM test.

Newly, the Pentagon alleged China and there was also a pop up in the main stream media indicating that China has stationed several thousand troops in Pakistan most probably at the Gwadar Port, in order to establish counter balance for America’s strategic partner India and America itself. Gwadar Port is a warm-water, deep-sea port situated on the Arabian Sea at Gwadar in Baluchistan the socalled province of Pakistan.

According to the Pentagon reports, China has also dispatched troops to the Wakhan district of Badakhshan province of Afghanistan to safe guard its bordering areas alongside Afghanistan. Furthermore, the Indian security agencies have suspected China attempts to encircle India, the reports designates, that Beijing has also taken over some ports in Sri-Lanka, Bangladesh and Myanmar to embroil India and possibly America; the claims were later declined by the Chinese authorities.

According to the China’s defense ministry statement, the country sent off troops to its overseas naval base in Djibouti. This is being seen as a major step forward for the country’s expansion of its military presence abroad.

The base will ensure China’s performance of missions, such as escorting, peace-keeping and humanitarian aid in Africa and West Asia. It will also be conducive to overseas tasks, including military cooperation, joint exercises, evacuating and protecting overseas Chinese and emergency rescue, as well as jointly maintaining security of international strategic seaways.

Chinese troops are stationed just a few miles from Camp Lemonnier, the only permanent US base in Africa. The US Department of Defense had stated that the base, along with regular naval vessel visits to foreign ports, echoes and intensifies China’s growing influence.

Beijing seeks to gain access to natural resources and open new markets and therefore, it has made extensive infrastructure investments throughout the African continent.

China has chosen the port of Djibouti because of its strategic location; the Port of Djibouti is located in Djibouti City, the capital of Djibouti. It is situated at the crossroads of one of the busiest shipping routes in the world, 20 miles across from Yemen and in destroyer range of the pirate-infested western edge of the Indian Ocean.

Moreover, China will challenge US in Meddle East especially in Syria, the China-Arab Exchange Association and the Syrian Embassy have recently organized a Syria Day Expo crammed with hundreds of Chinese specialists in infrastructure investment. It was a sort of mini-gathering of the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), billed as “The First Project Matchmaking Fair for Syria Reconstruction”. The Chinese authorities has recently, announced that Beijing plans to invest $2 billion in an industrial park in Syria for 150 Chinese companies. Beijing wants to stretch its Road and Belt initiative to Aleppo of Syria and from there to Mediterranean and Africa.

In this respect, Counter Narco-terrorism Alliance Germany recommends, the American strategists need to launch counter measures in the region in one hand to abolish isolation of America and on the other hand undermine Chinese and Russian efforts.

America has to strongly support and equip Baluch separatists in order to establish an independent Baluchistan.

As soon as Baluchistan is liberated and independent, Sino-Pak Economic Corridor and the Russian Eurasia Economic Union would be dismantled.

In addition, America should intensify the efforts to set up Great Central Asian throughout Afghanistan and Baluchistan, in fact, this is already happening. Within the past eight months the Foreign Ministers of both Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan have traveled to Kabul, and Aghan President Ashraf Ghani has visited all northern neighbors of Afghanistan. Turkmenistan is forging ahead with the TAPI gas pipeline across Afghanistan to Pakistan and India, and Uzbekistan, which already provides Kabul with electricity, is planning a second phase of railroad construction in Afghanistan. In the same spirit, the World Bank’s CASA 1000 project will soon be sending electricity from Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Conclusion, if America desires to restrain Chinese initiatives in the region, Washington should step up Great Central Asia and genuinely sponsor Baluchistan independence. The independence of Baluchistan would be the turning point to institute Great Central Asia; the land locked Great Central Asia would find its way to the Arabian Sea. That would open a window of opportunity for Washington to dispatch its warships to the region in order to observe the freedom of navigations.

About the author:
*Ajmal Sohail is Co-founder of Counter Narco-Terrorism Alliance Germany, co-founder of Afghan Liberal Party, Director General Centre for Strategic Research-Diplomacy Afghanistan and he is frequently on National and International news outlets as socio-economic, political, strategic, national security and intelligence analyst and researcher.

Source:
This article was published by Modern Diplomacy

(RFE/RL) — German voters head to the polls on September 24 in a national election that is expected to deliver Chancellor Angela Merkel an historic fourth term and the first right-wing party to parliament since the end of World War II.

Merkel, the clear frontrunner after 12 years in power, and her conservative bloc of the Christian Democratic Party and Bavarian-only Christian Social Union has a strong lead in the polls.

Although support has been eroding slightly over the past week, surveys show Merkel’s bloc leading with between 34 percent to 37 percent support, followed by the Social Democrats with 21 percent to 22 percent.

Before heading for cities in northern Germany, Merkel told supporters in Berlin on September 23 that they needed to keep up their efforts to sway undecided voters, saying “many make their decision in the final hours.”

“We want to boost your motivation so that we can still reach many, many people,” the 63-year-old chancellor said in Berlin on the last day of campaigning.

Merkel’s main challenger, Social Democrat Martin Schulz, attended a rally in western Germany in the city of Aachen.

Both Merkel, a pastor’s daughter who grew up in Communist East Germany, and Schulz have called on the electorate to resist the right-wing populist Alternative for Germany (AfD), which has vituperated against the influx of around 1 million mostly Muslim migrants and refugees.

Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel, also a Social Democrat, warned that “for the first time since the end of the second World War, real Nazis will sit in the German parliament.”

The AfD, which has links to the far-right French National Front and Britain’s ultranationalist UKIP, appears assured of gaining seats in the national parliament for the first time, with 10 percent to 13 percent support in the polls.

The International Auschwitz Committee warned that the “conglomerate of anti-Semites, enemies of democracy and nationalistic agitators” will bring “an inhuman coldness” to the German parliament.

In addition to the AfD, the Greens, the Free Democratic Party, and the Left Party were all poised to enter parliament with poll numbers between 8 percent and 11 percent.

Air Force B-1B Lancer bombers from Guam, along with Air Force F-15C Eagle fighter escorts from Okinawa, Japan, flew in international airspace over waters east of North Korea on Saturday, chief Pentagon spokesperson Dana W. White said in a statement announcing the mission.

This is the farthest north of the Demilitarized Zone any U.S. fighter or bomber aircraft have flown off North Korea’s coast in the 21st century, White said.

The mission underscores the seriousness with which the United States takes North Korea’s “reckless behavior,” she added.

‘A Clear Message’

“This mission is a demonstration of U.S. resolve and a clear message that the president has many military options to defeat any threat,” she said. “North Korea’s weapons program is a grave threat to the Asia-Pacific region and the entire international community. We are prepared to use the full range of military capabilities to defend the U.S. homeland and our allies.”

On Sept. 17, U.S. Air Force and Marine Corps aircraft joined Japanese and South Korean military aircraft in a sequenced bilateral show of force over the Korean Peninsula in response to North Korea’s Sept. 14 launch of an intermediate range ballistic missile over Japan.

Pope Francis has endorsed an approach of “zero tolerance” toward all members of the church guilty of sexually abusing minors or vulnerable adults.

Having listened to abuse survivors and having made what he described as a mistake in approving a more lenient set of sanctions against an Italian priest abuser, the pope said he has decided whoever has been proven guilty of abuse has no right to an appeal, and he will never grant a papal pardon.

“Why? Simply because the person who does this [sexually abuses minors] is sick. It is a sickness,” he told his advisory commission on child protection during an audience at the Vatican Sept. 21.

Members of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, including its president — Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley of Boston — were meeting in Rome Sept. 21-23 for their plenary assembly.

The Catholic Church has been “late” in facing and, therefore, properly addressing the sin of sexual abuse by its members, the pope said.

He said proof that an ordained minister has abused a minor “is sufficient [reason] to receive no recourse” for an appeal. “If there is proof. End of story,” the pope said; the sentence “is definitive.”

And, he added, he has never and would never grant a papal pardon to a proven perpetrator.

The reasoning has nothing to do with being mean-spirited, but because an abuser is sick and is suffering from “a sickness.”

The pope recounted a decision he has now come to regret: that of agreeing to a more lenient sanction against an Italian priest, rather than laicizing him as was recommended.

Two years later, the priest abused again, and Pope Francis said he has since learned “it’s a terrible sickness” that requires a different approach.

By Filip Rudic

Serbian Defense Minister Aleksandar Vulin has come under fire after saying he cannot source the origin of the 205,000 euros he used to buy real estate because he brought the money from Canada in installments – so that he would not have to declare it to customs.

By law, no more than 10,000 euros may be bought into Serbia without submission of a declaration to customs.

Internet users pointed out that Vulin must have made some 23 trips to Canada and back, thereby spending a small fortune on plane tickets.

“Vulin has to to catch the plane to Canada again”, says one tweet.

Vulin made his claim on Thursday, answering questions from a journalist from Serbia’s Crime and Corruption Reporting Network, KRIK.

The minister faced queries after KRIK published a report saying he bought an apartment in Belgrade under suspicious circumstances with money that he claimed he had borrowed from his wife’s aunt in Canada.

Prosecutors have dismissed allegations of any wrongdoing, saying he duly reported the purchase.

But Nemanja Nenadic, from the watchdog Transparency Serbia, said that the big question was which information the prosecution offices had been checking.

“Did they conduct the check-ups that would confirm Vulin’s claims? This is crucial to determining if any crime or misdemeanor was committed,” Nenadic told BIRN.

The basic prosecutor’s office said that Vulin had duly reported his ownership of the apartment to the country’s anti-corruption agency, and so no crime was committed.

However, Nenadic urged the prosecutors to release more information on their investigations.

“There is a fellony of not reporting property [to the anti-corruption agency], but it also relates to other information, such as the origin of the property,” Nenadic said, adding that it remains unclear whether the prosecutors had checked this information as well.

KRIK’s claim that Vulin could not explain the origin of the money to the agency angered the minister’s political party, the Socialist Movement, which then accused KRIK editor Stevan Dojcinovic of being a “drug addict”.

According to KRIK, Vulin initially claimed he bought the apartment in 2012 after selling another apartment in Novi Sad. However, after it was revealed that the first flat sold for only 38,000 euros, he then said he got the cash from his wife’s aunt.

Vulin was made Defence Minister in June.

By Yossi Mekelberg*

For many years every spring, together with a colleague of mine, I have taken a group of some of our finest students to participate in a Model UN conference in New York. This is the climax of months of preparation by our delegation. Our students, who represent a country assigned to us, debate, negotiate, and write position papers and resolutions on an array of topical issues that the world is facing.

Thousands of students from around the world gather for this occasion, which aims to prepare them to be better global citizens by way of an experience that highlights the value of collaboration and the cooperative resolution of disagreements and conflict. Watching US president Donald Trump’s speech last week to the UN General Assembly made me wonder whether in just over 41 minutes he had managed to destroy an educational work of many years.

To be sure, Trump was not the only one to reveal bellicose tendencies, but considering he is leader of the country with the most powerful military capabilities on the planet, his horror show should ring alarm bells in capitals around the world. After all, the mission of the UN is to achieve a more peaceful world through multilateral diplomatic collaboration. The UN was created to maintain peace and security, protect human rights, promote sustainable development and ensure that this is all done in accordance with international law.

Instead Trump deliberately chose to grab the headlines by threatening the obliteration of another member of the organization, North Korea. There is no doubt that North Korea poses a serious threat to peace and stability in its region, and potentially beyond. Not even its close (probably only) ally, China, is defending the provocative behavior of Kim Jong Un’s regime. However, threatening to “totally destroy” North Korea plays into the hands of the regime in Pyongyang. It vindicates North Korea’s very claim that it needs to develop its WMD capabilities as a survival mechanism and not to pose a threat to others as the rest of the world sees it. Deterring North Korea from using its military capability against its neighbors is paramount, but the UN stage is also an opportunity to offer a diplomatic alternative in the spirit of the charter of the organization and of its founders. Clearly, a threat to eliminate another country in no way aligns with the UN charter’s remit to prevent war through peaceful means.

As always with Trump, it is not only the substance of what he says that can be objectionable, but his aggressive and flippant style. Referring to Kim Jong Un as the “Rocket man … on a suicide mission for himself and his regime” is juvenile, incendiary and completely unnecessary. It is a continuation of his election campaign style of scoring cheap political points to please his hard-core supporters. And it does not advance the successful resolution of this crisis by a single inch.

However, it was not only North Korea that was on the receiving end of the American president’s scorching criticism, but also Iran, Cuba and Venezuela; all were subjected to his ill-informed verbal attacks. One of his recurrent themes is to refer to the nuclear agreement with Iran as an “embarrassment” and “one of the worst and one-sided transactions the US has ever entered into.” Only Trump knows what criteria he applies that make the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action one of the worst agreements ever, but he also suggested absolutely nothing to rectify its flaws, and there are admittedly quite a few of them. Worse, he confuses Iran’s compliance with the terms of the 2015 agreement with its aggressive regional policies in search of greater influence.

According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, which has inspectors in Iran to monitor its nuclear sites, Tehran is complying with the terms of the agreement. Imposing new sanctions or trying to change the terms of the treaty will face a wall of resistance not only from Iran, but also from P5+1 countries and others who worked for years to reach it. Trump, in his customary way, would rather deliver a maddening speech than present an operational plan to contain Iran’s meddling in Syria, Lebanon or Yemen, where it is at its most subversive. He could even have reached out to those in Iran who would like a pragmatic engagement with the international community, but this is not his modus operandi.

Not for this was the UN founded. Not for speeches from the likes of Trump, Rouhani and Netanyahu that underline discord and rift. The annual gathering was always meant to be an opportunity to advance commonalities, an occasion to set the agenda for dealing in a collaborative manner with the most pressing issues the world is facing. Instead, it has become a talking shop in which the dirtiest of washing is hung out in front of a skeptical and disillusioned global public. Maintaining this line could become a self-fulfilling prophecy, resulting in unnecessary and unwinnable wars.

• 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. He is a regular contributor to the international written and electronic media. Twitter: @YMekelberg

I owe many thanks to Bezalel Smotrich. Yes, yes, to Smotrich of the extreme right, Smotrich the fascist.

Recently Smotrich gave a speech to his followers, which he intended to be a national event, the turning of a page in Jewish history. He was gracious enough to mention me in this monumental message.

He said that after the 1948 war, in which the State of Israel was founded, Uri Avnery and a small band of followers created the ideology of “two states for two peoples”, and by patient work over many years succeeded in turning this idea into a national consensus, indeed into an axiom. Smotrich told his devotees that they, too, had to formulate their ideology, work patiently for many years until it became the national consensus instead of Avnery’s.

A compliment from an enemy is always sweeter than one from a friend. The more so as I never received many compliments from friends. Indeed, the many politicians who profess now to fight for “two states for two peoples” try to obliterate the fact that I was the first to proclaim this idea, long before they themselves were converted to it.

So thank you, Smotrich. Coupled with my thanks, may I express the wish that you adopt a Hebrew name, as befits a man who aspires to become the Hebrew Duce?

After the compliment, Smotrich set out his plan for the future of Israel.

It is based on the demand that Arabs living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea choose between three alternatives:

First, they can accept a monetary payment and leave the country.

Second, they can become subjects of the Jewish State without becoming citizens and without attaining the right to vote.

Third, they can make war and be defeated.

This is Fascism, pure and simple. Except that Benito Mussolini, who invented the term (from fasces fasces, a bundle of rods, the old Roman symbol of authority) did not preach mass emigration of anyone. Not even of the Italian Jews, many of whom were ardent Fascists.

Let’s look into the plan itself. Can an entire people be induced peacefully to leave their motherland for money? I don’t think that it has ever happened. Indeed, the very idea shows an abysmal contempt for the Palestinians.

Individuals can leave their homes in times of stress and emigrate to greener pastures. During the great famine, masses of Irishmen and Irishwomen emigrated from their emerald isle to America. In today’s Israel, quite a number of Israelis are emigrating to Berlin or Los Angeles.

But can millions do so? Voluntarily? For gain? Quite apart from the fact that the price would invariably rise from emigrant to emigrant. There would not be enough money in the world.

I would advise Smotrich to read again a song written by the national poet, Natan Alterman, long before he was born. During the “Arab rebellion” in 1937, Alterman praised the units of the illegal Hebrew underground forces: “No people withdraws from the trenches of its life”. No chance.

The second choice would be easier. The Arabs, who already constitute even now a slight majority between the river and the sea, will become a pariah people and serve their Israeli masters. The Arab majority will grow rapidly, owing to the much higher Palestinian birthrate. We would deliberately recreate the South African apartheid situation.

History, old and new, shows that such a situation invariably leads to rebellion and eventual liberation.

So there remains the third solution. It suits the Israeli temperament much better: War. Not the interminable wars that we have been engaged in since the beginning of Zionism, but a big, decisive war that puts an end to the whole mess. Inevitably, the Arabs will be vanquished and obliterated. End of story.

When I came to the conclusion in 1949 that the only way to end the conflict was to help the Palestinians to set up a state of their own, side by side with the new State of Israel, my train of thought started from a very original assumption: that there exists a Palestinian people.

To be honest, I was not the first to realize that. Before me, a wise left-wing Zionist scholar, Aharon Cohen, put forward this idea. All other Zionists always furiously denied this fact. Golda Meir once famously declared: “There is no such thing as a Palestinian people!”

So, who are all these Arabs we see with our own eyes? Simple: they are riffraff drawn to this country from neighboring areas after we came and made this country bloom. Easy come, easy go.

It was easy to think so as long as the West Bank was under Jordanian rule, and the Gaza Strip was an Egyptian protectorate. “Palestine” had disappeared from the map. Until a man called Yasser Arafat put it there again.

In the 1948 war, half the Palestinian people were driven out of the territory that became Israel. The Arabs call this the “naqba” – catastrophe. (By the way, they were not driven out of Palestine, as many believe. A large part found refuge in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip).

Since 1949, the simple fact is that two peoples live in this small country.

Neither of these two peoples will go away. Each of them believes fervently that this country is their homeland.

This simple fact led me to the logical conclusion that the only solution is peace based on the co-existence of two national states, Israel and Palestine, in close cooperation, perhaps in some kind of federal setup.

Another solution would be a unitary state in which the two peoples live peacefully together. As I have pointed out several times recently, I do not believe that this is possible. Both are fiercely nationalistic peoples. Moreover, the difference between their standards of living is huge. They are as different in character and outlook as two peoples can be.

Now comes Smotrich and proposes the third solution, a solution many believe in secretly: just kill them or drive them out altogether.

This is much worse than Mussolini’s program. It reminds one of another recent historical figure. And it may be remembered that Mussolini was shot by his own people, who hung his body upside down from a meat hook.

Smotrich should be taken seriously, not because he is a political genius but because he expresses openly and honestly what many Israelis think secretly.

He is 37 years old, good-looking, with a cultivated beard. He was born in the occupied Golan heights, grew up in a West Bank settlement and now lives in a settlement in a house that was built illegally on Arab land. His father was a rabbi, he himself was educated in elite religious yeshivas and is a lawyer. Now he is also a Member of the Knesset.

Once he was arrested in a demonstration against homosexuals and detained for three weeks. However, after declaring that he was “proud to be a homophobe”, he did apologize. When his wife gave birth to one of his six children, he objected to her having to share a maternity room with an Arab woman. He also objects to homes being sold to Arabs in Jewish neighborhoods, and proposes shooting Arab children who throw stones.

Another Zionist poet once wrote that we will not become a normal nation until we have Jewish criminals and Jewish whores. Thank God we now have plenty of both. And now we also have at least one bona fide Jewish fascist.

When Barack Obama was president, congressional Republicans were deficit hawks. They opposed almost everything Obama wanted to do by arguing it would increase the federal budget deficit.

But now that Republicans are planning giant tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, they’ve stopped worrying about deficits.

Senate Republicans have agreed to cut taxes by $1.5 trillion over the next decade, which means giant budget deficits.

Unless Republicans want to cut Social Security, Medicare, and defense, that is.  Even if Republicans eliminated everything else in the federal budget – from education to Meals on Wheels – they wouldn’t have nearly enough to pay for tax cuts of the magnitude Republicans are now touting.

But Republicans won’t cut Social Security or Medicare because the programs are overwhelmingly popular. And rather than cut defense, Senate Republicans want to increase defense spending by a whopping $80 billion (enough to fund free public higher education that Bernie Sanders proposed in last year’s Democratic primary, which deficit hawks in both parties mocked as being ridiculously expensive).

There’s also the cleanup from Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, estimated to be least $190 billion. And Trump’s “wall” – which the Department of Homeland Security estimates will cost about $22 billion.

Oh, and don’t forget infrastructure. It’s just about the only major spending bill that could be passed by bipartisan majorities in both houses. Given the state of the nation’s highways, byways, public transit, water treatment facilities, and sewers, it’s desperately needed. Trump campaigned on spending $1 trillion on it.

So how do Republicans propose to pay for any of this, and a big tax cut for corporations and the wealthy – without exploding the federal deficit?

Easy. Just pretend the tax cuts will cause the economy to grow so fast – 3 percent a year on average – that they’ll pay for themselves, and the benefits will trickle down to everyone else.

If you believe this, I have several past Republican budgets to sell you, extending all the way back to Ronald Reagan’s magic asterisks.

The Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation don’t believe it. They realistically assume that the economy won’t grow over 2 percent a year on average over the next decade.

The Federal Reserve estimates the fastest sustainable rate of economic growth will be 1.8 percent, given how slowly America’s working-age population is growing as well as the slow rate of productivity gains.

But Trump has already made a fetish out of discrediting anyone that comes up with facts he doesn’t like, and other Republicans seem ready to join him.

Senator Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican who sits on the budget committee, says he doesn’t want to rely on estimates coming from economists at the CBO and the Joint Tax Committee. He’d rather rely on supply-side economists outside government. “I do think it is time for us to have a real debate and to have real economists weighing in and we should take other things into account other than Joint Tax and C.B.O,” Corker said last week.

Unfortunately for the Republican tax cutters who used to be deficit hawks, we already have real-world historical evidence of what happens after massive tax cuts. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush both cut taxes on the wealthy and ended up with huge budget deficits.

Besides, there’s no reason to cut taxes on big corporations and the wealthy. If anything, their taxes should be raised.

Trump says we’re “the highest taxed nation in the world.” Rubbish. The most meaningful measure is taxes paid as a percentage of GDP. On this score, the United States has the 4th lowest taxes of any major economy. (Only South Korea, Chile, and Mexico ranking lower.)

American corporations aren’t overtaxed. After taking deductions and tax credits, the typical U.S. corporation today pays an effective tax rate of 24 percent. That’s only a tad higher than the average of 21 percent among advanced nations.

The rich aren’t overtaxed. The wealthiest 1 percent in the U.S. pay the lowest taxes as a percent of their income and total wealth of the top 1 percent in any major country – and far lower than they paid in the U.S. during the first three decades after World War II, when the American economy grew faster than it’s been growing since the Reagan tax cuts.

But we do have a deficit in public investment – especially in education and infrastructure. And we do have a national debt that topped $20 trillion this year and is expected to grow by an additional $10 trillion over the next decade.

What’s the answer? Raise taxes on big corporations and the wealthy. That’s what rational politicians would do if they weren’t in the pockets of big corporations and the wealthy.

By Philip Booth*

Pope Francis likes to talk about how we have created an “economy of exclusion.” For example, in his apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, Pope Francis wrote, “Just as the commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill’ sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say ‘thou shalt not’ to an economy of exclusion.” Interestingly, when Pope Francis raises this question, he is accused of being anti-capitalist or anti-free market.

He has invited dialogue; therefore, supporters of a free economy should respond. An economy of exclusion is something that we should find unacceptable. But do markets exclude people, or are people excluded from markets? Perhaps the public needs to consider that the remedy is an extension of markets. People can be excluded from markets because of disorder, civil conflict, and war. But often people are excluded from markets because of government – sometimes in league with business interests or other self-interested groups operating through the democratic system.

There is no country in the world where exclusion from markets is not a problem, at least to some extent. Whether it be the crony capitalist economies that are characteristic of many low- and middle-income countries or the dysfunctional labour markets in much of southern Europe, it is the least-well-off who suffer.

In Britain, there is a specific, serious problem of this kind which has a huge impact on the living standards of the poor. The land-use planning system ensures that the better-off can use their influence to prevent houses being built.

The system by which it is decided whether land can be used for housing or business development in Britain has been entirely controlled by the state since 1947. Huge swaths of land are designated “green belt” on which development is not permitted. In most other areas, it is extremely difficult to build houses.

The result of this is a chronic shortage of houses. The UK also has amongst the smallest dwellings in Europe. (See Morgan and Cruickshank, Quantifying the extent of space shortages: English dwellings, Building Research & Information, 2014, 42:6, 710-724.) Furthermore, the housing stock is of poor quality, with many people living in an accommodation that is inadequate by modern standards.

A shortage of supply, of course, leads to high prices. The UK, together with Australia, is an outlier when it comes to the problem of high housing costs, and it is a problem driven entirely by the government creating an “economy of exclusion.” This situation, it should be noted, is not a natural consequence of the UK’s relatively high population density. If the regions of Switzerland, Belgium, Germany, Holland, and the UK are ranked by their density (excluding single conurbations), no UK region appears in the top 10. Indeed, less than five per cent of the southeast of England comprises buildings or transport infrastructure. (The problem of housing costs is greatest in the southeast. However, the southeast is less densely built on than the West Midlands and in Surrey – one of the most expensive areas for housing – more land is used for golf courses than housing.)

According to Countrywide, the average person in his or her twenties will spend about half his or her post-tax income on rent for a one-bedroom property. UK government (ONS) figures published in 2015 show that the ratio of median monthly rent to median monthly salaries in Westminster (the most expensive area of the country) was more than 78 per cent. Also, 18 London boroughs were amongst 25 areas where the rent-to-income ratio exceeded 50 per cent. The ratio of house prices to average earnings in the UK is 5.89. There are few areas of Britain where houses are cheap relative to salaries by international standards.

People are literally excluded from the housing market by prohibitions on building; they are prevented by the cost of housing from moving from areas dominated by high unemployment or low wages to areas of high wages and low unemployment. High land prices lead to higher business costs and less business competition, raising other household costs. And the least-well-off are prevented from having dignified housing and attaining a level of disposable income after housing costs that would allow them to buy other necessities and have some money left over to save for times of greater need.

The effect of land-use planning policies on the least-well-off has been enormous. Between 1971 and 2011, median house prices rose more than three-fold relative to inflation. During this time, the ratio of house prices at the bottom end of the market (i.e., house prices in the lowest quartile) to incomes in the lowest quartile has risen from 3.2 to 5.7 in the East Midlands; from 3.9 to 9.0 in London; and from 4.2 to 8.2 in the southeast. Bottom quartile house prices relative to bottom quartile incomes in the region with the lowest ratio today (the northeast) are higher than bottom quartile house prices relative to bottom quartile incomes in the region with the highest ratio (the southeast) in 1997.

In other words, it was easier for somebody on a low income to buy a house in London in 1997 than it is for somebody with a similar income to buy a house in the northeast today. Of course, house prices directly affect rents charged to those who choose not to, or who are unable to, own their own house.

High housing prices have a dramatic effect upon the disposable incomes of the poor. Real incomes before housing costs for those at the tenth percentile of the income distribution grew by 80 per cent between 1965 and 2009. However, incomes after housing costs grew by only 45 per cent over the same period. Had housing costs grown only at the same rate as incomes between 1965 and 2009, low income families’ real income would be 26 per cent higher. The least-well-off feel this problem most acutely.

Indeed just this month, the UK’s National Audit Office (a government body) released a report that suggested that high rents, rather than family breakdown, had become the biggest cause of homelessness.

The main objection to more housebuilding is environmental. It is difficult to make that case when such a small proportion of the UK has been developed for housing. However, there is a rarely mentioned aspect of the environmental problem: Farmland is often an environmental desert.

A major study conducted by Dr. Ken Williams of Sheffield University eight years ago found that a typical garden contains thousands of worms, invertebrates, spiders, and around 250 different varieties of plants. By contrast, farms often contain just one plant (wheat, corn or maize) pollinated by the wind, rather than by insects. Farmland covers 75 per cent of the UK and wildlife has been in catastrophic decline in this uniform, sterile culture. Since 1970, the number of total birds on British farmland has fallen by one-half and butterflies by one-third.

In Britain, no single policy would benefit the poor more than a liberalisation of planning regulation. It would help ensure that all families could own a property (home ownership is at a 30-year low), something which many proponents of Catholic social teaching regard as intrinsically valuable. Whatever the fears that many have from over-development, counter-intuitively, in many respects, more building on land hitherto used for agriculture might well actually also improve the environment.

About the author:
*Philip Booth is Professor of Finance, Public Policy and Ethics, St. Mary’s University, Twickenham, which is the UK’s largest Catholic university. He is also a senior academic fellow at the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA).

Source:
This article was published by the Acton Institute

By Chris Calton*

When Elvis Presley died in 1977 from drug abuse, he was an official, badge-carrying federal agent for the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, an honorary appointment granted by President Richard Nixon.

To say that Elvis Presley had a respect for law enforcement is to drastically understate his enthusiasm.

In another life, he would have liked to have been a police officer, and he was obsessed with collecting police badges and uniforms. When he would perform shows around the country, he always made an effort to obtain a badge from the local police force, sometimes by using his celebrity status and other times by donating money to police functions. In some cases, he would offer a $5,000 donation to a police ball in order to procure a badge. He was also known to give expensive cars to local sheriffs, including Sherriff Bill Morris of Memphis who gratefully deputized Presley after receiving a gift of a Mercedes-Benz.

His generosity was so lavishly offered to members of the Denver police that it actually brought about suspicions of graft and corruption after the King’s death. Along with Cadillacs and Lincoln luxury cars, he paid for officers to take high-class vacations and gifted them with pricey jewelry. He purchased his own Denver police uniform and was made an honorary captain of the Denver Police Force. He would have been a police officer, Elvis once confided, but “God blessed him with a voice.”

Elvis Becomes a Drug Warrior

In 1970, California senator George Murphy promised to get Elvis a meeting with FBI director J. Edgar Hoover and Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNDD) director John Ingersoll. In both cases, Elvis was hoping that a generous private donation would be enough to buy him a federal badge from each of these departments.

Elvis never did get to meet Hoover, and when called the BNDD, Ingersoll was out of the office. He spoke, instead, to the number-two man of the Bureau, Deputy Director John Finlator. The deputy director was not swayed by Elvis’s fame or money and informed him that his department could neither accept donations nor issue honorary badges. Elvis’s offer was spurned.

Undeterred, Elvis penned a hand-written letter to President Nixon. In the letter, Elvis expressed his concerns for the “drug culture, the hippie elements, the SDS [Students for a Democratic Society], Black Panthers, etc.” Offering his services as a celebrity communicator to the president, Elvis went on to say, “I can and will do more good if I were made a Federal Agent at Large.”

To help the president wage his war against the drug users, the hippies, and the communists, Elvis said, “all I need is the Federal credentials.”

On December 21, 1970, President Nixon agreed to meet the King. In full form, according to an interview given by Egil Krogh, Nixon’s aide who received Elvis, he arrived “in a purple jumpsuit and a white shirt open to the navel with a big gold chain and thick-rimmed sunglasses.” The meeting with the president got off to an awkward start, with Elvis complaining to Nixon about the difficulties of performing in Las Vegas and expressing his anger for The Beatles.

Finally, Elvis revealed his agenda. “Mr. President,” he said, “can you get me a badge from the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs?”

This is what Egil Krogh was worried about. He knew that Elvis had already been turned away by the BNDD on this exact matter. Nixon turned to Krogh, calling him by his nickname: “Bud, can we get him a badge?”

“Well, Mr. President,” Krogh answered, “if you want to get him a badge, we can do that.”

Nixon gave the order to get the King a badge, which elated Elvis so much that he crossed to the other side of the desk and gave the president a bear hug. Elvis then had his body guards bring in the gifts he had brought with him, which he lavished on the president and his aides, including jewelry for their wives. Before leaving, Nixon and Elvis posed for one of the most famous photographs ever taken in the Oval Office.

Elvis was now a badge-carrying drug warrior, and he carried his badge with him for the rest of his life, until he died seven years later from a drug overdose.

About the author:
*Chris Calton is a Mises University alumnus and an economic historian. He is writer and host of the Historical Controversies podcast. See also his YouTube channel here.

Source:
This article was published by the MISES Institute.

By Maria Alejandra Silva*

On September 13th, President Donald Trump released his “Presidential Determination on Major Drug Transit or Major illicit Drug Producing Countries” for the fiscal year 2018. In it, the president states that, the U.S. Government, “seriously considered designating Colombia as a country that has failed demonstrably to adhere to its obligations under international counternarcotics agreements due to the extraordinary growth of coca cultivation and cocaine production over the past 3 years.”

According to the report, the only reason why this designation was not attributed to Colombia was that Bogota and Washington historically have had a strong relationship on matters of security and law enforcement. The United States threatens to assign Colombia this designation if it does not achieve significant progress in reducing coca cultivation and the production of cocaine.

COHA denounces this unwelcome threat coming from Washington, especially because it fails to recognize the many steps that Bogota has taken to be an effective force in the anti-drug war. We stand with the Colombian government’s assertion that, “Colombia has demonstrated its commitment – paying a very high cost in human lives – to overcoming the problem of drugs. This commitment stems from the profound conviction that the consumption, production and trafficking of drugs constitutes a serious threat to the well-being and security of citizens…Threats are not needed to motivate us to meet this challenge.”

The record will show that for years, Colombia has been one of Washington’s staunchest allies in Latin America. It has received more U.S aid than any other country in the region and has used this assistance to steadfastly cooperate with U.S. military and intelligence communities on security initiatives that were, at times, unwise and even injudicious. COHA refuses to support any hasty and ill-conceived measures by the U.S. government to bully or intimidate countries of Latin America. For this reason, we will continue to call for respect for Colombian sovereignty and the country’s continued role as a global leader in security and counternarcotics.

*Maria Alejandra Silva, Research Associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

Additional editorial support provided by Arianna La Marca, Bjorn Kjelstad, and R.O. Niederstrasser, Research Associates at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

By R. Upadhyay

The Government’s affidavit in the Supreme Court that Militant elements among Rohingyas in India have links with ISI and IS and its determination to deport them is being widely debated in Indian media.

Rohingya Muslim refugees from Myanmar have already drawn the sympathetic attention of the Indian Islamists, ‘secularist’ political class, Muslim majority countries and also Human Right organisations all over the world. Unfortunately, without understanding the genesis of the problem they are criticising India for its stand to deport the Rohingya migrants in this country due to security reasons.

India is already flooded with Muslim infiltration from Bangladesh and therefore it is unfair to put pressure on it particularly when the government claims to have reports with supporting evidence and credible intelligence input that a sizeable Rohingya population were and are being radicalised by Pakistan based terror groups. It is ridiculous that Muslim countries are also critical of India’s stand on this issue although they are not ready to accept them. It is better that Organisation of Islamic Co‑operation ask its member‑countries to rehabilitate the Rohingya refugees in their respective countries. They have space and the money but not the heart to spend on them.

To understand the genesis of Rohingya crisis one must look into the Muslim history of Burma that was renamed as Myanmar in 1989. Their problem started ever since the community emigrated from erstwhile East Bengal.

Myanmar is a multi‑ethnic country in Southeast Asia bordering Thailand, Laos, China, India, Bangladesh and Andaman Sea. Buddhism, which is professed by about 89% of country’s various ethnic groups like Burmans, Karen, Shan, Rakhine and Mon – has more or less not only become a part of their national identity but it is also the state religion. Various reports suggest that due to certain historical, social, political and cultural problems, the Muslim minority remained alienated from the national mainstream which occasionally led to communal riots.

Historically, some reports suggest that there was a mass killing of Muslims in Arakan in 17th century, when Shah Shuja, the second son of Shajahan fled to this province by sea route. As Shuja failed to meet the demand of the then king of Burma asking for his daughter and the wealth he had carried with him, his companions were said to have been massacred.

The entry of Muslims into Burma was mainly from countries like Turkey, Persia, Arab, China and India particularly from East Bengal. They were mostly travellers, traders, sailors, pioneers, adventurers, and war prisoners. The current Muslim population in Burma is therefore the descendents of Arab, Persian, Turks, Moors, Pathans, Pakistanis, Chinese, Malays and Bangladeshis. The Muslim immigrants from China, who are small in number and mostly settled in Rangoon are termed as Panthay.

Although, their arrival in this land began even prior to the first Burmese Empire founded by king Anawrahata in 1055 AD, their main influx was from the eighteenth century onwards through the Arakan region. A widely believed theory suggests that Muslims from Bengal migrated to the coastal areas of Burma principally to Arakan are called Rohingyas, who form a prominent group of a Muslim minority in Burma. Wikipedia, also suggests that the Rohingyas are migrants from southern regions of Bangladesh.

Arakan extends nearly 550 km along the coastal areas of Bay of Bengal. Geographically, the region is a continuation of East Bengal and is intersected by a chain of hills. (Hindu Colonies in the Far East by R. C. Majumdar, 1944, page 202). It is a land of many ethnic groups with majority of Rakhines and therefore, this state is also known as Rakhine. Till 1784 an independent king, who ruled over this region – had exercised ‘fluctuating sovereignty, over extensive part of Muslim majority East‑Bengal. This facilitated the immigration of Muslims to this region. The British annexed Burma in 1885 and made it a part of its Indian colony. This further increased the influx of Muslims and Hindus from Bengal and other parts of India respectively to Burma.

During the British colonial rule the unabated migration of Indians particularly Muslims from Bengal to Burma as labour and for other miscellaneous professions including petty business increased the population of Indian immigrants, which constituted about 7% of Burma population by 1931. Yangon (Rangoon) with two‑third of immigrant population including 53% Indians emerged as an immigrant city. Muslims, the main immigrants from Bengal province of British India became synonymous to Indians and were identified as the main alien group that could weaken the cultural traditions of the Buddhist‑ society of Burma

The inter‑marriage of Muslims with different ethnic groups was never resisted by the free Buddhist society in that country. In fact inter‑ethnic marriage had been a tradition of Burmese society but it was far less in case of marriage between the Muslim girls and the Burmese boys. Due to their strict social structure, the Muslims did not integrate into the mainstream of the egalitarian character of the indigenous ethnic groups of Burma. More and more intermarriage between the Muslims and the Burmese women after their conversion followed by substantial rise to their progeny known as ‘Zerabadis’.

The Burmese people always viewed the role of their fellow Muslims during independence movement suspicious as the latter were found more under the influence of the political movement in Bengal led by All India Muslim League than the national movement in Burma. The growing influence of All India Muslim League also ignited the separatist imagination of the Burmese Muslims. One Imanullah Khan even made an attempt to form a branch of the Muslim League in Burma.

Burmese Muslims, who were ignorant of the concept of separate Muslim nationalism, also developed communal consciousness under the inspiration of 1930 Muslim League Conference at Allahabad under the presidentship of Mohammad Iqbal. Accordingly, in their annual Muslim conference, which was hitherto confined to purely religious discourse they turned towards forming Muslim organisations. They also started opening of separate schools for Muslims and imparted Islamic education in Urdu language. One Ali Ahmad also formed a Gadar Party patterned after the one in India. These developments further widened the gap of mistrust between the Burmese Buddhists and the Muslims.

“According to 1931 census Buddhism was the professed religion of five‑sixths of the total population of Burma”. Population of other religious groups included Muslims 4%, Hindus 3.9% and Christians 2.3%. (Modern Burma by John Leroy Christian – University of California Press, 1942, page 194). According to Burma Human Rights Year Book (2002‑3) the religion wise population of the country included Buddhists 89.3%, Christians 5.6%, Muslims 3.5%, Hindus 0.5% and Animists 0.2%. Contrary to the Government claim of Muslim population around 4%, the Muslim organisations maintain that their number is around 10%.

The above figures of religion wise population suggests that there was a decline in Buddhist population whereas the Muslim population was on the rise. The new generation of indigenous groups in Burma viewed this declining trend as danger to their cultural tradition and national identity and they also apprehended that it would weaken the Buddhist society. The larger majority of the Hindu immigrants returned to India particularly after Burma got independence from British colonial rule but the communal divide between the Buddhists and the Muslims, who did not return to the place of their origin continued and prevails even today.

In 1937 the British administration separated Burma from India. Just before Second World War General Aung San (Father of Aung Sang Suu Kyi, the leader of National League for Democracy) and U Nu formed Anti‑Fascist People’s Freedom League (AFPFL) and launched the movement for freedom of Burma from colonial rule of the British. The Muslims of Burma instead of enrolling themselves as members of AFPFL formed a separate organisation called Burma Muslim Congress (BMC). They however joined the movement as a constituent of the AFPFL but maintained their independent identity. Although AFPFL leaders did not make it an issue for tactical reasons, they remained suspicious about the community. General Aung Sang San, while addressing a conference in 1946 “bluntly asserted that reliance on alien support could only make Burma a prostitute nation”. (Burma and Pakistan: A Comparative Study of Development by Mya Maung, 1971, page 77).

In 1938 a Muslim clergy had passed some derogatory remarks against the Buddhists which ignited communal riots. Police had to open fire in which two Buddhist monks died. The local media highlighted the news, which spread all over the country causing burning of Muslim houses, shops, properties and mosques. In fact the religio‑political divide between Hindus and the Muslims in India also had its impact in Burma.

Some reports suggest that during Second World War the Muslims of Burma remained loyal to the British contrary to Buddhist majority support to the Japanese who invaded British ruled Burma. Since the British won the war, the relation between the Rohingyas and Buddhists started deteriorating. Like India, Buddhists of Burma had also launched their freedom movement against the British and expected that Japan would help them for achieving independence.

On April 4, 1948 Burma got independence from British colonial rule and a democratic government with U Nu as Prime Minister was formed. The new government, while counting the Muslims settled in Arakan as Indians (The Role of Indian Minorities in Burma and Malaya by Mahajani, 1966) asked the BMC leaders to resign from the AFPFL. BMC leaders however assured the new government that they would discontinue the religio‑political activities of the organisation and subsequently got two berths in U Nu’s cabinet. But in 1956 U Nu removed the BMC from the League and in 1958 declared Buddhism as state religion, which antagonized the Muslims and the Christians. (Burma and Indonesia by Kalyan Bandyopadhyay, South Asian Publishers, New Delhi, 1983, page 34).

Ever since the independence of Burma, Rohingyas were fighting for a separate statehood and had even made an unsuccessful attempt for making Arakan a separate independent country. This created an adverse impact in the minds of Burmese Buddhists against them. Although, the U Nu Government remained indifferent towards them, the subsequent military regime headed by General Ne win took them seriously for their alleged Islamist activities. The new regime declared Rohingyas as illegal immigrants on the plea that they had settled in Burma during British rule. They however, recognized the Kachins, who are mostly Christians as indigenous ethnic group of the country. It also formed its own party namely Burma Socialist Programme Party (BSPP).

In 1974 the military regime framed a new constitution and named the country as Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma. Its main focus was on Burmese culture, language, tradition and religion. Accordingly it completely removed the nationality of Rohingyas, declared them as foreigners, denied their citizenship rights, removed them from various government jobs and also confiscated their properties. They also put travel restrictions on them by introducing special identity papers for their movement. In 1978 the army launched repressive measures against them for their alleged Islamist activities and alleged links with terrorist organizations. This forced a large number of Rohingyas to flee to Bangladesh, where they were settled in various refugee camps in Cox Bazar area. The Islamist organizations in Bangladesh took advantage of the situation and sent a sizeable number of them to Afghanistan to fight against the Russian army. After the withdrawal of Russian Army from Afghanistan in 1989 most of the war trained Rohingyas returned to Bangladesh and also re‑entered Burma to fight against the Burmese army.

After the end of Afghan war the Ne Win government intent on removing all anti‑Burmese elements again targeted the Muslims settled in its western region bordering Bangladesh. The repressive measure against them was for their alleged link with international Islamist terrorist organisation like Al Qaeda and Taliban. Therefore, in 1991‑92 again a large number of Rohingyas fled from Burma to Bangladesh.

Even though there is no written law or regulation mandating customary discriminatory practices against the Muslims, the latter have suffered from ethnic and religious discrimination in Burma for long. The rigid socio‑religious character of the community which generated anti‑Muslim feelings among the Buddhist majority was the main reason behind the developments.

During pro‑democracy movement against the military regime since August 19, 2007 its leaders had accepted the Rohingyas as indigenous population and had even blamed the then regime for diverting the attention of the people from the real issue as to why the democratic government led by U Nu declared Buddhism as state religion had dropped Muslim members from his cabinet. Even Aung San, the main leader of freedom movement and National Martyr had assertively expressed his reservation against the Muslims. His daughter Ms Aung San Suu who led her party National League for Democracy to a majority win in November 2015 election could not become the president of the country as Myanmar constitution forbids her for this post because she has children of foreign origin. After her prolonged silence on the present crisis she opened up for the first time on September 19 saying that her government “does not fear international scrutiny” and is restoring peace and normalcy in the country. Her statement also suggests that like her father she too has reservations on the Muslims.

It appears that the Buddhist population of Myanmar who are in overwhelming majority do not want Rohingyas particularly after the attack of Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army on some of the police and army posts which led to the death of many security personnel. In view of the no‑compromise attitude of the majority of native population with the radicalised Rohingiyas, India too cannot take the risk of allowing them at the cost of national security.

As many voices in media are also supporting the view that Islamic countries should come forward to rehabilitate the Rohingya refugees in their respective countries, the UN should take the initiative in this direction instead of putting pressure on India.

By Jeremie P. Credo

President Rodrigo Duterte had gone on a total of 21 foreign trips, including all ASEAN Member States, China, Japan, Peru, New Zealand, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Hong Kong, and Russia. He went on these trips in a span of one year, effectively making him the most traveled president during his first year in office.

Duterte’s visit to the said countries bears significance for a number of reasons. His visit to Myanmar on 19-20 March 2017 marked the completion of his tour of all Member States of ASEAN. He successfully visited the nine other Member States less than a year into his presidency, a feat which his predecessors had not accomplished. The round of visits to ASEAN is particularly significant given the Association’s 50^th founding anniversary and the Philippines’ chairmanship this year. It also manifests the government’s resolve in engaging and cooperating with its neighbors in matters of mutual interest.

Meanwhile, Duterte’s engagement with countries in Northeast Asia, Middle East, and Russia is politically significant as the Philippines seeks to expand and forge relations as a manifestation of an independent foreign policy. The diversification of partnerships recognizes the growing interdependence among states and contributes to the Philippines’ national interest and domestic agenda. It will prove to be essential in facing domestic security concerns stemming from the spread of illegal drugs and terrorist activities in the south, among others; along with financial and societal reforms aimed at attracting foreign investments, accessing new markets, curtailing unemployment, and boosting overall economic development.

Chronicling Duterte’s foreign trips

In ASEAN, it has been both tradition and protocol that the first state visit of a new Head of State is to a fellow ASEAN Member State. In the Philippines, this tradition was carried out by every new administration since ASEAN’s establishment in 1967.

Duterte’s debut on the international stage was at the 28^th and 29^th ASEAN Summits in Vientiane, Laos on 6-8 September 2016. At the closing ceremony of the Summits, Duterte accepted the Philippines’ chairmanship of ASEAN for 2017 and revealed the theme, “Partnering for Change, Engaging the World,” which encapsulates the importance of continued collective efforts by ASEAN Member States to create positive change for the peoples of the region and to involve Dialogue Partners in the stewardship of regional security, stability, and growth.

After Lao PDR, Duterte visited the following ASEAN Member States: Indonesia, Vietnam, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Singapore, Thailand, and Myanmar. Highlighted during the visits were discussions of common issues and interests, including addressing the threat of terrorism, strengthening maritime security cooperation, combating transnational crimes, committing to a drug-free ASEAN Community, and improving air and sea connectivity for enhanced trade and people-to-people exchanges. On economic cooperation, the three countries recognized the need to create an environment conducive to business in areas such as agriculture, food processing and development of halal products, tourism services, and expansion of Islamic banking. Meanwhile, technical cooperation was also in the agenda in President Duterte’s visits to ASEAN Member States. Cambodia, in particular, expressed its intent to seek opportunities for technology transfer of rice seeds from the Philippines, while Thailand has sought Philippine cooperation in the fields of science and technology, and agriculture, particularly swamp and dairy buffalo production.

Duterte’s visits to China and Japan have resulted in cooperation on the improvement of the Philippines’ lagging infrastructure by drawing pledges for mass transportation systems, railways, dams, and ports. Japan, for its part, has boosted support for maritime law enforcement by providing aircrafts, boats, ships, and vessels to the Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) for search and rescue and counter-terrorism operations. Similarly, Duterte’s visit to Russia explored means to deepen cooperation on defense, military, technical, and investment cooperation between the Philippines and Russia. Meanwhile, countries like New Zealand and Saudi Arabia have expressed their willingness to cooperate on counter-terrorism. Moreover, the visit to Saudi Arabia and Qatar focused on labor relations given the presence of many Filipino Overseas Workers in these countries.

What’s at stake during diplomatic visits?

Diplomatic visits may come in the form of a state visit, official visit, or working visit.  Exchange of visits among state leaders are often little understood, which lead people to overlook the value of a president’s foreign travels. State visits accord the highest level of hospitality, honor, and formality between leaders; thus reflecting the strength and vitality of a bilateral relationship. It must therefore be viewed optimistically and regarded as a vital part of foreign policy-making and diplomacy.

The rounds of discussions and negotiations are all aimed at ensuring the public’s socio-economic welfare and safety, especially at a time when traditional and non-traditional threats pose risks to states and their peoples. It is because a country’s domestic agenda influences its foreign policy and vice versa. The Philippines’ pressing political-security issues such as combatting transnational crimes, including the spread of illegal drugs, are considered high priority in the agenda of bilateral talks. Equally important, the expansion of bilateral relations will contribute to the achievement of the administration’s 10-Point Socioeconomic Agenda that prioritizes the acceleration of infrastructure, development of rural and value chains, enhancement human capital through health and education systems, promotion of science and technology, and improvement of social protection programs, among others.

Diplomatic visits are about maintaining and strengthening existing relations, if not about developing new relations between states. They provide leaders the opportunity to pursue common and national interests by forging agreements, attracting investors, expanding trade and investments, exchanging best practices, and discussing pressing issues towards cultivating a better understanding of one another. In Myanmar, for example, Duterte pledged USD 300,000 in humanitarian assistance to Rakhine State, demonstrating the Philippines’ resolve to play an active role in regional affairs by promoting harmony amongst the peoples of ASEAN. Moreover, a highlight of Duterte’s foreign visits is his regular meetings and dialogues with overseas Filipino communities to reach out to Filipinos abroad, which is equally important in strengthening state-to-state relations.

Given the increasing regional security challenges, complex domestic concerns, desire for economic growth, and need to fast-track regional integration, the Philippines finds itself at a critical juncture of having to carefully calibrate and balance its domestic and international interests through engagements with other partner countries. The President’s visit to ASEAN states has been essential in gaining support for the country’s ASEAN Chairmanship and in pushing for a united stand on issues affecting the region. As for his visit to other countries, it is a gesture of his intent to diversify Philippine foreign relations in a changed strategic and economic environment. It also reflects the country’s aim under the Duterte administration of not being reliant on solely one partner or being too vulnerable to another. These are all in view of pursuing an independent foreign policy anchored on shared values of democracy, adherence to the rule of law, and strengthening ties with neighbors and external partners. More importantly, the visits gave the Philippines an opportunity to show its determination to partner for change and engage the world towards achieving a more secure, stable, and prosperous ASEAN Community.

About the author:
*Jeremie P. Credo is a Foreign Affairs Research Specialist with the Center for International Relations and Strategic Studies of the Foreign Service Institute. Ms. Credo can be reached at jpcredo@fsi.gov.ph

The views expressed in this publication are of the authors alone and do not reflect the official position of the Foreign Service Institute, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Government of the Philippines.

Source:
This article was published by FSI. CIRSS Commentariesis a regular short publication of the Center for International Relations and Strategic Studies (CIRSS) of the Foreign Service Institute (FSI) focusing on the latest regional and global developments and issues.

By Michael Sharnoff*

(FPRI) — The Kingdom of Jordan relies on American support to prevent terrorist infiltration from Islamic State and other Salafi-Jihadist threats; alleviate the economic burden strained by a massive influx of Syrian refugees; and achieve a diplomatic solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The U.S. perceives Jordan as a strategic partner—an island of stability in an unstable region. In 2016, Jordan received $1.4 billion in economic and military assistance from the United States. This aid is part of a three-year memorandum of understanding whereby Washington will allocate $1 billion in aid to Jordan annually, up from $660 million in recent years. As a result of Jordan’s unique geostrategic position, the U.S. has refrained from publicly critiquing its human rights abuses.

Lacking natural resources such as gas and oil, the Kingdom relies on financial assistance from the West and military and intelligence cooperation from Israel. While Jordan and Israel were still officially in a state of war, at the request of the United States, Israel sent fighter jets to protect King Hussein from the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and an invading Syrian army in 1970. In 1994, shortly after the Oslo Accords, Israel and Jordan signed peace treaties, terminating their state of belligerency which had been in effect since 1948.

During the 1950s, Western intelligence assessments predicted that the King would not survive, and should he fall, the Kingdom would go with him. On the contrary, Jordan has proven quite resilient, and has navigated the Arab Spring uprisings with greater dexterity than its neighbors.

Despite the peace treaty with Israel, the Kingdom exploits the Palestinian issue to divert attention from internal problems. However, critiques of Israel often extend beyond legitimate criticism of specific Israelis policies to defamation against Judaism and the Jewish people.

Jordan’s Anti-Semitism is Counterproductive

Jordan was included in a U.S. State Department annual report on religious freedom as a country plagued with pervasive anti-Semitism. The 2016 report documented that Jordanian “cartoons, articles, postings on social media, and public statements by politicians continued to present negative images of Jews and conflate anti-Israel sentiment with anti-Semitic sentiment.” The State Department also disapproved of the Kingdom’s unwillingness to take “action with regard to anti-Semitic material appearing in the media.”

The following are recent examples of conspiracy theories and anti-Semitic tropes against Judaism and the Jewish people.

On April 27, 2014, Kamel S. Abu Jaber, a former Jordanian foreign minister and director of the Royal Institute for Interfaith Studies, wrote an op-ed in the Jordan Times citing Mein Kampf. He claimed that Zionists have brainwashed Western governments into subscribing to “that esoteric Talmudic myth, placing Zionist interests before and above their own national interests.”

On April 28, Jordanian columnist, preacher, and TV host Monther Abu Hawash published an article in the Islamist-leaning paper, As Sabeel, stating that the Jewish people are wicked and “the enemy of God” and the Islamic faith. Abu Hawash vilifies Jews as “rats who are defiling Jerusalem and destroying the foundation of Al Aqsa,” and who resemble the devil.

Food has also become a political weapon to defame Jews and discredit their connection to their ancestral homeland. On June 25, the private news agency Ammon published an article arguing that mansaf, a traditional Jordanian lamb dish, was created to ridicule Jews because it is not kosher. When Jordanians consume this meal, they convey their hatred towards Jews until Judgment day.

In September 2014, Sheikh Abd al-Mun’im Abu Zant, a former Jordanian MP, recycled a medieval anti-Semitic trope that Jews use the blood of Christian children to prepare unleavened bread for Passover. He added that Jews are “liars” who practice in cannibalism. On December 10, 2014, Jordanian MP’s went on anti-Semitic tirades to protest gas exports from Israel. MP Yahya Mohammad Alsaud said that the government is able to solve the energy situation without resorting to the Jews, “who don’t respect agreements.” MP Mohammed al-Abadi advocated expelling Israeli tourists from the Kingdom. MP Mohammad Riyati recited Koranic verses: “These Jews attacked the prophets.” MP Khalil Attieh insinuated that Israelis poisoned wells, questioning if Israel intentionally polluted the Sea of Galilee.

In December 2014, Jordanian MP Khalil Attieh again revealed his anti-Semitic prejudices by denigrating Jews as the descendants of apes and pigs on Roya TV. Later that month, Jordan’s news site Assawsana published an article requesting that the Jordanian Minister of Religious Endowments order their clerics in the mosques to change their Friday sermons from “Oh Allah, destroy the Jews and those who follow them or are friends with them” to “Oh Allah, destroy the Jews because of their actions.” That way, Jordan’s peace treaty with Israel would not be perceived as a curse against Jordanians.

On June 24, 2015, the semi-independent Jordanian paper Ad-Dustour featured an article by Yasser Zaatreh, a writer and political analyst, praising Palestinian stabbings against Israelis as “heroic.” He encouraged Palestinian unity to perpetrate additional attacks.

In response to an Israeli critique of Jordanians protesting a bilateral gas deal, Adnan al-Rousan went on an ad hominem attack against both the Israeli pundit specifically and the Jewish people generally. On November 8, 2016, al-Rousan wrote that “the Jordanians have been here for a million years or more, while you, oh terrorist nobodies Jews have been here for only a few decades. Your state will disappear very soon Allah willing and your nukes, the UK and the US will not protect you.” He described Judaism as a “fake terrorist religion, the religion of Sherlock, the Merchant of Venice.” Threatening genocide, al-Rousan added, “The Jordanians will reclaim their rights with their hands, and you will eventually pay the price, as you did in Khaybar and in Germany.”

On April 9, 2017, Jordanian columnist As’ad al-‘Azouni published an article in Ammon claiming that ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi could not possibly be a Muslim, but was in fact an Israeli Rabbi named Elliott Shimon. On May 6, Jordanian attorney Sufian Shawa echoed a lingering conspiracy in the Arab world that the two lines on the Israeli flag represented Jewish ambition to expand Israel’s borders from the Nile to the Euphrates. Writing in Ad-Dustour, Shawa said that as a result of Benjamin Netanyahu’s burgeoning relationship with Narendra Modi, Israel now sought to expand its borders to the Indian Ocean. The author added that Israel is a product of international freemasonry, whose influence controls Western governments.

These attitudes are not marginal but mainstream, cutting across the socio-economic strata of Jordanian society. A Canadian filmmaker illustrates how anti-Semitic texts such as Mein Kamp and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are proudly displayed in Amman book shops and considered legitimate works of non-fiction. In April 2017, the Jordanian Prime TV channel broadcast a three-part series on The Protocols, moderated by Prime TV and Dyar Media General Director Ayed Alqam, who is also a film director and actor. In the series, Alqam said that the Jews are “an ostracized and abhorred people,” well known “for their lying, fraud, and deception, and their sowing of strife.”

A Shift in Tone?

Recently, several courageous voices have deviated from mainstream attitudes with a more positive view of Israel and the Jewish people. Although a minority opinion, this shift in perception offers a glimmer of hope for laying a foundation for tolerance and mutual respect, criteria necessary to upgrade a cold peace into a warm peace, and thus ensuring greater regional stability.

The Center of Israel Studies is an independent think tank in Jordan formed in 2014 to study the history and politics of Israel. Founded by Jordanian political scientist Abdullah Swalha, the Center aims to educate Jordanians on contemporary Israeli issues. “Why is it,” he asks, “that Israeli think tanks know everything about the Arab world, but that Arab think tanks don’t know anything about Israel?” Swalha added, “We don’t see the other side of Israel: Israel as a model of democracy, Israel as a model for prosperity, Israel as a state that respects human rights.”

In a March 2014 interview, Jordanian Sheikh Ahmad al-Adwan announced that Jordanian and Arab media had a religious obligation to stop anti-Jewish propaganda. He said that anyone who calls Israelis by names which Allah did not use is a villain, and that these media outlets “need to act in a God-fearing manner and call Israelis with names Allah used, and the name he gave to their land [Israel].”

In 2015, Jordanian Sheikh Ali Hassan Al-Halabi, director of the Imam al-Albani religious studies center, issued a fatwa forbidding the killing of Jewish civilians and soldiers. “The Jews do not attack anyone who does not attack them,” said the sheikh. “If they [Jews] killed every Muslim they saw, nobody would be left in Palestine. They would all flee to other countries. But all the people there stay put.” However, Jordanians did not respond affectionately to these radical pronouncements, prompting the sheikh to recant his views.

The Future of Israeli and American Cooperation with Jordan

Is Jordan’s policy of strategic military and intelligence cooperation with the United States and Israel sustainable while Amman does little to clamp down on anti-Semitic incitement?

Middle East commentators and pundits suggest that Jordanian anti-Semitic attitudes are linked with the Arab-Israeli conflict, and resolving the conflict would reduce these prejudices. Prior to the 1967 War, this assessment could be true. However, anti-Jewish propaganda has had decades to manifest in Jordanian society. Today, even with an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement, it will take generations to change these perceptions.

When pressed about this bigotry and incitement, Jordanian officials may tell their Western interlocutors that Jordan has a free press and these views do not reflect those of the government. Or they can feign ignorance and suggest that these views are for domestic consumption, and should not be taken literally.

However, historical precedents reveal that Jordan is willing and able to respond to media criticism. In June 2017, Jordan revoked Al Jazeera’s license in a show of solidarity with the Saudi-led anti-Qatari coalition. In 1998, Jordan closed Al Jazeera’s office in Amman for four months after a broadcast insulted the Kingdom’s diplomatic relations with Israel.[1] Moreover, Jordan’s “Prevention of Terrorism Act,” enacted in 2006, grants the Kingdom sweeping powers to prosecute citizens for “disturbing public order” and “disturbing relations with a foreign country.” Under these laws, anti-Israel and anti-Semitic criticism technically violates these terms and could be followed by criminal action.

Although there has been some progress, the Kingdom’s toleration of anti-Semitic propaganda violates the spirit of the 1994 peace treaty and actually harms Jordanian and Israeli interests.

For Jordanians, anti-Semitic propaganda prevents Jordanians from achieving their full intellectual and economic potential. It creates an atmosphere where it is far easier to blame societal problems on external actors. Xenophobia and bigotry can have unpredictable consequences. Left unchecked, this propaganda could easily be used as justification to target other minority groups, harming Jordan’s tourism industry and tarnishing the Kingdom’s international reputation as a force of moderation. These hateful attitudes could also one day force Israelis to reconsider the wisdom of assisting their neighbor in water, energy, and agricultural development.

For Israelis, Jordan’s toleration of such prejudice places constant pressure on the King to terminate the peace treaty and reject normalization with the Jewish state. It creates an unnecessary burden on Jordanian leaders to work with Israelis on critical security cooperation and increases the probability of violent attacks by disgruntled Jordanians against Israelis traveling abroad.

About the author:
*Michael Sharnoff, Associate Professor of Middle East Studies and Director of Regional Studies at the Daniel Morgan Graduate School of National Security. He is the author of Nasser’s Peace: Egypt’s Response to the 1967 War with Israel (2017).

Source:
This article was published by FPRI.

Notes:
[1] Hugh Miles, Al-Jazeera: The Inside Story of the Arab News Channel That is Challenging the West (Grove Press: 2006), 45.

Scientists confirm that the age and content of an old sack is in accordance with a medieval myth about Saint Francis of Assisi.

For more than 700 years the Friary of Folloni near Montella in Italy has protected and guarded some small fragments of textile.

According to the legend the textile fragments originate from a sack that appeared on the doorstep of the friary in the winter of 1224 containing bread sent from Saint Francis of Assisi, who at that time was in France. The bread was allegedly brought to the friary by an angel.

Ever since that cold winter’s night the sack has been guarded by the friary, and today the last few remaining fragments are kept as a relic in a well protected shrine.

In line with the legend

A Danish/Italian/Dutch team of researchers led by Associate Professor Kaare Lund Rasmussen from University of Southern Denmark has had the opportunity to conduct scientific studies of the alleged bread sack fragments. Their study is published in the journal Radiocarbon.

C-14 analysis revealed that the textile can be dated to 1220-1295.

The age is in line with the legend, said Kaare Lund Rasmussen, a chemist, and specialized in archaeo-chemical analyses.

There was probably bread in the sack

The researchers also looked for traces of bread in the textile. They did this by looking for ergosterol, a sterol for the fungal kingdom and encountered in several types of mold. Ergosterol can be a potential biomarker for brewing, baking or agriculture.

Our studies show that there was probably bread in the sack. We don’t know when, but it seems unlikely that it was after 1732, where the sack fragments were inmured in order to protect them. It is more likely that bread was in contact with the textile in the 300 years before 1732; a period, where the textile was used as altar cloth — or maybe it was indeed on the cold winter’s night in 1224 — it is possible, says Rasmussen.

Scientific measurements cannot prove a legend or belief. What they can do, is either to de-authenticiate the object or show accordance between the physical/chemical evidence and the legend, say the researchers in their paper, published in the journal Radiocarbon.

Belief versus science

The researchers have not addressed the issue of how the bread sack ended up on the doorstep of the friary.

This is maybe more a question of belief than science, said Rasmussen.

The bread sack: According to legend the bread sack miraculously appeared on the doorstep of the friary in 1224. For 300 years it was used as an altar cloth. During this time pieces were cut off and given to other religious institutions in Italy. After an earthquake in 1732 a new friary was built and the remaining sack fragments were inmured. I 1807 the fragments were moved to the main church, Santa Maria del piano. In 1817 half of the textile was returned to the friary. In 1999 the remaining half returned. Today the fragments of the textile are kept in a reliquary.

A good deal has been said about the Rob Reiner promoted Committee to Investigate Russia. The liberal Democratic Party Hollywood director/actor, explained the need for this organization with a series of absurdities during a September 19 segment on Lawrence O’Donnell’s MSNBC show. Of course, the Democratic Party connected O’Donnell didn’t bother to second guess any of Reiner’s outlandish comments.

That particular segment isn’t available at the webpage for O’Donnell’s show. Perhaps this is an understated admission of poor advocacy (on the part of Reiner) and overly partisan journalism (regarding O’Donnell). In that segment, Reiner confuses the suspect claim of Russian meddling in the 2016 US presidential election as a clearly established fact, while likening that stated behavior with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 tragedy. (I’ll refrain from repeating the counter-observation to Reiner’s overall take, by noting that this has been addressed in some of my previous commentary.)

With a day’s advance notice, I was pleased to see Reiner scheduled for a September 21 segment on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show. Among his US mass media TV peers, Carlson continues to stand out as the most objective on Russia related issues. Carlson’s exchange with Reiner was more challenging than what O’Donnell offered. In answering Carlson, Reiner better explained his position – albeit with a broad generality that lacks matter of fact specifics.

Reiner’s advocacy has been aided with the input of Hollywood actor/producer and narrator Morgan Freeman, who has narrated the collapsible spin of the foreign policy establishment likes of James Clapper, Max Boot and David Frum. These individuals are involved with the Committee to Investigate Russia.

Boot and Frum have been spinning the faulty neocon line for years. Clapper’s bigoted anti-Russian comment drew little (if any) criticism from a society that’s aghast when such bigotry is directed at some other groups. According to Clapper’s characterization of Russians, he might’ve some Russian background, given his own track record.

The Cold War era Hollywood film “The Russians Are Coming, the Russians Are Coming“, highlights the initial paranoia Americans had when the crew of a  “Russian” (Soviet to be precise) submarine seeks to secretly get a boat to assist in getting their submarine out of a sandbar off the US coast. In turn, this Soviet contingent felt insecure about openly asking for help. When the two sides suddenly become aware of each other, a potential shootout is averted when the life of a boy stuck on a church roof becomes endangered. This occurrence brings the Soviet seamen and American citizens together for the purpose of saving the youngster.

Reiner’s father Carl, played a lead role in that movie, when the US and USSR were engaged in a more actual Cold War than what’s evident in the present day between the US and Russia. From the period of that movie, the contact between people from the USSR and Russia was quite limited. Now, some Americans play in Russian ice hockey and basketball leagues and vice versa. Whenever I’m in Manhattan, I typically overhear Russian spoken.

A Russian presence is evident in some other parts of New York and elsewhere in the US. Contrary to what often gets presented in mass media, this scenario involves people with an appreciation for their country of origin and current national residence, whether as a US citizen or otherwise.

Rob Reiner achieved considerable notoriety when he played Michael Stivic, the liberal son-in-law of Archie Bunker, in the legendary 1970s sitcom “All in the Family“. This TV series is set in Queens County, New York City, the borough where US President Donald Trump grew up – noting that he resided in the wealthier section (Jamaica Estates) unlike Archie and his family (in Astoria). Archie is depicted as a conservative bigot, who nevertheless exhibits the ability to become more tolerant, while maintaining some of his prejudices. At times, Michael is portrayed to be somewhat of a liberal hypocrite.

In that series, the meathead term given to Michael by Archie, applies to Rob Reiner’s current Russia related advocacy. Along with some others, many age sixty and over Democrats continue to rehash the suspect claim of Russian meddling, that takes attention away from the real problems facing the US. Especially pathetic is Hillary Clinton’s blame game book tour on why she lost to Trump.

For mutually beneficial reasons, Russia can serve as a plus for the US in the areas of business and geopolitics. Rather than focus on this particular, “Russiagate” continues to take center stage within US mass media.

Michael Averko is a New York based foreign policy analyst and media critic.

(RFE/RL) — Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservative alliance has finished first in Germany’s elections, exit polls suggest, putting her in a position to lead the country for a fourth term.

Merkel’s bloc of the Christian Democratic Party and the Bavarian-only Christian Social Union (CDU/CSU) won between 32.5 and 33.5 percent of the vote in the September 24 elections, according to polls conducted for public television channels ARD and ZDF.

If confirmed, the numbers are the worst result for the CDU/CSU alliance under Merkel’s 12-year leadership.

The polls indicated that the bloc’s outgoing coalition partner, the Social Democrats (SPD) led by Martin Schulz, gained between 20 and 21 percent support — a post-World War II low.

They also suggested that the far-right, populist Alternative for Germany (AfD) emerged as Germany’s third-strongest party with 13 to 13.5 percent support.​

AfD’s performance means that the anti-immigrant party is on track to have a seat in the Bundestag for the first time.

It would also be the first time in 60 years that a far-right party is expected to win representation in the chamber, but all other German parties have ruled out working with the AfD.

Hundreds of people gathered outside the party’s headquarters in Berlin to protest AfD’s entry into parliament. Similar protests were held in other cities, including Cologne and Frankfurt.

Merkel, a pastor’s daughter who grew up in communist East Germany, will now try to form a coalition government, a process that could take months.

Addressing her supporters, she said she had hoped for a “better result” and that she would listen to the “anxieties” of Germans who voted for the AfD in order to win them back.

Schulz said the SPD would go into opposition, putting an end to the current coalition with Merkel’s alliance.

“It’s a difficult and bitter day for Social Democrats in Germany,” Schulz told supporters. “We haven’t reached our objective.”

The AfD has grown in popularity in the midst of an influx of around 1 million mostly Muslim migrants and refugees.

The Greens, the Free Democratic Party, and the Left Party were also poised to pass the 5-percent hurdle to enter the Bundestag.

Egypt officially took possession of a new French warship at Lorient Port in France’s Brittany region on Friday, according to reports on Egyptian state television.

At an official ceremony, Vice-Admiral Ahmed Khaled, an Egyptian naval commander, hoisted the Egyptian flag over the Gowind 2500-class corvette.

The vessel, named “Al-Fateh”, will enter Egypt’s naval fleet as part of a deal inked last year that also included the purchase of three other ships to be built in Alexandria with French assistance.

Able to find — and destroy — submarines, the warship is capable of carrying out multiple military tasks, such as securing maritime transport lines and guarding ships and seaports.

Since the rise to power of Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah al-Sisi in 2014, relations between Cairo and Paris have been characterized by several major weapons procurement deals.

Original source

Located on England’s Salisbury Plain, 80 miles southwest of London, Stonehenge, the prehistoric monument featuring the remains of a circle of huge standing stones, has long fascinated archaeologists as well as the general public.

Today, the ancient site—whose true purpose remains a mystery—receives more than a million visitors a year.

For decades the official Stonehenge guidebooks have been full of fascinating facts and figures and theories surrounding the world’s greatest prehistoric monument. What the glossy brochures don’t mention, however, is the systematic rebuilding of the ‘4,000’ year old stone circle throughout the 20th Century.

This is one of the dark secrets of history archaeologists don’t talk about…and why would they, if the fakery comes out, there would be no tourists, which means loss of revenue, loss of TV shows, but most importantly removing England from the historical map… And that’s the period of time they had the builders at Stonehenge recreate the most famous ancient monument in Britain as they thought it ought to look.

This picture above shows workers on the site in 1901 in a restoration, which caused outrage at the time but which is not referred to in any official guidebooks.

Of course it would mean that Stonehenge, the crown jewel of Britain’s heritage industry, is not all it seems. People might be surprised to know that much of what the ancient site’s millions of visitors see, only dates back less than 50 years.

And you thought your news was fake?

The impending collapse of ISIS has touched off a race for territory in the oil-rich eastern part of Syria pitting US-backed forces against the Russian-led coalition of Syria, Iran and Hezbollah.

This is the nightmare scenario that everyone wanted to avoid.  Washington and Moscow’s armies are now converging on the same area at the same time greatly increasing the probability of a conflagration between the two nuclear-armed superpowers.

The only way a clash can be avoided is if one party backs down, which seems increasingly unlikely.

The situation can be easily explained. The vast swath of territory captured by ISIS is steadily shrinking due to the dogged perseverance of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) which has liberated most of the countryside west of the Euphrates River including the former ISIS stronghold at Deir Ezzor, a critical garrison at the center of the fighting.

ISIS is also getting pressure from the north where the US-backed SDF is pounding their capital at Raqqa while deploying troops and tanks southward to the oil fields in Deir Ezzor province.

Washington has made it clear that it wants its proxy-army to control the area east of the Euphrates establishing a soft partition between east and west. The US also wants to control Deir Ezzor’s vast oil resources in order to provide a reliable revenue stream for the emergent Kurdish statelet.

Syrian President Bashar al Assad has said many times that he will never agree to the partitioning of the country. But the decision will not be made by Assad alone. His coalition partners in Moscow, Beirut and Tehran will also help shape the final settlement.

As far as Putin is concerned, it seems extremely unlikely that he’d risk a protracted and bloody war with the United States simply to recapture every square inch of Syrian territory. The Russian president will probably allow the US to keep its bases in the northeast provided that critical areas are conceded to the regime. But where will the line be drawn, that’s the question?

The US wants to control the area east of the Euphrates including the lucrative oil fields. This is why they deployed troops from the SDF southward even though they’re still needed in Raqqa.

Earlier in the week, it looked like the Syrian Army had a leg up on the SDF as troops and armored vehicles crossed the Euphrates headed east to the oil fields. But reports that appeared late Thursday indicate that the SDF has beaten them to the punch. This is from South Front:

“On Thursday, the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) …captured Tabiyeh and al-Isba oil fields in the northwestern Deir Ezzor countryside, according to pro-Kurdish sources. … If these reports are confirmed, the SDF will be in control over a half of Syria’s oil reserve. Moreover, that will mean that the SDF at least partly blocked the SAA way on the eastern bank of the Euphrates river.” (“Syrian Democratic Forces Capture Key Oil Fields In Deir Ezzor”, South Front)

This is a major setback for the Russian coalition. It means that the SAA backed by the Russian Airforce will have to fight a group which, up to this point, has been an ally in the war against ISIS. Now it’s clear that the mainly-Kurdish SDF is no ally, it’s an enemy that wants to steal Syria’s resources and carve a state out of its eastern flank.

The news about the SDF’s arrival at the oil fields came just hours after the Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Major General Igor Konashenkov issued a terse warning to the US and SDF that Russia would retaliate if  SAA positions were attacked again by SDF mortar or rocket fire.

Quote: “Russia unequivocally told the commanders of US forces in Al Udeid Airbase (Qatar) that it will not tolerate any shelling from the areas where the SDF are stationed (…)  Fire from positions in regions [controlled by the SDF] will be suppressed by all means necessary.”

In retrospect, it looks like the SDF had already decided to make a clean break with the government leaving no doubt of where they stood. Washington is using the SDF to seize the oil fields and to claim to the entire east side of the Euphrates for its own. There’s no doubt that these combat units of the SDF are accompanied by US Special Forces who are providing critical communications, logistic and tactical support. This operation has Washington’s fingerprints all over it.

On Friday morning, loyalist forces led by the 5th Assault Corps ISIS Hunters, established full control over Khusham village on the eastern bank of the Euphrates River near Deir Ezzor city.  The strategically-located village blocks a key road linking the area held by the SDF to the Omar oil fields.

Get the picture? US-backed forces and Russian coalition members are now operating cheek-to-jowl in the same theatre trying to seize the same oil-rich scrap of land.  This has all the makings of a major head-on collision.

Putin is a cautious and reasonable man, but he’s not going to hand over Syria’s oil fields without a fight. Besides, Assad needs the oil receipts to finance the rebuilding of his decimated country. Equally important, he needs the territory east of Deir Ezzor to for an overland route connecting Beirut to Damascus to Baghdad to Tehran, the so-called Arab Superhighway. Putin’s job is to glue as much of the country together as needed to create a viable state. So while he may allow the SDF and US military to occupy parts of the northeast, he’s not going to surrender crucial resources or strategically-located territory.

So what does it all mean? Does it mean that Russia will support Assad’s attempts to liberate the oil fields even if it could trigger a broader war with the United States?

Yes, that’s exactly what it means.

Putin doesn’t want a slugfest with Uncle Sam, but he’s not going to abandon an ally either.  So there’s going to be a confrontation because neither party is willing to give up what they feel they need to achieve success.

So there you have it. As the standoff begins to take shape in east Syria, the two rival superpowers are preparing themselves for the worst.  Clearly, we have reached the most dangerous moment in the six year-long war.