Quantcast
Channel: Eurasia Review
Viewing all 73339 articles
Browse latest View live

Bernie Sanders Thinks War Is Overrated, And He’s Right – OpEd

0
0

By John Frederick Kaufman*

When Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) was a candidate for president, he seemed uninterested in talking about foreign policy.

Instead, Sanders cast himself as a progressive populist and focused almost exclusively on domestic issues, particularly speaking out against the injustice of economic policies that support the wealthy.

A quick check of Sanders’ campaign website reveals that his foreign policy leaned liberal but was far from radical.

He preferred diplomacy to war (don’t we all?), but he voted to authorize the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11. His website says he supported the war on terror, but whether that meant the unrestrained use of drones and missiles all over the world, he didn’t say.

On September 21, Sanders got around to addressing his foreign policy ideas in a significant speech at Westminster College in Missouri. The Nation hailed it as “one of the finest speeches of his career” and “the progressive foreign policy speech we’ve been waiting for.”

The crux of Sanders’ speech was that war as foreign policy has long been overrated.

“Far too often, American intervention and the use of American military power has produced unintended consequences which have caused incalculable harm,” the senator warned. “A heavy-handed military approach, with little transparency or accountability, doesn’t enhance our security. It makes the problem worse.”

He continued: “We must rethink the old Washington mindset that judges ‘seriousness’ according to the willingness to use force. One of the key misapprehensions of this mindset is the idea that military force is decisive in a way that diplomacy is not.”

Not a pacifist, Sanders said that war is properly the means of “last resort,” which is what most politicians say, including President Trump. Unfortunately, this “last resort” mantra often leads, eventually, to war somewhere — often in the name of a humanitarian or patriotic motive.

Was our invasion of Afghanistan, which Sanders voted in favor of, an instance of having no choice but to bomb and invade a foreign country after 9/11? Was there no choice but to kill many innocent Afghans in order to exact revenge against a relatively small number of terrorists? So far we’ve been in Afghanistan, as a “last resort,” for 16 years.

Sanders also spoke recently to The Intercept. One unfortunate question referred back to a Glenn Greenwald column that argues Hillary Clinton lost the election partly through her support of U.S. military interventions. The journalist asked Sanders whether he agreed with Greenwald.

Bernie deftly ducked the question, and I don’t blame him: Greenwald, citing a single study, argues that Trump was perceived as being less of a warmonger than Clinton, therefore military families supported Trump. This is, to say the least, an implausible assertion, given Trump’s own vocal celebrations of torture and bombing.

Sanders said he would support a war of defense should the U.S. be attacked, and that he believes genocide should be dealt with through an armed international “peacekeeping” force.

Sanders also bravely asserted that he would consider voting against U.S. military aid to Israel and lambasted the repressive regime in Saudi Arabia, which is now waging a brutal war funded by the U.S. in Yemen.

Elsewhere, the Vermont senator wants to preserve the nuclear treaty with Iran and stay the course of sanctions and diplomacy regarding North Korea. Sanders now sees the endless “war on terror” as a mistake and deplores the recent increases in Pentagon spending.

Though not, alas, a pacifist, Sanders has at last revealed himself to be an American leader articulating a new and largely peaceable foreign policy. And, given our current president’s bombastic bellicosity, Sanders’ speaking his peace comes not a moment too soon.

*John Frederick Kaufman is a writer and poet based in Wisconsin. Distributed by  OtherWords.org


The Nuclear Forum Shop: Nuclear Ban Treaty Challenges And Prospects – OpEd

0
0

Nuclear war is inevitable says the pessimist; nuclear war is impossible says the optimist; nuclear war is inevitable unless we make it impossible — Sydney J Harris

The nuclear pessimists have introduced a new treaty in the “Forum shop” of nuclear disarmament. In March 2017 the treaty was negotiated in United Nations on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and sustained from June 15 to July 7, 2017. The treaty opened for signature on September 20, 2017. The treat proposed in the good faith against the humanitarian consequences of the nuclear weapons use with the purpose of a step towards their total eliminations.

The treaty prohibits States parties from developing, testing, producing, manufacturing, acquiring, possessing, stockpiling, transferring or receiving, using or threatening to use nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. Lastly, States parties cannot allow the stationing, installation, or deployment of nuclear weapons and other nuclear explosive devices in their territory. In addition to the Treaty’s prohibitions, States parties are obligated to provide victim assistance and help with environmental remediation efforts.

It is not possible to purify the world from the nuclear weapons completely. Up till now various agreements have been carried out including the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), and nuclear-weapon-free-zone agreements, as well as the “right” of states-parties to peaceful uses of nuclear energy. While the assessment shows that there is a deadlock on the complete disarmament.

Moreover, two important elements of the nonproliferation regime have never come into effect, largely because of resistance by the United States and other nuclear weapon states. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty  (CTBT) which has been signed by 183 countries but cannot enter into force until all forty-four states with significant military or civilian nuclear capacity ratifies it. China, India, Israel, Pakistan, and the United States have not yet done so.

Efforts to conclude a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT) to ban the production of weapons-grade material have also stalled. The United States has been criticized for blocking progress on both issues. International instruments combating proliferation were successful before the end of the cold war but still the states like Pakistan, India and Israel have acquired the nuclear technology. North Koreas nuclear test and her claim of possessing hydrogen bomb is a serious blow for the non proliferation regime, NPT and disarmament efforts.

North Korea’s nuclearization is encouraging the states like Iran keep on to pursuing her nuclear capabilities. Moreover it will provide space for Iran now continues to advance its nuclear program; even after crosscutting economic sanctions have been imposed on her and near universal global condemnation is still spreading. According to NPT, the nuclear weapon states (NWS) agreed to not support other states in acquiring nuclear technology, but they should make them move toward eventual disarmament, but still a special wavier has been given to India which is a defector nuclear weapon state and non signatory of NPT like Israel, Pakistan and North Korea.

None of the nuclear weapon state including many of the NATO members has signed the nuclear ban treaty. While the proponents of the treaty claim that the treaty was accepted by the overwhelming majority. Three of the P5 states the United States, France, and the United Kingdom issued a joint statement following the vote: “We do not intend to sign, ratify or ever become party to it. Therefore, there will be no change in the legal obligations on our countries with respect to nuclear weapons”. They said the treaty do not address and contribute to international law.

This treaty could have unseen implications for Pakistan particularly with regard to its position on Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT). Pakistan needs to be cautious about it as new trend is being set up. If the UN is negotiating the nuclear ban treaty then FMCT can also be taken to the UN as well. Talks on the FMCT have been on hold from past several years thus putting Pakistan at a continuous disadvantage and compromising iher interests. This treaty will divert the attention of the international community from other Disarmament and non proliferation treaties.

Ideas about eliminating the bomb are as old as the bomb itself. Can nuclear weapons be completely eliminated? Logic might seem to say of course not. Nuclear weapon can be dismantled to some extent but they cannot be uninvented. For instance if a state dismantle some of her weapons, by and far she can make them again whenever she has the will to do so. Those nuclear weapons may not, in fact, make the world more dangerous but the bomb may actually make us safer. In this era of rogue states and transnational terrorists, that idea sounds so obviously wrongheaded that few politicians or policymakers are willing to entertain it. But that’s a mistake. Knowing the truth about nukes would have a profound impact on government policy. Primarily progress can be made toward arms control, such as actions to reduce the risks of nuclear theft, accident, and terrorism. But the complete elimination may not be the solution nor does it guarantee a complete peace.

There is the need to address the previous treaties first like NPT, FMCT and CTBT who are facing challenges and talks are on hold. NWS and NWS States should start the negotiation for solving the issues of nuclear acquisition on table instead of such treaties because a country acquiring the nuclear weapon will not completely eliminate the arms this will have serious implications for the security of a state.

EU Affirms Iran Deal Compliance, Rejects Renegotiation – OpEd

0
0

By Kelsey Davenport*

EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini stated unequivocally after a ministerial meeting between the P5+1 (China, France Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States) and Iran that all parties agreed that the nuclear deal is being fully implemented and there are no violations.

She said that the agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), is delivering on its purpose, and there is “no need to renegotiate parts of the agreement.” Mogherini said that issues outside the scope of the deal should be “tackled in different formats, in different fora.”

U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson participated in the ministerial meeting and told press after it concluded that Iran is in “technical compliance with the agreement,” but that Trump still has concerns about enforcement of the deal and the thoroughness of the agreement.

The Sept. 20 ministerial meeting took place on the sidelines of the opening of the UN General Assembly meeting, where U.S. President Donald Trump called the nuclear deal with Iran one of the “worst and most one-sided transactions” and an “embarrassment to the United States” in his Sept. 19 speech.

Trump did not mention if he will issue a certification to Congress tied to the nuclear deal Oct. 15, but said Washington cannot abide by an agreement if it “provides cover for the eventual construction of a nuclear program.”

Trump later told reporters on Sept. 20 that he had made a decision on certification, but did not say what his decision is. While withholding certification does not violate the JCPOA, it opens the door for Congress to reimpose sanctions waived under the agreement on an expedited schedule. Past remarks indicate Trump wants to withhold the certification, despite international support for the deal and Iran’s compliance with the accord, which U.S. officials have also affirmed.

The day after Trump’s UN speech, General John Hyten, head of U.S. Strategic Command, said that Iran is operating under the restrictions of the JCPOA and when the United States signs an agreement “its our jobs to live up to the terms of the agreement and our jobs to enforce that.”

Hyten, speaking Sept. 20 at the Hudson Institute, did raise concerns about Iran’s ballistic missile activity, which is not covered by the deal, but limited by the UN Security Council Resolution endorsing the agreement.

Washington’s negotiating partners used time at the UN General Assembly to urge full implementation of the nuclear deal. French President Emmanuel Macron made a strong case for preserving the deal in his Sept. 19 speech at the UN General Assembly, noting that it is “essential to peace” and “not respecting the Iran deal would be irresponsible.”

Later that day, in an interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, Macron said it would be a “big mistake” for Trump to stop the deal. He said he would try and convince Trump to work cooperatively to build on the nuclear deal to address issues like ballistic missiles.

British Prime Minister Theresa May also brought up the nuclear deal in a Sept. 20 bilateral meeting with Trump and reiterated the UK’s “strong commitment to the deal” and its vital importance to regional security.

International support for the deal played heavily in Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s address to the UN Sept. 20. Rouhani said that, given the multilateral nature of the deal and the Security Council’s endorsement of the agreement, “it belongs to the international community.” Rouhani said that the deal can be a “new model for global interactions, based on mutual constructive engagement.”

Rouhani said that Iran “will not be the first country to violate the agreement but it will respond decisively and resolutely to its violation by any party.” He said it would be a “great pity” if the deal were “destroyed by rouge newcomers to the world of politics.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, unsurprisingly, followed Trump’s critical line and described Israel’s policy on the nuclear deal as “fix it or nix it.” He said Sept. 10 that fixing the deal means inspecting military sites and “getting rid of the sunset clause.”

The so-called sunset provisions were also raised by U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson as “kicking the can down the road.” Tillerson said Sept. 20 if Washington is going to stick with the Iran deal, there has to be changes to those areas.

Tillerson and Netanyahu are right; some restrictions do expire within 10-25 years, but other restrictions that act as barriers to nuclear weapons are permanent. And any attempt to extend restrictions requires stabilizing and sustaining the current deal, not scrapping it and trying to renegotiate a new agreement.

*The writer is director for nonproliferation policy at the Arms Control Association. This article first appeared on September 21, 2017.

Gandhi’s Truth: Ending Human Violence One Commitment At A Time – OpEd

0
0

Gandhi Jayanti – 2 October, the date of Mohandas K. Gandhi’s birth in 1869 and the International Day of Nonviolence – offers an opportunity to reflect on human violence and to ponder ways to end it.

There may be a fast way to end human violence but, if there is, Gandhi did not know it. Nor do I. Nor does anyone else that I have read or asked either. But this does not mean there is no way to end human violence.

Human violence has a cause. See ‘Why Violence?’ and ‘Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice’.

It has many manifestations. And it can be ended. But if this is to happen, then many of us must make the commitment to work towards that end.

This is because, as Gandhi noted: ‘The future depends on what we do in the present.’

In other words, if human violence is to end, it will happen because individuals and organizations commit themselves to joining the effort to do so. Here is a sample of individuals around the world who have made that commitment, each in their own unique way. You are invited to join them.

HRH Prince Simbwa Joseph was born to a Ugandan Royal Family in Kampala. He abhors violence and is involved in many charities for helping those in need, as well as human rights organisations.

He is currently manager of Nsambu and Company Advocates – a law firm and one of the oldest legal chambers in Uganda and East Africa, having been established in 1970.

Among other engagements, he is also president of the African Federation Association in Uganda, which is a member of the World Federalist Movement Institute for Global policy.

Following negotiations with Prince Simbwa as project manager in 2014, and involving the Ugandan Vice-President in launching the project, the World Sustainability Fund and its partners agreed to provide €1.5m to launch the AFA-WFM permanent office in Kampala in support of efforts to assist Uganda to achieve the UN Millennium Development Goals.

In Prince Simbwa’s words: ‘Today the world is on tension due to so many things in social, economic, political disparities and pending nuclear wars. We are concerned as global citizens because if violence or war escalates those whom we call “Nalumanya ne Salumanya” in our local Luganda language (literally meaning “those concerned and less concerned”) shall be trapped equally…. Anti-apartheid icon Nelson Mandela and elder statesman appealed to the world during his lifetime to reinvent Indian freedom fighter Mahatma Gandhi’s nonviolent approach to solving conflicts.’

Lily Thapa is the inspirational founder president, in 1994, of Women for Human Rights, single women group (WHR) in Nepal. WHR is an NGO ‘dedicated to creating an active network of single women on a regional, national and international level. By working exclusively with and for them, WHR is dedicated to addressing the rights of single women and creating a just and equitable society where the lives of single women are strengthened and empowered.’ Rejecting the label ‘widow’, WHR ‘issued a national declaration to use the term “single women” instead of “widow”.

The word “widow” (“Bidhwa” in Nepali) carries negativity and disdainful societal views which leaves many single women feeling humiliated and distressed.’ Working to empower women economically, politically, socially and culturally in order to live dignified lives and enjoy the value of human rights, WHR works at the grassroots, district, regional, national, South Asian and international levels.

Lily has pointed out that there are ‘285 million single women in the world, among them 115 million fall below the poverty line and 38 million conflict-affected single women have no access to justice; these women are last.’ You can read more about Lily and WHR’s monumental efforts on their website.

Recently, Lily was awarded the South Asian ‘Dayawati Modi Stree Shakti Samman’, which is ‘presented annually to a woman who has dared to dream and has the capability to translate that dream into reality’.

John McKenna’s commitment is to end discrimination in all of its forms against those with disabilities. In one recent article, the Australian surveyed the value of recent disability-mitigating technologies becoming available.

In his thoughtful article ‘What’s App?’ he assessed the value of technologies that, for example, assist people who are blind, people who have problems with speech, and people with disabilities who are getting older.

In a nonviolent action to draw attention to the horror of drone murders, US grandmother Joy First was one of four nonviolent activists arrested at the Wisconsin Air National Guard Base (Volk Field) during one of the monthly vigils (held for over five years now) by Wisconsin Coalition to Ground the Drones and End the Wars.

Volk Field is a critical component of the drone warfare program being conducted by the US government in a number of countries in the Middle East and Africa. At Volk Field personnel are trained to operate the RQ-7 Shadow Drone, which has been used for reconnaissance, surveillance, and target acquisition. You can read more about drone warfare and resistance to it in Joy’s highly informative article ‘Four Citizen Activists Arrested at Volk Field as they Attempt to Identify the Base as a Crime Scene’.

Father Nithiya is the National Programme Coordinator of the Association of Franciscan Families of India (AFFI).

Their inspirational work is focused on two campaigns: the Violence of Extreme poverty and hunger and the Right to Food Campaign, as well as the National Campaign to Stop Violence Against Women. In relation to the latter campaign,

AFFI has released a DVD and a booklet as a result of a four day intensive national consultation and training organised by them in 2016.

Through their vast network of educational, social and medical ministries, AFFI has committed itself to stopping violence against women using various strategies all over the country, especially through their schools and colleges. Identifying ten types of violence against women – gender selection, female foeticide, child marriage, child abuse, harassment at work, prostitution and trafficking, domestic violence and Eve teasing, child labour, effects of alcoholism of men, and unemployment and underemployment of women – the DVD and booklet include analytical data, information about the legal framework and redress mechanisms.

The aim is to empower women for their safety and security. Fr. Nithiya has given seminars to teachers and students to raise awareness of how they can stop any form of violence against women in their personal life, in their families, communities and society at large. The aim is to make these AFFI resources available in various Indian languages.

In one of her many engagements, Nobel Peace laureate Mairead Maguire from Northern Ireland continues her ongoing solidarity work in support of the Rohingya, the ethnic group in Burma currently suffering the genocidal assault of the Burmese government and its military forces, the Tatmadaw.

In a recent evocative appeal to their fellow laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, signed by Mairead and four other laureates, they asked ‘How many Rohingya have to die; how many Rohingya women will be raped; how many communities will be razed before you raise your voice in defence of those who have no voice? Your silence is not in line with the vision of “democracy” for your country that you outlined to us, and for which we all supported you over the years.’ See ‘Five Nobel Laureates urge Aung San Suu Kyi to defend Rohingya Muslims’.

So if you would like to join the individuals above, as well as those individuals and organizations in 101 countries who have made the commitment to work to end human violence, you can do so by signing the online pledge of ‘The People’s Charter to Create a Nonviolent World’ which, thanks to Antonio Gutiérrez Rodero in Venezuela, is also available in Spanish.

If you also subscribe to Gandhi’s belief that ‘Earth provides enough to satisfy every [person’s] needs, but not every [person’s] greed’, then you might consider participating in ‘The Flame Tree Project to Save Life on Earth’ which he inspired as well.

And if you wish to use nonviolence, as Gandhi developed and employed it, for your campaign or liberation struggle, you will be given clear guidance on how to do so on these websites that draw heavily on his work: Nonviolent Campaign Strategy and Nonviolent Defense/Liberation Strategy.

Will enough people make the commitment to end human violence? Will you? As Gandhi warns us, fear of inadequate outcomes is no excuse for inaction: ‘You may never know what results come of your actions, but if you do nothing there will be no results.

Spain: More Than 750 Hurt In Clashes During Catalan Independence Vote

0
0

By Martin Arostegui

Spanish government efforts to block a regional referendum on Catalonia’s secession, have spiraled into violence injuring more than 750 people as police shut down polling stations and confiscated ballot boxes, despite resistance by voters throughout the region.

According to Catalan officials more than 761 people are being treated for injuries sustained in clashes that are intensifying as voter frustration grows at police patrols moving through Barcelona and other Catalan cities.

Spain’s Deputy Prime Minister Soraya Saenz de Santamaria said Sunday in Madrid, “There has been no referendum or appearance of any.” She said police dismantling of internet connections to the regional census bureau has neutralized any ability to formulate voting results.

But spokesmen for the Catalan regional government that called for the vote, say at 73 percent of voting stations are open and their own technicians are trying to fix downed internet lines.

Catalan government spokesman Jordi Turull admits those going to the polls were “not able to vote with normality because police shut down 319 out of 2,315 polling stations.”

A Catalan official connected with the regional election commission that resigned last week under government threats of massive fines said voting results will be announced after midnight or sometime Monday.

The source, speaking to VOA on condition of anonymity, says votes will be counted manually and results announced by a special election board being formed by “experts and academics”.

Spanish Interior minister Juan Ignacio Zoido says that attempts to legitimize today’s vote are a “parody”.

Violence erupted early in the day when police prevented the president of the Catalan regional government, Carles Puigdemont, from casting a ballot in his home district of Gerona. Police in riot gear charged a crowd that tried to surround them at the polling station, hitting one protestor in the eye with a rubber bullet.

 

Puigdemont was later filmed voting at another polling station. Catalan authorities urged voters to cast ballots at any open polling station they could find. In some cases people have been casting votes in ballot boxes set up on the streets.

“The Spanish state has prevented Catalans from exercising their rights, giving a terrible image of Spain,” Puigdemont told journalists.

Spanish police officials say that they were let down by the Catalan regional police force who had assured them that they would not allow polling stations to open.

Hastily organized interventions by Spain’s national police and the civil guard gendarmerie raiding polling stations once voting was already underway, led to embarrassing scenes of hooded policemen forcefully removing ballot boxes and abusing voters.

By midafternoon balloting seemed to be proceeding normalcy at some main voting stations.

The mainstream social democratic opposition party, PSOE which at first supported the conservative government’s hard line policy towards Catalan secession, called on Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy and Puigdemont to resign and call new elections.

In an apparent protest against the central government’s efforts to abort the referendum, Barcelona’s star soccer team canceled a match with another Spanish team that announced it would play with Spain’s colors sewed on its jerseys.

Under the threat of sanctions from Spain’s football association, the Barcelona team finally agreed to play a closed door match with the team from the Canary Islands, where support for the central government is strong.

New Gesture Control Tech Turns Any Object Into A TV Remote

0
0

Imagine changing the channel of your TV simply by moving your cup of tea, adjusting the volume on a music player by rolling a toy car, or rotating a spatula to pause a cookery video on your tablet.

New gesture control technology that can turn everyday objects into remote controls could revolutionise how we interact with televisions, and other screens – ending frustrating searches for remotes that have slipped down the side of sofa cushions.

In a paper – ‘Matchpoint: Spontaneous spatial coupling of body movement for touchless pointing’ – which will be presented at the UIST2017 conference in Quebec City this October, researchers from Lancaster University show a novel technique that allows body movement, or movement of objects, to be used to interact with screens.

The ‘Matchpoint’ technology, which only requires a simple webcam, works by displaying moving targets that orbit a small circular widget in the corner of the screen. These targets correspond to different functions – such as volume, changing channel or viewing a menu. The user synchronises the direction of movement of the target, with their hand, head or an object, to achieve what researchers call ‘spontaneous spatial coupling’, which activates the desired function.

Unlike existing gesture control technology, the software does not look for a specific body part it has been trained to identify – such as a hand. Lancaster’s technology looks for rotating movement so it doesn’t require calibration, or the software to have prior knowledge of objects. This provides much more flexibility and ease for the user as it works even while hands are full, and while stood or slouching on the sofa.

Users also do not need to learn specific commands to activate different functions, as is the case with some gesture controlled televisions on the market, and the user is able to decouple at will.

When selecting volume adjustment or channel selection, sliders appear. The user moves their hand, head, or object, in the required direction indicated by the slider to change the volume or to find the desired channel.

As well as televisions, the technology can also be used with other screens. For example, YouTube tutorials, such as mending bikes or baking cakes, could be easily paused and rewound on tablet computers without users having to put down tools or mixing bowls.

Multiple pointers can be created to allow more than one user to point at drawings or pictures on interactive whiteboards simultaneously. Matchpoint also allows users to manipulate images on whiteboards by using two hands to zoom in and out, and rotate images.

In addition to short-term couplings, users can also link stationary objects to controls, which even when left for prolonged periods will retain their control function. For example, a mug sat on a table could change a track on a music player when moved left or right, and a rolling toy car could be used to adjust volume. Objects can lose their coupling with controls simply by removing them from the camera’s field of view.

Christopher Clarke, PhD student at Lancaster University’s School of Computing and Communications, and developer of the technology, said, “Spontaneous spatial coupling is a new approach to gesture control that works by matching movement instead of asking the computer to recognise a specific object.

“Our method allows for a much more user-friendly experience where you can change channels without having to put down your drink, or change your position, whether that is relaxing on the sofa or standing in the kitchen following a recipe.

“Everyday objects in the house can now easily become remote controls so there are no more frantic searches for remote controls when your favourite programme is about to start on another channel, and now everyone in the room has the ‘remote’. You could even change the channel with your pet cat.”

Researchers believe Matchpoint is also suitable to be used as an accessibility tool for people who are unable to use traditional pointers, such as remote controls and a mouse and keyboard.

Hunt Over For One Of ‘Top 50 Most-Wanted Fungi’

0
0

In a step toward bridging the gap between fungal taxonomy and molecular ecology, scientists from several institutions including Los Alamos National Laboratory have characterized a sample of “mystery” fungus collected in North Carolina and found its home in the fungal tree of life.

“Working estimates tell us that there should be more than 5 million species of fungi,” said Cheryl Kuske, a Los Alamos scientist on the project.

“We have really only identified and fully described 100,000 of them, though, and new DNA sequencing capabilities show us that many, many specimens in research collections are uncharacterized. Solving this particular mystery shows the potential value of using environmental sequencing to guide taxonomic and ecological discovery.”

The fungal sample was interesting partly as it represented a major component of the observed fungal population in a pine forest and it responded positively to elevated CO2 and nitrogen amendment treatments that mimic future environmental conditions–yet the sample’s exact placement in the taxonomic order was unknown. The sample was eventually given a new name, Bifiguratus adelaidae, as reported recently in the journal Mycologia.

Why was this hard? In times when a simple cheek swab mailed off with a check can produce a human DNA report listing thousands of ancestors, a sample identification would seem a simple task. But as an editorial in the journal pointed out, this sample represented one of many “dark matter fungi” that populate unknown regions of the fungal tree of life. We can detect their DNA in environmental samples, but their culture has been elusive.

As noted in the journal’s editorial, “This placement is particularly exciting because of the increased understanding of the mycorrhizal role (ability to form symbiotic, nutrient-transfer relationships) for this part of the phylogeny and the fact that very little is known about the species diversity and distribution in this part of the tree. Bifiguratus adelaidae may have a symbiotic function in roots, having been detected in orchid and chestnut roots, but it is also well-documented in soils from north temperate zones.”

Interestingly, the collected sample had been cultured successfully in the laboratory only when it was allowed to grow in the company of a species of bacteria, Methylobacterium, that antibiotics were unable to kill. Normally the fungal sample would have been cleared of such contaminants, but this one resisted their attempts. The authors posit that the symbiotic or commensal microbes’ presence may be part of the culturing success. Understanding complex microbial and fungal communities is progressing, Kuske noted, by allowing organisms to grow as defined mixtures.

Los Alamos National Laboratory conducts a wide range of biological research efforts as part of its national security science mission, with such research as phylogenetic analysis to determine safe versus dangerous pathogens and to identify disease transmission pathways.

The Bifiguratus adelaidae was named in honor of Adelaida Chaverri Polini. Dr. Chaverri was a world-recognized tropical biologist and role model for women in Latin America in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Her major contributions were in the study and conservation of tropical montane forests and treeless alpine grasslands (páramos). As a biologist, she recognized the importance of mycorrhizal fungi and contributed to the description of a fungus in the Acaulosporaceae, a fungus in the same phylum as the species described in this paper. She supported the creation of Costa Rica’s National Park Service, providing the basis for extensive conservation of biological diversity. In 2013, she was included in the Galería de la Mujer, one of the highest honors given to Costa Rican women for their dedication to defending and improving women human rights.

Here Is The Hominin Species That Gave Us Genital Herpes

0
0

Two herpes simplex viruses infect primates from unknown evolutionary depths. In modern humans these viruses manifest as cold sores (HSV1) and genital herpes (HSV2).

Unlike HSV1, however, the earliest proto-humans did not take HSV2 with them when our ancient lineage split from chimpanzee precursors around 7 million years ago. Humanity dodged the genital herpes bullet – almost.

Somewhere between 3 and 1.4 million years ago, HSV2 jumped the species barrier from African apes back into human ancestors – probably through an intermediate hominin species unrelated to humans. Hominin is the zoological ‘tribe’ to which our species belongs.

Now, a team of scientists from Cambridge and Oxford Brookes universities believe they may have identified the culprit: Parathropus boisei, a heavyset bipedal hominin with a smallish brain and dish-like face.

In a study published today in the journal Virus Evolution, they suggest that P. boisei most likely contracted HSV2 through scavenging ancestral chimp meat where savannah met forest – the infection seeping in via bites or open sores.

Hominins with HSV1 may have been initially protected from HSV2, which also occupied the mouth. That is until HSV2 “adapted to a different mucosal niche” say the scientists. A niche located in the genitals.

Close contact between P. boisei and our ancestor Homo erectus would have been fairly common around sources of water, such as Kenya’s Lake Turkana. This provided the opportunity for HSV2 to boomerang into our bloodline.

The appearance of Homo erectus around 2 million years ago was accompanied by evidence of hunting and butchery. Once again, consuming “infected material” would have transmitted the virus – only this time it was P. boisei being devoured.

“Herpes infect everything from humans to coral, with each species having its own specific set of viruses,” said senior author Dr Charlotte Houldcroft, a virologist from Cambridge’s Department of Archaeology.

“For these viruses to jump species barriers they need a lucky genetic mutation combined with significant fluid exchange. In the case of early hominins, this means through consumption or intercourse – or possibly both.”

“By modelling the available data, from fossil records to viral genetics, we believe that Parathropus boisei was the species in the right place at the right time to both contract HSV2 from ancestral chimpanzees, and transmit it to our earliest ancestors, probably Homo erectus.”

When researchers from University of California, San Diego, published findings suggesting HSV2 had jumped between hominin species, Houldcroft became curious.

While discussing genital herpes over dinner at Kings College, Cambridge, with fellow academic Dr Krishna Kumar, an idea formed. Kumar, an engineer who uses Bayesian network modelling to predict city-scale infrastructure requirements, suggested applying his techniques to the question of ancient HSV2.

Houldcroft and her collaborator Dr Simon Underdown, a human evolution researcher from Oxford Brookes, collated data ranging from fossil finds to herpes DNA and ancient African climates. Using Kumar’s model, the team generated HSV2 transmission probabilities for the mosaic of hominin species that roamed Africa during “deep time”.

“Climate fluctuations over millennia caused forests and lakes to expand and contract,” said Underdown. “Layering climate data with fossil locations helped us determine the species most likely to come into contact with ancestral chimpanzees in the forests, as well as other hominins at water sources.”

Some promising leads turned out to be dead ends. Australopithecus afarensis had the highest probability of proximity to ancestral chimps, but geography also ruled it out of transmitting to human ancestors.

Ultimately, the researchers discovered the key player in all the scenarios with higher probabilities to be Parathropus boisei. A genetic fit virally who was found in the right places to be the herpes intermediary, with Homo erectus – and eventually us – the unfortunate recipients.

“Once HSV2 gains entry to a species it stays, easily transferred from mother to baby, as well as through blood, saliva and sex,” said Houldcroft.

“HSV2 is ideally suited to low density populations. The genital herpes virus would have crept across Africa the way it creeps down nerve endings in our sex organs – slowly but surely.”

The team believe their methodology can be used to unravel the transmission mysteries of other ancient diseases – such as human pubic lice, also introduced via an intermediate hominin from ancestral gorillas over 3 million years ago.


Who’s Judging You Based On Brand Choices?

0
0

While it may seem like a given that people judge others by the brand of clothes they wear, the cars they drive and electronic gadgets they use, new research suggests that this may not be the case as often as we think.

In a study recently published online in the Journal of Consumer Psychology, researchers discovered that people who have what is known as a “flexible mindset” are less likely to judge people based on the brands they use. Individuals with this mindset believe that behavior varies significantly over time and across different situations, so they are less inclined to make assumptions about someone’s character based on brand choice at one point in time.

“Previous research has supported the idea that people universally form perceptions about others based on brands, but we have shown that it depends on an individual’s mindset about behavior,” said Ji Kyung Park, lead author and a marketing professor at the University of Delaware. Park worked with Deborah Roedder John, professor of marketing at the University of Minnesota, on the study.

As opposed to those with a flexible mindset, people with more of a “fixed mindset” tend to believe that one’s behavior is consistent over time and across situations, and thus predicts the person’s personality. Park found that people with this mindset were much more likely to make judgements about people based on the brands they used. In one of the experiments, participants viewed a picture of a man driving a car that was either a Mercedes Benz or a car without a visible brand name. They were asked to rate the person on a list of personality traits. Then the participants answered a series of questions that were used to evaluate whether each participant was more partial to a fixed or a flexible mindset.

The study revealed that participants with a fixed mindset rated the man driving the Mercedes as more sophisticated than the man driving a car without a visible brand name. But the participants with the flexible mindset rated the two men as equally sophisticated. The researchers showed the same effect when participants viewed a picture of a woman eating a box of Godiva chocolates versus a box of chocolates with no visible brand name.

In a culture that is filled with opportunities to judge social status and character based on brands, these research results offer hope that not everyone lives by that standard, Park said.

Yet there are still people with a fixed mindset whose perceptions of others are influenced by brand choices. To appeal to consumers who do not want to be judged by the fixed mindset population, marketers could offer certain products that minimize the display of the brand’s name on the item, Park explained.

The Clock Is Ticking: Why Congress Needs To Renew America’s Most Important Intelligence Collection Program (Part III) – Analysis

0
0

By George W. Croner*

(FPRI)

The Legality of Section 702

From its statutory construct to its practical application, the Section 702 Program represents a carefully configured national intelligence undertaking that is demonstrably critical to national security. In 2012, when the provisions of the FAA were last extended, the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence informed Congress that Section 702 collection produced “significant intelligence that is vital to protect the nation against international terrorism and other threats” while urging its reauthorization as “the top legislative priority of the Intelligence Community.”[1] Recently, the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence again informed the Congress that the importance of the intelligence derived from the Section 702 Program made the renewal of Section 702 their “top legislative priority” for 2017.[2] But, is the Program constitutional? Despite a chorus of opposition, principally from civil liberties organizations, the answer is “yes.”

Although Section 702 has been the focus of extensive examination by Congress both at the time of its initial enactment in 2008 and when first reauthorized in 2012, many opponents seeking to abolish or materially eviscerate its present form insist that minor tweaking is futile because Section 702 as currently configured violates the Fourth Amendment, and perhaps the First Amendment,[3] and, as such, is constitutionally infirm.

The Fourth Amendment challenge is the one most frequently expressed and has been addressed by the FISC, the FISCR, several U.S. district courts, and was a particular focus of the PCLOB. Only infrequently has the constitutionality of Section 702 been contested by a person demonstrably affected by the Section 702 Program;[4] instead, opposition is generally expressed as a facial challenge to Section 702, an approach that carries a heavy burden of persuasion since it requires a showing that there is no application of the statute that can pass constitutional muster.[5] Thus, a facial challenge to Section 702 is demonstrably futile since, in its pristine statutory form authorizing the acquisition of communications of non-U.S. persons located outside the United States to acquire foreign intelligence, Section 702 is unquestionably a constitutionally valid exercise of congressional power. Every court to have considered the question has so ruled.

Nonetheless, considering the constitutionality of the Section 702 Program poses some uniquely challenging questions precisely because, as the PCLOB recognized, it is a complex surveillance program – “one that entails many separate decisions to monitor large numbers of individuals, resulting in the annual collection of hundreds of millions of communications.[6] Moreover, the analysis is further snarled because the only constitutional interests at stake are not those actually targeted for surveillance—as foreigners located outside the United States they lack any Fourth Amendment rights[7]—the constitutional issue arises for those U.S. persons who, although not targeted, have their communications incidentally acquired. Properly expressed, then, the question is whether the Section 702 Program, as it is conducted, runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment.

Because it is large scale programmatic surveillance, the operation of the Section 702 Program captures telephone and internet communications of U.S. persons in three ways,[8] and any Fourth Amendment analysis must take into account the cumulative impact of these privacy intrusions and, ultimately, balance those intrusions against the limitations and protections built into the Program that mitigate them.

Since Section 702 acquisitions are collected without a warrant, they are warrantless seizures. But not every seizure requires a warrant to be valid under the Fourth Amendment. In In re Directives [Redacted] Pursuant to Section 105B of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act[9], the FISCR examined the question of whether a warrant was required for Section 702-type surveillance[10] in a setting where, as the court observed, “[t]he recurrent theme permeating the [electronic communication service provider’s] arguments is the notion that there is no foreign intelligence exception to the Fourth Amendment’s Warrant Clause.”[11] Conceding that the Supreme Court has not explicitly recognized such an exception[12], the court proceeded to address the issue directly and determined that “this type of foreign intelligence surveillance possesses characteristics that qualify it for such an exception” given the “particularly intense” governmental interest in protecting national security.[13]

This makes perfect sense and, in the context of Section 702 surveillance, the warrant requirement is particularly inapposite. As an initial matter, since the targets of the surveillance are foreigners located abroad who have no Fourth Amendment rights, there is no one as to whom a warrant is required with respect to the acquisition of the communications. But, critics contend, U.S. person communications are inevitably collected, given the broad acquisition parameters of the Program, and, once those communications are identified, particularly through the querying of the data base, the warrant requirement should apply.

However, the Supreme Court has long excused compliance with the Warrant Clause in so-called “special needs” cases where the purpose behind the government action goes beyond traditional law enforcement and insisting upon a warrant would materially interfere with the accomplishment of that purpose.[14] The Section 702 Program is a paradigm for such treatment given that “there is a high degree of probability that requiring a warrant would hinder the government’s ability to collect time-sensitive information and, thus, would impede the vital national security interests at stake.”[15]

It bears repeating that Section 702 is programmatic surveillance, and any analysis must treat the program holistically without isolation of discrete events in a complex collection undertaking where detailed rules govern the acquisition, retention, use, and dissemination of communications.[16] Where, as here, the initial acquisition is lawfully collected from a target who is a non-U.S. person located abroad with no Fourth Amendment rights, the additional acquisition of U.S. person communications, no matter how predictable or on what scale, is “incidental” collection that does not require a separate warrant.[17]

But, as the PCLOB noted, the absence of a warrant requirement does not end the inquiry since the ultimate measure of the constitutionality of any search is “reasonableness.”[18] “Reasonableness” balances the nature and extent of the intrusion upon an individual’s privacy against the intrusion needed to promote legitimate governmental interests.[19] It is a fluid, untethered, standard and, ultimately, is resolved by examining the totality of the circumstances regarding these competing interests.[20]

The Section 702 Program advances some of the government’s most compelling interests: the protection of national security and the combating of terrorism.[21] Terrorism directed at the homeland, if not ranking as the nation’s foremost national security concern, is certainly among its most critical security threats. And the danger of terrorism has not abated since September 11; post-9/11, there have been 19 successful terrorist plots in the United States that killed or wounded individuals included among a total of 333 terrorist plots involving 649 individuals, as of January 31, 2017.[22] Since September 12, 2001, there have been 200 plots in the U.S. linked to Sunni radical Islamic doctrine, and another 133 plots such plots located outside the U.S.[23] Reporting based upon Section 702 Program collection serves as the predominant intelligence source used to detect, monitor, and disrupt this continuing terrorist threat. All of this data serves to empirically confirm the observation of the President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies which, with respect to Section 702, observed: “we are persuaded that section 702 does in fact play an important role in the nation’s effort to prevent terrorist attacks across the globe.”[24] As numerous courts have observed, the Section 702 Program fulfills this role by furnishing critical information used by the government in performing its most important national function.[25]

It bears noting that the executive branch conducts the Section 702 Program under statutory guidance enacted by Congress, after extended review and debate, that incorporates a role for the judiciary in ensuring compliance with statutory and constitutional limits. Assembled as it is, Section 702 embodies the full federal authority.[26] It does so by targeting non-U.S. persons abroad (who have no Fourth Amendment rights) to acquire foreign intelligence information. U.S. person communications are only acquired incident to the underlying surveillance of the foreign target.

Admittedly, the intrusion represented by this “incidental” acquisition of these U.S. person communications is neither minimal nor unanticipated. Literally millions of telephone and internet communications are acquired by NSA’s PRISM and Upstream collection, and this intrusion represents the countervailing consideration weighed against the national security interest in assessing the reasonableness of the Program. However, while every person has a privacy interest in his or her telephone and email communications, the “third party” doctrine recognizes that this privacy interest decreases when such person reveals information to a third party, even in confidence.[27] The “third party” doctrine applies here: each U.S. person communicant’s expectation of privacy diminished upon the sending of the email or upon speaking to the non-U.S. person target telephonically. This is not to suggest that the expectation of privacy evaporates, but it diminishes, and that diminution is material when balanced against the compelling governmental interest in acquiring foreign intelligence through Section 702 acquisitions.[28]

To be precise, then, the Fourth Amendment intrusion here takes the form of incidental acquisition of those communications of U.S. persons to or from foreigners located abroad who use communication selectors that, because of the reasonable likelihood that those communication selectors are used to transmit foreign intelligence information satisfying one or more criteria contained within a Section 702 certification approved by the FISC, have been properly targeted for collection pursuant to targeting procedures that also have been reviewed and approved by the FISC. Subsequent retention, use, and dissemination of any information derived from these incidentally collected communications is governed by minimization procedures also reviewed and approved by the FISC. Thus, the universe of communications triggering the balancing of interests required by the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness analysis consists of those to or from that subset of U.S. persons communicating with foreigners located abroad whose activities have satisfied the targeting requirements of the Section 702 Program. Section 702 collection is NOT blanket surveillance devoid of any discriminants; the collection is the product of authorized acquisitions pursuant to specifically tailored collection criteria.

Apart from these considerations that properly define the scope of collection implicating Fourth Amendment considerations, any reasonableness inquiry must also consider the multitude of safeguards and procedures employed by the government in conducting the Section 702 Program. As noted earlier, the targeting procedures mandated by the FAA ensure that Section 702 collection is properly undertaken to acquire foreign intelligence and is directed at non-U.S. persons located abroad. Correspondingly, the required minimization procedures protect against the disclosure of non-public information contained in any incidentally acquired U.S. person communications consistent with the government’s need to obtain, produce, and disseminate foreign intelligence. These procedures are rigorously enforced and extensive oversight, both internal and external, is undertaken at every level of the Program by multiple elements of the executive branch which, in turn, report to Congress at mandated intervals.[29] Multiple courts, and the PCLOB, have concluded that these procedures factor into the totality of the circumstances and contribute to the conclusion that the Section 702 Program, as applied, is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.[30]

The PCLOB concluded that “the core of this [P]rogram—acquiring the communications of specifically targeted foreign persons who are located outside the United States, upon a belief that those persons are likely to communicate foreign intelligence, using specific communications identifiers, subject to FISA court-approved targeting rules that have proven to be accurate in targeting persons outside the United States, and subject to multiple layers of rigorous oversight — fits within the totality of the circumstances test for reasonableness as it has been defined by the courts to date.”[31]

Echoing the PCLOB, the FISC observed in its most recent review of Section 702 certifications that “the controlling norms are ones of reasonableness, not perfection” and those norms are applied “to the program as a whole, not of individual actions in isolation.”[32] It follows that, viewed prudently and objectively in the context of balancing the Program in its entirety against the specific Fourth Amendment intrusion its activities precipitate, the incidental acquisition of U.S. person communications collected as part of lawful surveillance conducted pursuant to the requirements and standards of Section 702 is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

About the author:
*George W. Croner previously served as principal litigation counsel in the Office of General Counsel at the National Security Agency. He is also a retired director and shareholder of the law firm of Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C., where he remains Of Counsel, and is a member of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers.

Source:
This article was published by FPRI.

Notes:
[1] Letter from the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Majority Leader of the Senate, the Democratic Leader of the House of Representatives, and the Republican Leader of the Senate, dated February 8, 2012.

[2]Jeff Sessions urges Congress to reauthorize FISA ‘promptly’,” Washington Examiner, Sept. 12, 2017

[3] See, e.g., Wikimedia Foundation v. National Security Agency, 857 F.3d 193, 211 (4th Cir. 2017) (reversing dismissal by district court and concluding that Wikimedia has standing to sue for First and Fourth Amendment violations).

[4] See, e.g., U.S. v. Mohamud, 843 F.3d 420, 437-444 (9th Cir. 2016) (9th Circuit rejects constitutional challenge to Section 702 collection finding “search” of emails conducted under Section 702 was reasonable and did not violate the Fourth Amendment); U.S. v. Hasbajrami, 2016 WL 1029500 (E.D.N.Y. March 8, 2016) (Gleeson, J.) (district court rejects constitutional challenge to Section 702 collection of email communications finding Section 702 is supported by a compelling government interest in combating terrorism and that the procedures and safeguards in the Section 702 Program sufficiently protect non-targeted U.S. persons’ privacy interests).

[5] See Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State Repub. Party, 552 U.S. 442, 449 (2008) (a facial challenge to the constitutionality of a statute can only succeed by “‘establish[ing] that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid,’ i.e., that the law is unconstitutional in all of its applications”).

[6] PCLOB Report at 86.

[7] See U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 267 (1990) (Fourth Amendment protections do not “apply to activities of the United States directed against aliens in foreign territory.”).

[8] Acquisition can occur as a result of: (1) a U.S. person communicating by telephone or Internet wth a foreigner located abroad who has been targeted (i.e., “incidental” collection); (2) a U.S. person sends or receives an Internet communication that is embedded within the same transaction as a different communication that meets the criteria for collection (i.e., an MCT); or (3) a U.S. person’s communication is acquired by mistake due to an implementation error or technological malfunction (i.e., “inadvertent” collection). PCLPB Report at 87. The PCLOB’s Report also identifies a fourth category of acquisitions; i.e., the acquisition of “about” communications as part of Upstream collection. Id. As noted earlier, NSA has ceased collection of “about” communications. See n. 50, supra.

[9] 551 F.3d 1004 (FISCR 2008) (“In re Directives”).

[10] The case involved a directive to an electronic communication service provider to assist in surveillance under the provisions of the Protect America Act, predecessor to Section 702. In re Directives, 551 F.3d at 1007-1009. Thus, the type of electronic surveillance at issue substantially mirrored that subsequently enacted by Congress in 50 U.S.C. § 1881a.

[11] Id. at 1010.

[12] This is repetitive dogma for those challenging the constitutionality of Section 702. It is true that the Supreme Court has not explicitly recognized a foreign intelligence exception to the warrant requirement but, as the PCLOB observed, “every court to decide the question recognized such an exception.” PCLOB Report at 90. Accord, e.g., In re Directives, 551 F.3d at 1011; U.S. v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908, 913 (4th Cir. 1980); U.S. v. Buck, 548 F.2d 871, 875 (9th Cir. 1977); U.S. v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593, 605 (3rd Cir. 1974); U.S. v. Brown, 484 F.2d 418, 426 (5th Cir. 1973); U.S. v. Mohamud, 2014 WL 2866746, *15-*18 (D. Or. June 24, 2014); Bates October 2011 Op., 2011 WL 10945618, at *24.

Moreover, a careful reading of Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l, USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) offers some insightful reading in the tea leaves. As the Court’s majority opinion noted, FISA was legislated “against the backdrop of our [Keith] decision” which “implicitly suggested that a special framework for foreign intelligence might be constitutionally permissible.” Id. at 402-403. Then, even though the case is ultimately decided on standing grounds, Justice Alito, writing for the Court majority, goes through a meticulous discussion of the structure provided by FISA for the conduct of the Section 702 Program, noting that “[s]urveillance under § 1881a is subject to statutory conditions, judicial authorization, congressional supervision, and compliance with the Fourth Amendment.” Id. at 404. Unless one intuits that Justice Gorsuch will view the issues differently than Justice Scalia, who was a member of the Clapper majority, the language and tenor of the Clapper decision is fairly indicative of which way the wind is blowing in terms of how the Supreme Court would rule on the constitutionality of FISA and the Section 702 Program.

[13] In re Directives, 551 F.3d at 1011.

[14] See In re Directives, 551 F.3d at 1010-1011 (citing several “special needs” cases where no warrant was required). Accord U.S. v. Mohamud, 2014 WL 2866749, at *16-*18.

[15] In re Directives, 551. F.3d at 1011.

[16] See Memorandum Op. and Order, Caption [Redacted], Docket No. [Redacted], at 66 (FISC April 26, 2017) (Collyer, J.) available at icontherecord.tumblr.com (FISC writes: “the controlling norms are ones of reasonableness, not perfection” [and those norms are applied] “to the program as a whole, not of individual actions in isolation.”).

It bears distinguishing between Section 702’s programmatic collection and the controversial bulk collection used in acquiring telephone metadata under Section 215 of the Patriot Act. P.L. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272 (2001). Section 702 requires the use of discrete individualized selectors distinguishing its operation from the indiscriminate acquisition that is the hallmark of “bulk” collection.

[17] In re Directives, 551 F.3d at 1015. Accord U.S. v. Mohamud, 843 F.3d at 440-441; U.S. v. Hasbajrami, 2016 WL 1029500, at *9. See, also, U.S. v. Muhtorov, 187 F.Supp.3d 1240, 1256 (D. Colo. 2015) (“Muhtorov”)(rejecting “backdoor search” argument while finding “[a]ccessing stored records in a database legitimately acquired [pursuant to Section 702 surveillance of a foreigner located abroad] is not a search in the context of the Fourth Amendment”).

[18] Vernonia School District v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 652 (1995).

[19] Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 848 (2006).

[20] U.S. v. Mohamud, 843 F.3d at 441; In re Directives, 551 F.3d at 1012.

[21] U.S. v. Mohamud, 843 F.3d at 441; In re Directives, 551 F.3d at 1011.

[22] David G. Major, “The Truth About Terrorist Plots in the U.S. Since 9/11,” The Intelligencer, Journal of U.S. Intelligence Studies, Vol. 23, No. 1, at 39-40 (Summer 2017).

[23] Id. See also, President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies, “Liberty and Security in a Changing World,” Report, pp. 144-145, December 12, 2013 (available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2013-12-12_rg_final_report.pdf) (Review Group is briefed on 53 counterterrorism investigations since 2007 that utilized Section 702 information in the prevention of terrorist attacks in diverse nations and the United States.)

[24] President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies, “Liberty and Security in a Changing World,” Report at 145.

[25] See, e.g., In re Directives, 551 F.3d at 1012 (‘the relevant governmental interest – the interest in national security – is of the highest order of magnitude” citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280, 307 (1981)).

[26] With this structure, the operation of the Section 702 Program falls within the first level of authority in the construct of executive and legislative authorities posited by Justice Jackson in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635-636 (1952).

[27] U.S. v. Mohamud, 843 F.3d at 442; U.S. v. Hasbajrami, 2016 WL 1029500, at *10-*11.

[28] Critics, including the FISC at an earlier time, have considered the privacy intrusion significantly more problematic in the context of acquiring MCTs that might include wholly domestic communications and, more particularly, MCTs that were “about,” but neither “to” nor “from,” a target in NSA’s Upstream collection program. See, e.g., Bates October 2011 Op., 2011 WL 10945618, at *25-*27 (finding collection of MCTs, including those “about” a target, sufficiently likely to result in the acquisition of purely domestic U.S. person communications to conclude that Upstream collection in this manner was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment); PCLOB Report at 96-97 (expressing concern that collection of MCTs and “about” communications “push the entire program close to the line of constitutional reasonableness”).

Significantly, with respect to this particular issue, NSA, the only intelligence agency conducting Upstream Internet collection in which “about” MCTs are involved, announced in April 2017 that it would no longer acquire “about” communications in connection with its Upstream Internet collection but is now only acquiring Internet communications that are sent directly to or from a foreign target. NSA/CSS Press Statement, NSA Stops Certain Section 702 “Upstream” Activities, April 28, 2017.

[29] See President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies, “Liberty and Security in a Changing World,” Report at136-141 (recounting multiple levels of oversight, review, and reporting applicable to the Section 702 Program).

[30] See, e.g., Memorandum Op. and Order, Caption [Redacted], Docket No. {Redacted], at 6, 26 n. 23 (FISC November 6, 2015 (Hogan J.)) (FISC court approves NSA minimization procedures after amicus curiae counsel, appointed by the FISC specifically to “address whether the minimization procedures … are consistent with the Fourth Amendment,” concludes that “the NSA and CIA minimization procedures are sufficient to ensure that the use of U.S. person identifiers for th[e] purpose of [querying Section 702 acquired information] complies with the statutory requirements of Section 702 and with the Fourth Amendment .”). See also U.S. v. Mohamud, 843 F.3d at 443; In re Directives, 551 F.3d at 1012-1013; U.S. v. Hasbajrami, 2016 WL 1029500, at *11-*13 (all courts considering targeting and minimization procedures used in conjunction with Section 702 surveillance as adequate to protect the privacy interests of U.S. persons with respect to incidentally acquired communications); PCLOB Report at 94 (same).

[31] PCLOB Report at 88.

[32] Memorandum Op. and Order, Caption [Redacted], Docket No. [Redacted], at 66 (FISC April 26, 2017) (Collyer, J.) available at icontherecord.tumblr.com.

Sweden’s Importance To NATO’s Defense Of The Baltics – Analysis

0
0

By Felix K. Chang*

(FPRI)Sweden is not a member of NATO. But Sweden is very important to the defense of NATO’s Baltic member countries of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. That importance mainly stems not from what Sweden could add to NATO’s collective military strength, but from how its strategic position could help NATO overcome the operational challenges it would face if it needed to respond to a Russian invasion of the Baltics.

Strategic Position in the Baltic Sea

Spanning the length of the Scandinavian Peninsula, Sweden’s geography dominates much of the Baltic Sea, a fact that NATO has long appreciated. Early on in the Cold War, NATO recognized that Sweden could serve as a valuable location for early warning facilities to monitor the Soviet Union in peacetime and for combat aircraft to interdict Soviet lines of communications across Germany and Poland in wartime.

Sweden took on a new relevance for NATO after Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania joined the Alliance in 2004. With tiny military forces of their own and large Russian military forces on their borders, the three Baltic countries are highly vulnerable. Russia could easily sever their air and land connections to the rest of NATO and capture all three countries—a prospect that could jeopardize the very existence of NATO. Thus, NATO holds annual exercises called Baltic Operations (Baltops), in part, to practice reinforcing the Baltics by sea. But, in a conflict, Russian strike aircraft and coastal defense missile batteries based near Kaliningrad could interdict such seaborne reinforcements before they ever reached the Baltics. (See Map.)

Sitting astride of NATO’s most likely reinforcement route, Sweden could mitigate many of Russia’s military advantages. That is what makes Sweden so important to NATO. Were Sweden to allow NATO reinforcements to sail through its territorial waters, NATO could halve the distance over which its reinforcements would be exposed to Russian air and missile attacks between Denmark and Estonia. Theoretically, Stockholm could even allow NATO to safely transport its troops and supplies over land to Sweden’s east-coast ports before they embarked for an amphibious assault across the Baltic Sea.
Got Land?

Sweden also controls Gotland, an island situated in the middle of the Baltic Sea. Gotland is strategic because it is an ideal location from which to defend forces moving through the Baltic Sea or to project power into the Baltics. Though primarily seen today as a holiday destination, it has been prized for its strategic location for centuries. During the Cold War, Sweden stationed a reinforced armored brigade, fast attack craft, and a fighter squadron on Gotland to defend it. While all of those forces have since been deactivated or dispersed, Russia’s recent aggressive behavior prompted Sweden to reestablish a permanent military garrison on Gotland in 2016.

NATO also sees the value of Gotland. At a minimum, the island could complicate Russian anti-ship cruise missile strikes on NATO reinforcements sailing to the Baltics. But if Swedish cooperation with NATO were to increase, NATO air forces could use Gotland’s airfields to fend off Russian air and missile attacks as well as provide air support for NATO military operations in the Baltics. Gotland’s main port of Visby could even serve as a logistical hub for NATO forces fighting in the region.

On the other hand, Sweden could also help NATO by simply defending its territory from Russian incursions during a conflict between NATO and Russia. Doing so would constrain Russian freedom of action in the Baltic Sea. If nothing else, denying Russia use of Gotland would prevent it from not only making any seaborne reinforcement of the Baltics extremely difficult and thus narrowing NATO’s operational options, but also threatening the Baltic coasts of Germany and Poland behind NATO’s frontline.

Sweden in NATO?

Though not a member of NATO, Sweden is important to NATO’s defense of the Baltics.

Swedish cooperation with the Alliance would make protecting the Baltics easier and thereby strengthen NATO’s security guarantee to its member countries. That, in turn, would improve NATO’s ability to deter Russian aggression in the region.

Meanwhile, some have begun to speculate whether Sweden would shed its longtime “alliance-free” foreign policy and join NATO. But Swedish Foreign Minister Margot Wallstroem has dismissed such speculation. She cautioned that NATO membership “would expose Sweden to risks, both political and otherwise” which her government was not willing to bear.[1]

Still, over the last decade, Sweden has taken a more active role in Nordic and European Union defense arrangements, many of whose members are also NATO members. Moreover, Sweden has stepped up its direct military contacts with NATO and the United States. While NATO membership may be off the table for Sweden, it would appear that Sweden has come to believe that NATO’s interest in deterring Russian aggression is very much in its own national interest, too.

About the author:
*Felix K. Chang is a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute. He is also the Chief Strategy Officer of DecisionQ, a predictive analytics company in the national security and healthcare industries. He has worked with a number of digital, consumer services, and renewable energy entrepreneurs for years.

Source:
This article was published by FPRI.

[1] Damien Sharkov, “Putin Vows Military Response to ‘Eliminate NATO Threat’ If Sweden Joins U.S.-Led Alliance,” Newsweek, June 2, 2017, http://www.newsweek.com/vladimir-putin-vows-eliminate-nato-threat-sweden-joins-619486.

Spain: Catalan Officials Say 90 Percent Vote For Independence In Banned Referendum

0
0

(RFE/RL) — The leader of Catalonia opened the door to a unilateral declaration of independence after regional officials said more than 90 percent of Catalans voted in favor of a split from Spain in a referendum called illegal by national authorities in Madrid.

Catalan President Carles Puigdemont on October 1 told a televised address that “on this day of hope and suffering, Catalonia’s citizens have earned the right to have an independent state in the form of a republic.”

“My government, in the next few days will send the results of today’s vote to the Catalan Parliament, where the sovereignty of our people lies, so that it can act in accordance with the law of the referendum,” Puigdemont added.

Before the referendum, opinion polls indicated a minority of around 40 percent of the region’s total 7.5 million people supported independence, although a majority of residents in the region nonetheless wanted a referendum to take place.

Many of those opposed to independence had been expected to boycott the vote, leaving the “yes” side a likely clear favorite to prevail.

The referendum and subsequent police actions surrounding the vote have raised tensions in the Catalan region and throughout the rest of Spain.

The referendum was banned by Spain’s Constitutional Court, which ruled it violated the 1978 constitution that restored democracy in Spain following the death of dictator General Francisco Franco.

Catalonia’s authorities said at least 844 people “required medical attention” in violence related to the vote as officers in riot gear raided public buildings to prevent them from being used as polling stations.

Police said at least 33 law-enforcement officers were also injured.​
Spanish Prime Minister Firm Against Catalan Referendum
0:00:22
0:00:00 /0:00:22

Reports said riot police smashed their way into some polling stations and fired rubber bullets outside at least one central Barcelona location as violence broke out.

RFE/RL Belarus Service correspondent Alyaksey Znatkevich reported clashes outside a polling station set up at an elderly nursing home in Barcelona’s Raval district.

“People were not allowing the police — there were several policemen — trying to break into this voting station to probably confiscate ballot boxes,” Znatkevich said via phone from Barcelona. “People blocked the street and some people were throwing things at the police, including road cones.”

“The police were shooting probably rubber bullets in the air to scare people off and then the police backed off,” he added.

Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy said that “we had to do what we had to do.”

“Today, there was no self-determination referendum in Catalonia, and democracy prevailed because the constitution was upheld,” he said, adding that the vote was a “mockery of the very essence of democracy.

After the voting and related disturbances, pro-independence groups and trade unions in the region called for a general strike on October 3.

Meanwhile, Barcelona’s soccer team defeated Las Palmas in a match played without fans after the club president announced the game would be take place behind closed doors to show opposition to what he called police violence against voters.

The team, which openly backed the referendum, said it wanted to postpone the game, but the request was denied by the Spanish league.

Swiss Alpine Club Stirs Debate Over History’s Racist Scientists

0
0

By Celia Luterbacher

The Swiss Alpine Club’s recent decision not to revoke the honorary membership of a controversial Swiss glaciologist raises the question: can a person’s contributions to society be judged separately from their prejudices?

In early August, the Swiss group “Démonter Louis Agassiz” (Dismantle Louis Agassiz) requested that the Swiss Alpine Club (SAC) rescind the honorary member status of Jean Louis Rodolphe Agassiz, a glaciologist and naturalist born in canton Fribourg in 1807.

The group argued that Agassiz, known for his pioneering work in the field of glaciology, should not have SAC honorary membership because he made racist statements and conducted research about superior and “degenerate” races.

Agassiz was only the second honorary member in the club’s history, according to Hans Fässler, a historian specialising in slavery and racism issues who founded the Démonter committee. To him, the SAC represents a link with “certain Swiss myths”, such as the idea that the country has nothing to do with racism or slavery.

“I was curious to see how they would react to the request, appealing to their sense of decency or historical responsibility,” said Fässler, himself a long-time member of the mountaineering society.

Request denied

But the SAC refused the committee’s request, stating that it would be impossible to take away Agassiz’s title since it effectively died with him 140 years ago. Furthermore, they argued, removal of Agassiz’s name from the SAC honorary membership list was also out of the question, as this would constitute a “falsification of history”.

“The SAC must stick to its earlier decisions, even if they no longer reflect the current view,” the alpine club wrote on its website. “Moreover, by erasing his name, Agassiz and his ideas – which were shared at the time by many circles – could fall into oblivion.”

It’s an argument Fässler calls “completely ridiculous”.

“We never asked for his name to be deleted or his story forgotten. On the contrary, our committee is trying to make people aware of his racism. All we would have asked for is a note on the list of all honorary members saying that Agassiz’s membership had been cancelled because he was a racist.”

From an ethical perspective, it all comes down to the question of whether Agassiz’s racist ideas – including those that he used to support his theories on human origins – can ever be separated from his widely-lauded glaciology work.

‘Different but connected’

Marc-Antoine Kaeser, a professor of the history of science at the University of Neuchâtel and the author of a book about Agassizexternal link, agrees with the SAC that a distinction between Agassiz’s scientific work and his racist statements can – and should – be made.

“They are different, but connected. It should be mentioned, but his research into race should not push us to devalue his work on glaciers, geology, etc.,” Kaeser says.

“The SAC clearly honoured Agassiz for his outstanding and ground-breaking research on the Ice Age. One could even go as far as considering that the SAC would not exist in its present form were it not for Agassiz. It was only in the second part of his career, when he emigrated to the US, that he began to delve into anthropology.”

But the head of the Démonter committee takes the opposite view.

“For Agassiz, his views on race were part of the same ideology as his views on animals and glaciology,” Fässler argues.

“You cannot just limit your view to saying he was a great scientist but that you don’t care about the other things he did, because Agassiz himself never considered his racism outside his scientific activities: he always thought that what he wrote about race was part and parcel of the same science.”

From Swiss mountains to American monuments

The SAC responded to the Démonter Louis Agassiz committee less than two weeks after a far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, USA turned violent. The event had originally been organised to protest the removal of a statue of the Confederate Civil War General Robert E. Lee in Charlottesville’s Emancipation Park.

In response, the American Historical Associationexternal link released a statement asserting that debates over the removal of such monuments should be considered within their historical context – and that the context for the instalment of most Confederate statues in the US was the intimidation and isolation of African-Americans.

“To remove such monuments is neither to ‘change’ history nor ‘erase’ it. What changes with such removals is what American communities decide is worthy of civic honor,” the AHA said.

But when a monument – be it a statue, street sign, or mountain – honours a racist scientist, the ethical debate can become even more complicated. Scientific racism in the 19th and 20th centuries led many researchers, in both America and Europe, to conduct work heavily influenced by prejudice in the name of scientific progress.

Some disseminated deeply misguided ‘scientific’ ideas, including British scientist Francs Galton’s theory of eugenicsexternal link, and Agassiz’s own theory of polygenismexternal link. Others, like 19th century surgical pioneer J. Marion Sims, even conducted inhumane experiments on racial minorities. Often referred to as “the father of modern gynaecology”, Sims used enslaved African-American women to further his medical research.

A recent editorialexternal link in the scientific journal Nature, which was published following the vandalism of a New York City statue of Sims, drew widespread criticism for suggesting that removing such monuments altogether risks “whitewashing history”, and for proposing that they instead be supplemented with explanatory plaques or “an equally sized monument commemorating the victims”.

The lens of history

Some, including the SAC and Marc-Antoine Kaeser, argue it’s unfair to judge individuals like Agassiz using contemporary perspectives and values, since their racial prejudices were more widely accepted in their time than they are today.

“The scientific community has a responsibility to take into account the whole picture, in a historical manner. Agassiz’s racism is not comparable to the racism of present white supremacists; he lived in a different world,” Kaeser says.

But Fässler disagrees with this interpretation of history.

“This is an argument we come across very frequently – that when Agassiz was alive this was normal, or most scientists were racist. This is historically wrong,” he says, citing Agassiz’s contemporary, Alexander von Humboldtexternal link, as an example of a scientist who spoke out against racism.

Regarding future questions of how to handle controversial monuments or figures, Fässler and Kaeser both suggest that increased transparency and information exchange are key. Fässler thinks that in some cases, monuments can serve as a historical lesson to citizens, as well as a warning against future mistakes.

And Kaeser maintains that “the scientific community has a responsibility not to ‘cover up’ parts of the past which are difficult or problematic”.

Appeal to the Swiss government

In light of the SAC’s decision not to revoke Louis Agassiz’s honorary membership, the Démonter Louis Agassiz committee is taking its case to the Swiss government. In a press release on September 8, the group announced its demand that the Federal Commission against Racism and the Federal Service for the Fight Against Racism take an official position on the SAC ruling.

In the statement, committee spokesmen Hans Fässler and Hans Barth denounced the SAC’s arguments as “irresponsible”.

“In its response to our request, the SAC has trivialised – even defended – the racist agitator Louis Agassiz,” they said.

“We hope [the government] will agree with us that there is a danger in the SAC statement of setting a wrong example of how you should deal with the question of racism,” Fässler told swissinfo.ch.

US And China Edge Closer To Agreement On Dealing With North Korea’s Kim – OpEd

0
0

By Andrew Hammond*

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has been in Beijing to discuss the next steps on North Korea. His visit, which ended on Sunday and paves the way for Donald Trump’s trip in November, had one over-riding goal: To align Beijing with the US approach to tightening the screw on Pyongyang.

US-China disagreements over North Korea have softened in recent weeks, with Beijing — which accounts for about 90 percent of its neighbor’s foreign trade — apparently increasingly willing to tighten sanctions. But for all this clamping down, Beijing still has key differences with Washington over tackling the hermit state.

A key reason for the disagreement with the US over the scope and severity of action, including potential military action, is that China does not want to push the regime so hard that it becomes destabilized. From the vantage point of Chinese officials, this risks North Korea behaving even more unpredictably, and the outside possibility of the regime’s collapse.

Beijing believes this would not be in its interests for at least two reasons. First, if the Communist regime in Pyongyang falls it could undermine the legitimacy of the Chinese Communist Party too.  Second, Beijing fears that such a collapse could lead to instability on the North Korea-China border, a large influx of refugees that it would need to manage, and ultimately the emergence of a pro-US successor state.

Nevertheless, in the face of repeated provocation from the North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, including a sixth nuclear test last month, Washington and Beijing may now be coming closer together.

What the Trump team now wants to do is encourage China to jettison more of its longstanding reservations about squeezing its neighbor.

As Tillerson made clear to his hosts in Beijing, the stakes are growing fast and he and other US officials fear that Trump could soon be facing his first major foreign policy crisis. The challenge is especially pressing for Washington, as the latest nuclear test and about 15 missile launches this year are further evidence that North Korea is moving closer to developing a nuclear warhead capable of being fitted on an intercontinental ballistic missile that could strike the US mainland, let alone key allies like Japan or South Korea in much closer proximity.

With the US and its territories, including Guam, looking increasingly vulnerable, Trump and his allies in the region want to intensify international pressure following tightening of UN and wider unilateral US and Chinese sanctions.  What Beijing fears, especially with more provocation from Pyongyang on the horizon, is that Trump is now thinking much more seriously about a pre-emptive military strike on North Korea’s nuclear capabilities.

The US president has recently asserted that the regime “is behaving in a very dangerous manner, and something will have to be done about it … and probably dealt with rapidly.”  Moreover, he condemned the latest nuclear test and missile launches as “very hostile and dangerous to the United States, and talk of appeasement with North Korea will not work, they only understand one thing!”

While Washington’s next steps are not obvious, what is certain is that the two-decade US policy of strategic patience with Pyongyang is now over, and all options are on the table.  Aside from military force that Trump has threatened with his “fire and fury” and “locked and loaded” rhetoric, scenarios range from a new round of peace talks at the dovish end of the spectrum, to more hawkish actions such as a naval blockade to enforce sanctions — including interdicting ships suspected of selling North Korea weapons abroad, one of the regime’s key sources of income.

Trump has also threatened to stop all trade with countries, including China, “doing business with North Korea.”  However, this lacks credibility given that in 2016 alone the United States imported about $463 billion in goods from China. Ending trade with Beijing would trigger a massive international economic shock, creating a protectionist spiral in its wake.

China believes the Korean stand-off can only be resolved by talks, and it will have been encouraged by Tillerson’s admission on Saturday that Washington is now in “direct contact” with Pyongyang about this. The Trump team has said in the past that while there are no set conditions for such dialogue, North Korea’s nuclear capabilities have advanced too far to simply freeze its program in return for concessions. Moreover, Washington also wants Pyongyang to demonstrate its seriousness about any such talks by actions, such as allowing International Atomic Energy inspectors access to key sites.

While the fact that Washington has not ruled out further dialogue will reassure Chinese officials, they remain exceptionally concerned that miscalculation by either Pyongyang — or Washington or its regional allies — could lead to a military conflict. Beijing believes the seeds of misperception for that to happen are already in place.

These include Pyongyang’s repeated threats to fire missiles at the US territory of Guam, military exercises over the summer involving US and South Korean troops, South Korean simulations of an attack on North Korea’s nuclear sites, and the fact that the US and South Korea have been conducting semi-regular tests of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile system. Condemned by not just North Korea, but also Russia and China, THAAD is being deployed in South Korea to intercept missiles launched by the regime.

Taken overall, with Trump possibly facing his first major foreign policy crisis, his team are seeking to align positions with Beijing. While bilateral positions on Pyongyang are edging closer, China will remain skeptical of military action and instead favor doubling down on diplomacy.

• Andrew Hammond is an Associate at LSE IDEAS at the London School of Economics.

Yemen: Houthi Rebels Claim Shooting Down US Drone

0
0

Yemen’s rebel Houthi group said it had shot down a U.S. reconnaissance drone in the capital Sanaa, according to a pro-Houthi television on Sunday.

Houthi-owned Al-Masira television, citing a military source, said the MQ 9 drone was brought down by air defenses in Sanaa.

There was no comment from the U.S. authorities on the report.

The U.S. is a main backer of a Saudi-led air campaign against Houthi rebels, who overran Sanaa and much of the country in 2014.

According to U.N. officials, more than 10,000 people have been killed in the war, while more than 11 percent of the country’s population has been displaced as a direct result of the conflict.

Original source


Spain Government: ‘There Has Been No Catalonia Referendum Or Any Semblance Of One’– Transcript

0
0

Spain’s Vice-Prime Minister, Soraya Sáenz de Santamaría, in a press briefing to assess the day’s events in Catalonia, called for the Regional Government of Catalonia to stop being “irresponsible” and to stop this “farce” of a referendum. She also acknowledged the actions by the State law enforcement agencies to defend the law.

Following are comments made by Soraya Sáenz de Santamaría as released by Moncloa.

“A very good day to everyone. I appear here before you, on behalf of the government, to assess the situation caused in Catalonia as a result of the decision taken by the Regional Government of Catalonia to maintain its determination to hold an illegal referendum. This attempt was, from the very outset, unconstitutional, anti-democratic but, most importantly, it went against all our standards of co-existence. And, since it is incompatible with our democratic rules, it could not be held and nor has it been held.

The rule of law, applied firmly and proportionally, has thwarted all the plans and intentions of the Regional Government of Catalonia. Prior to today, this attempt did not meet the most basic and elementary democratic requirements. Its backers ignored all the parliamentary rules to try and give an appearance of legality which was immediately suspended by the courts. This attempt is a democratic disgrace to the people of Catalonia and to the people of Spain as a whole, who have seen their rights infringed for not agreeing with the aims of the pro-independence forces.

The Regional Government of Catalonia and those on their side decided to proceed despite receiving no official backing and despite the rule of law eroding any entitlement to hold this referendum. There was no official census, or legally constituted polling stations, or official premises accredited, or electoral board to guarantee the neutrality of the process. They were warned by international bodies that their attempts to proceed with the referendum were discredited. Mayors, regional councillors, public servants, journalists and citizens lodged claims against the anti-democratic methods that they were victims of.

Despite the proven illegality and numerous judicial rulings, they still sought to proceed, and they decided to mobilise their followers to impose their wishes by using children and the elderly without any compunction. Today, after the latest actions by the justice system, they even decided to change the few instructions given by the Regional Government of Catalonia and, in an unprecedented attempt under any democracy, less than an hour before voting was due to take place, they ran roughshod over any attempt at appearing to hold a referendum. The Regional Government of Catalonia has acted in a wholly irresponsible manner, it has tried to eliminate any form of law and justice, and hence, democracy, in Catalonia; but we have seen that the democratic rule of law works and that it has tools at its disposal to ensure that court rulings that protect the rights of everyone are upheld.

The absolute irresponsibility of the Regional Government of Catalonia has had to be replaced by the professionalism of the law enforcement agencies. They have complied with the rulings of the system of justice, they have acted professionally and proportionally. The targets of their actions have never been individuals but the electoral material. They have always sought to protect individual rights and liberties.

I would like to take this opportunity, here before all of you, to acknowledge their efforts at this time. They have complied with their democratic obligation, they have attended to the judicial instructions and the requests for support that the Mossos [Regional Police Force of Catalonia] sent them, and informed the Government Representative in Catalonia accordingly.

No referendum has been held, or any semblance of one. It never made sense to head down this irrational path and it makes no sense to continue doing so. I would ask the Regional Government of Catalonia and the political parties that supports it to stop being irresponsible, and henceforth take on board that what was never legal is now clearly untenable. It makes no sense to continue with this farce which is not heading anywhere. They should stop this right now.

It is in their hands to bring this situation to an end. The people of Catalonia and of Spain as a whole have gone through weeks of great democratic uncertainty. We have seen how some people have sought to bring to an end centuries of a shared way of life and decades of democratic stability, how some people who should be the first to uphold the law have flaunted their disobedience, but Spain is a democracy, a consolidated democracy, a strong democracy in which the rights and liberties of individuals prevail above the personal claims of their governors. These citizens have seen today how their rights have been restored, their shared way of life guaranteed and their liberties protected because this is all a part of living together in a democracy.

I am totally sure that the government and the State institutions as a whole, as has been seen in recent days, work to oversee our democracy, to ensure that the liberties of our citizens are guaranteed and to recover the harmony that exists among all the people of Spain.

Thank you very much”.

Non official translation

Spain: Foreign Minister Says Police Actions On Catalonia ‘Proportionate,’ Injured 840

0
0

The Spanish Foreign Minister has defended the actions of the national police amid the violence during the Catalan independence vote, restating the central government’s claims that the actions were “proportionate,” while the number of injured surpassed 840.

“You may think people were peacefully exercising their right to vote but the problem is this so-called referendum had been ruled illegal by the Constitutional Court,” Alfonso Dastis told SkyNews on Sunday.

Dastis denounced the referendum as “sham voting,” accusing the organizers of bringing in rigged ballot boxes, full of pre-planted votes. The official did not provide any proof for the allegations, though.

Spain’s FM dismissed allegations of excessive police violence. “I don’t agree with you that this is an extraordinary level of violence,” Dastis said.

The Regional Catalan government, has meanwhile announced new figures for the injured in today’s clashes, which has surpassed 844.

The lack of reaction towards the referendum clashes on the part of EU leaders, according to Dastis, is due to them waiting on “reliable information” as evidence of the violence to be distributed by the “defenders of the so-called” referendum, and which might contain “fake photos.” The official urged to “wait and see” until this “reliable information” of sorts emerges.

When asked about the Spanish government reaction should the Catalonia actually declare independence, the official took on the same expectative approach, stating that it should happen first and then talk about it.

Homage To Catalonia, A Croatian Perspective – OpEd

0
0

By Sven Milekic*

Drums, music, singing and shouting shattered the busy late summer night in the centre of Barcelona, packed out with tourists looking for famous sights, a place to eat or drink – and possibly wondering what the protest was about.

Tens of thousands of people had crowded in front of the Department of the Vice-Presidency and Economy of the Catalan Government on September 20, at the crossing with the famous Rambla, near Catalonia Square, protesting against the Madrid government’s arrests of 14 Catalan officials.

Government officials are generally only arrested en masse in large-scale corruption cases. But here, in Catalonia, they had been arrested for attempting to organise the referendum on independence set for October 1.

Although the police temporarily put some of the regional officials behind bars for 48 hours, and seized 10 million voting ballots, the Catalans have defiantly vowed to go ahead with the referendum – despite Madrid calling it illegal.

The enthusiastic crowd, full of young people, waved red-and-yellow Catalan flags with a white star on a blue triangle, singing along with the music blaring from large speakers set on a small stage in front of the building.

There was some booing and whistling – probably intended for the Madrid government and national police, the Civil Guard – as people chanted: “Democracy”, “Independence”, “Occupying forces out” and “Where is Europe?”

Almost as a realised metaphor of the young that will carry the torch on, a father lifted up his daughter, aged around 11 or 12. She perched on his shoulders, high above the crowd, wearing one Catalan flag as a cape and holding the other in her hands, as people chanted frantically, while numerous flashes from cell phones blinded her and everyone else around.

“She looks like Lady Liberty,” a friend of mine, standing next to me in the stream of people, said.

As I walked around, with my companions mostly from ex-Yugoslav states, with a few others from Germany and France, I did not feel frightened or intimated by a crowd that, according to various media reports, reached 40,000 people.

However, I left a certain unease, as everyone seemed unconditionally “on board” with the idea of independence.

Most people from former Yugoslavia feel that unease when taking part in “grand national projects”, and when demands for “freedom and independence” risk ending in bloodshed.

In this euphoric atmosphere, one of the protesters asked a friend from Croatia something, and after she replied that she “didn’t speak Spanish”, he replied in English, obviously provoked: “I don’t speak Spanish either!” – meaning, his language was Catalan.

In Barcelona, everyone seems “on board” with the idea of secession from repressive Spain.

And the Madrid government is repressive, threating through the media that “there will be no pensions if Catalonia breaks free”, imprisoning Catalan officials, handing out fines of 6,000 to 12,000 euros for people disseminating voting ballots, and shutting down websites promoting independence.

Madrid’s moves are fuelling Catalan separatism – and yes, Catalonia has valid reasons in pushing for independence.

A highly industrialised region with a massive tourism sector, it is one of the biggest contributors to the national economy, producing around 19 per cent of Spanish GDP. It accounts for 16 per cent of the total population.

Supporters of Catalan independence argue that although Catalonia gives almost 10 billion euros a year to the central, it is still not one of the 17 regions with the most autonomy – claiming that the Basque Country has more.

The central government has also made clear its disinterest in investing in Catalonia, allocating it 9.5 per cent of its federal budget in 2015, which is a significant drop from nearly 16 per cent allocated in 2003.

People living in Barcelona claim that while it is easier to find a job than in Madrid, the wages are lower, while living costs – especially for rent, due to the explosion of tourism – are higher.

On a non-financial matter, the Spanish Constitutional Court has rejected dozens of Catalonian regional laws, effectively limiting their autonomy.

This is why the number of people supporting independence in Catalonia has jumped from only 15 per cent in 2009 to 41 per cent this July.

However, this is where we come to the twist. Although, according to the July survey, some 49 per cent of people in Catalonia are against independence, their voice is not heard much in Barcelona.

While on windows, balconies, shops and everywhere throughout Barcelona, one can see Catalan flags and green posters with “Si” (“Yes”), indicating supporters’ views about the potential referendum, no Spanish flags, or the word “No”, could be seen.

Yet, we are talking about 49 per cent of the people, as stated in a survey conducted by the Catalan regional government.

Here I come to the point where a I draw a parallel with Croatia and rest of former socialist Yugoslavia.

In Yugoslavia, the first demands for more fiscal independence surfaced in the mid-1960s, when Slovenia and Croatia, the two richest republics, took a similar position, that “Belgrade takes our money and gives it to poor republics” [the other four].

By the 1990s, however, the situation had radicalised, and people turned from arguments to arms.

Although Croatia overwhelmingly opted for independence or at least a loose confederation in a national referendum in 1991, the situation was far from idea, democratically.

As Croatian University professor Dejan Jovic noted back in 2014, the referendum was only democratic in the sense that the decision that won more votes was adopted.

However, he added, the atmosphere was such that it was not free to publically campaign for the option that lost. Political elites in both Croatia and Belgrade had made the atmosphere so heated that by then that it was impossible to have a truly fair referendum.

Fast-forward more than 20 years, and Croatia is not marking the decision of that history referendum nearly as much as it is celebrating its military victory in 1995, in the war that followed.

Croatian citizens also now use referendums to limit others, not free them, as in the 2013 referendum on gay marriage.

Although it would be an overstatement to say the situation in Catalonia is like that in Croatia in 1991, the deeply unfree atmosphere in which huge decisions are about to be made can be compared.

Clearly, Catalans wanting to vote “against” independence do not feel nearly as free to express their feelings as the other side.

The central government is fuelling the radicalisation of the public and of political and media discourse. It is creating a “with us or against us” dichotomy, when many people who do not support independence would, for example, support more autonomy for Catalonia, as surveys show.

While in Croatia in the 1990s, nationalists led the way, in Catalonia the battle is led by a wide spectrum of political parties, including far-leftists.

But it is still a situation in which “we, the good” are oppressed by “them, the bad”. There is no middle ground.

Although Catalonia is truly a welcoming region, inviting in Middle-Eastern refugees at a time of growing anti-migrant hostility in much of Europe, its political elites are pushing for further radicalisation and division in Spanish society.

While there is no ethnic component to this separatism, as Catalans proudly emphasise that their descendants come from all over the Spain, a certain discomfort with Madrid is transparent.

All these leads to the drawing of historical parallels. Pictures or slogans of Spanish fascist dictator Francisco Franco are shared on social media. Some go further back in history, to 1714, and the brutal year-long of the siege of Barcelona by the Spanish King.

Events from the Spanish Civil War are interpreted in museums through a somewhat simplistic Catalan perspective, in which Catalans are shown almost exclusively as Republicans.

Back in Croatia and rest of the former Yugoslavia people remember simplistic historical approaches very well, and the links that our leaders made with fascist movements in the 1940s or even with 14th-century battles.

They also know how things that were once shared among all Yugoslavs, like the anti-fascist struggle, now are interpreted through strictly national perspectives.

In all post-Yugoslav states, people remember the nation-founding myths but also remember the price they paid for them.

In the end, the push for Catalan independence must be looked through the perspective of what it actually brings for the ordinary citizen, struggling to make ends meet in beautiful, but expensive, Barcelona.

Will his or her paycheck grow as a result of independence? Will they only have to vote in one less election less – the Spanish one? Will he or she be more truly free and independent – or will the political elites just be that bit more powerful?

*Sven Milekic is a BIRN journalist based in Zagreb, Croatia.

The opinions expressed in the Comment section are those of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect the views of BIRN.

Lincoln Smiles On Madrid’s Effort To Prevent Independence Vote – OpEd

0
0

In Spain, the central government resorted to violence to stop the people of Catalonia from participating in a vote on independence.

The violence from agents of the national government is distressing.

According to The Telegraph:

“Video footage showed officers from Spain’s national police – 4,000 of whom had been brought in by the government to help quash the ballot – fighting with elderly voters, some of whom were left bleeding, and dragging young women away from polling stations by their hair.”

Spanish officials shrugged off the violence and candidly stated that a few cracked heads were necessary to maintain the full authority of the central government.

According to Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy: “We did what we had to do” to thwart the “premeditated attack on the legality of the Spanish state.”

Mr Rajoy has described the referendum as a “coup” and refused to accept the right of the people of Catalonia to chart their own destiny and choose whether to be an independent nation or remain under the thumb of Madrid.

Mr. Rajoy’s actions and sentiments are similar to those of General Francisco Franco who attempted to destroy Catalan separatism and killed 3,500 people when he took control of the region in 1938.

Catalonia has its own language, laws, and customs. It is a fairly wealthy region that Madrid plunders to keep itself afloat.

According to The Guardian:

90% of the 2.26 million Catalans who voted on Sunday voted in favour of independence, according to preliminary results released by the region’s government. The region has 5.3 million voters. Officials said 770,000 votes were lost due to disruption which resulted in polling stations being raided by Spanish police.

Overwhelmingly, the people want independence. It is disappointing that Madrid will not listen to their voices and allow the region to go its own way. This reminds me of Abraham Lincoln’s use of federal troops to stop the Maryland legislature from deliberating on the issue of secession.

This article was published at The Beacon.

Plenty Of Blame To Go Around: The Long Collapse Of American Foreign Policy – Analysis

0
0

By Dr. C. Dale Walton*

In recent months, a large army of pundits, academics, and other policy professionals have risen up to argue that Pres. Donald Trump’s foreign policy reflects an ill-informed and unsophisticated personal knowledge of global affairs. This is quite true; even at this early point, it appears near-certain that the current president will preside over a rich array of foreign policy debacles ranging from the comical to the tragic.

What all too few of Trump’s critics acknowledge, however, is that this is entirely in line with US strategic performance for nearly a quarter-century: Washington unwittingly has been crafting a bipartisan, slow-motion global policy disaster for years, and the results of its policy failures simply are becoming too difficult to ignore.

From the Clinton Administration to the present, American foreign policy has been driven largely by the self-flattering notion that the United States is the “indispensable country” charged with leading other, less enlightened states down the path to peace, prosperity, and proper governance. These three Administrations expressed such attitudes in myriad ways, but all drew from a deep well of hubris entirely unconnected to strategic reality. Defenders of the Obama Administration in particular might deny this charge, but, to take one small example, in his 2015 State of the Union Address, then-Pres. Obama grandly claimed, in reference to Putin’s seizure of Crimea that: “today, it is America that stands strong and united with our allies, while Russia is isolated, with its economy in tatters. That’s how America leads: not with bluster, but with persistent, steady resolve.” What good this purported resolve did for the Ukrainians was, and remains, mysterious—and many Ukrainian citizens continue to emigrate to Russia in search of relative peace and economic opportunity. In regard to the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian War, American “leadership” has not brought Ukraine basic political stability, much less victory. Indeed, although we may never know with certainty, it is quite possible that ham-handed American and European meddling in Ukrainian politics was the catalyst that convinced Putin to intervene militarily in Ukraine to begin with.

The illusion that the United States could act as an omnicompetent global organizer always was dangerously misguided, as it encouraged a hubris that has, directly and indirectly, resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of human beings and destroyed peace and stability for tens of millions more. The quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan are the two most obvious examples, but the subtler ones perhaps are more telling. By making war in the Balkans against Russian-backed Serbs who had not attacked or harmed the United States, the Clinton Administration poisoned the long-term US relationship with Russia’s government and population (and even, to a degree, with Orthodox Christians in many other countries). American insistence on NATO expansion was even more damaging, and Moscow interpreted this as an inherently unfriendly act because, by any reasonable standard, it was: a “friend” surely would not be inclined to use a period of Russian historical weakness to expand a potentially hostile military alliance to—and then beyond—the borders of the former Soviet Union. Yet NATO expansion would have occurred yet again as recently as 2016, if the Obama Administration’s desire to bring tiny Montenegro into the NATO alliance. Washington continues to assert that NATO is a purely defensive alliance, yet one can see why Russians might be unconvinced; NATO has now conducted combat operations in the Balkans, Afghanistan, and Libya but has yet to actually do so on its own soil.

Speaking dispassionately, given longstanding US policy preferences it would foolish for Russia to place any trust whatsoever in the good intentions of the United States. Essentially, the US government in recent years has “forgotten” that good relations with foreign great powers are fundamentally based on reciprocity. Ironically, this was understood well by most American presidents of the Cold War era, and from Nixon to George H.W. Bush, American administrations crafted a strategy that allowed for the thawing of relations during the détente era and, in due course, the essentially peaceful decline and fall of the Soviet Empire. In more recent years, although (indeed, probably because) Russia presents a vastly-diminished threat to the United States, American policy toward that country has had the subtlety of a sledgehammer thrown off a skyscraper, with predictable results.

In Libya, the Obama Administration—alongside the British and French in a NATO operation—intervened to overthrow Muamar Qaddafi and created a failed state in the process. Qaddafi was monstrous, but the casualness with which NATO overthrew a legally sovereign government was appalling: despite the lessons of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Obama Administration had no serious plan to bring peace and stability to Libya. That broken state’s long coastline now is a source for huge numbers of refugees, as well as for whatever criminals and jihadists wish to enter Europe undetected by joining an uncontrolled human wave.

Pres. Obama’s later policy toward Syria was much more cautious, and he did not surrender to the temptation to overthrow Assad directly—an action which likely would have led to a mass butchery of Syria’s religious minorities, such as the Alawites, Christians, and Druze. American “leadership” in regard to Syria, however, otherwise has been confused and feckless. In a truly impressive diplomatic feat, the United States managed to maneuver itself into such a warped position that then-candidate Hilary Clinton—at a point in the campaign where it was political experts almost universally assumed she would be the next president—promised to use US military power to create a no-fly zone in Syria. In addition to violating the letter of international law (which Washington has done so often over the last quarter century that such rule-breaking now is barely notable), this radical step ultimately could have resulted in Russian and American pilots engaging in air-to-air combat, despite the fact that both Moscow and Washington share many common goals in Syria. However, US diplomacy has degenerated so badly over recent decades that it now is prudent to assume that American policy not only will make cooperation with other powerful countries in resolving regional conflicts difficult or impossible but likely will turn them into global crises.

In the Pacific Rim, US strategic performance has been mediocre, albeit less egregious than it has been in the Greater Middle East and North Africa. Perhaps the most important current challenge to world order is adapting the global system to reflect China’s strikingly rapid economic and military rise in a healthy manner. Western, especially American, political and economic ideas and preferences shaped the present global systems laws, organizations, and other essential elements. Convincing Beijing to continue to accept the basic premises of that system would be a delicate process under the best of circumstances. As a rising power whose future behavior is difficult to predict, the comfortable and longstanding belief of many American policymakers that China must continue work to preserve the current international order because it fears instability appear increasingly hollow.

Instead, as China has grown more powerful, it has become increasingly willing to reject that order by, for example, pressing its claim to control almost the entirety of the South China Sea, regardless of the fact that this is, by any reasonable reading of history and the spirit of international maritime law, rather preposterous. That China’s leaders show no discernable embarrassment over this fact itself is a reflection of the degree of international disorder. After all, if Washington (and Moscow and, in its own peculiar fashion, Brussels) feel no need to show due caution and maturity in assessing the reasonableness of their foreign policy stances in a multipolar world whose major powers have radically different political philosophies and security needs, why should Beijing?

Of course, even if the United States were eminently reasonable, Moscow and Beijing, among others, might well remain intransigent. However, that currently is only a theoretical concern: the last US president who consistently paid reasonable deference to the interests of other major states left office in 1993. Moreover, the dispiriting record discussed above does not even address numerous other US strategic failings, such as its: tendency to treat Central American and Caribbean countries as little more than bit players in its futile war on narcotics; dysfunctional relationships with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey, and, increasingly, numerous European Union countries; and failed effort to prevent North Korean nuclear acquisition which now have transformed into haphazard attempts to control a nuclear-armed rogue state.

The United States presently lacks the capability to act as the chief architect of international peace and order. Thus far, continuing (but rapidly diminishing) US military power has kept the illusion of a functioning order alive, but the grave instability undermining global security grows ever-worse. Brilliant though Washington may have been at crafting an international order in the 1940s, domestic and international circumstances now are radically different. At present, Washington’s self-image as the global guarantor of world order is close to the opposite of the truth: however unwittingly, no state has been a more effective agent of chaos over the last quarter century. Every year that it continues to cling to fantasies of unipolar leadership, the global situation grows more grave. If present trends are not reversed, a great power war probably will occur—the present “pseudo-international order” is being placed under ever more pressure, and when it breaks, it likely will do so very quickly and catastrophically.

Whatever its excesses, the Trump Administration’s actions are merely a symptom of the illness that has transformed the US government from the preeminent guardian of world order to a sower of global chaos. That illness long preceded the Trump Administration and, sadly, likely will endure after he leaves office. Escaping this cycle requires, first, a recognition that the 1990s “golden age” of US global dominance never will return: as long as they are in thrall to the “myth of indispensability,” American foreign policy elites will never see the world clearly. Having done this, they would be able to move to the next step of seriously discussing with other major powers—including ones, mostly importantly Russia and China, which presently have a poor relationship with the United States—how they might cooperate to create a global system suited to the conditions of this century.

Unfortunately, at present there is very little willingness within the US foreign policy elite to acknowledge how its past hubris brought about present disasters, much less to act on that knowledge. Rather than focusing obsessively on whatever Twitter tempest the current president may create on a given day, those who consider themselves thoughtful observers of US foreign policy should turn their attention to the “policy cancers” that have made such absurdities possible. Unless those are addressed, the US government will continue to stumble from one disaster to the next until it finally, inevitably meets the “big one,” whatever that may prove to be. At that point, it will be far too late to correct course—the Titanic will have met its iceberg.

About the author:
*Dr. C. Dale Walton
is an Associate Professor of International Relations at Lindenwood University. He is the author of several publications including Geopolitics and the Great Powers in the 21st Century published by Routledge in 2009.

Source:
This article was published by Modern Diplomacy

Viewing all 73339 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images