By Amit Cowshish*

It may sound incredible but, according to official statistics, the number of fighter aircraft squadrons with the Indian Air Force (IAF) has gone up from 25 in 20141 to 33 in 2017.2 This has brought the IAF closer to the authorised strength of 42 squadrons, although the gap could widen again if induction of new aircraft does not keep pace with the inevitable de-induction of old ones.

It is becoming increasingly certain that this gap is sought to be bridged to a large extent by acquiring single-engine fighter aircraft, in addition to the HAL-built Light Combat Aircraft Tejas. Presently, Lockheed Martin and SAAB are the only two foreign manufacturers in the race in the single-engine aircraft category. Both have offered to make their products in India for which they have already signed agreements with the Tata Advanced Systems Limited (TASL)3 and the Adani Group,4 respectively.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has also set the ball rolling by issuing the Request for Information (RFI) to these two companies.5 But this is as good as it gets, for RFI is just the first of the eleven stages through which every procurement programme has to pass before the deal is signed. Each of these stages carries within it the potential to derail the programme.

Just to refresh memory, the programme for acquisition of 126 Medium Multi-role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) was aborted after more than three years of commercial negotiations. This incidentally is the penultimate stage before final approval is accorded by the competent financial authority to award the contract.

Considering that acquisition of single-engine aircraft is susceptible to all the vulnerabilities of the existing procurement procedure, it is somewhat puzzling that MoD should have decided to adopt the strategic partnership (SP) model for this programme.

Apart from the fact that any new model throws up numerous challenges when it is implemented for the first time, the success of the ragtag SP model is critically dependent on identification of the Indian companies which could be invited as prime vendors to manufacture the aircraft in India with the help of technology transfer from foreign manufacturers of the platforms chosen by the MoD.

The process of identifying the Indian companies has not even begun. Even if it is assumed that this process will go through smoothly despite all odds, the pre-emptive tie-ups by the two main contenders in the single-engine aircraft programme with Indian companies have rendered this exercise redundant. It will be surprising if these agreements would permit Lockheed Martin and SAAB to tie-up with any other Indian company for manufacturing the aircraft in India.

This poses a problem because under the SP model, the Indian partners, identified by the MoD as potential strategic partners, are required to approach the manufacturers of the platform, chosen by the MoD in a separate exercise, and enter into a legal agreement with the latter before submitting the bids. As things stand today, the two Indian companies with which Lockheed Martin and SAAB have entered into legal agreements have become their potential strategic partners by default.

This should not bother the MoD. In fact, it should be welcomed for it saves MoD the trouble of having to identify the potential strategic partners and to convince the foreign vendors to get into production arrangements with them within the existing policy framework which allows FDI only up to 49 per cent on the automatic route.

It would be frivolous to question the wisdom of the already sealed tie-ups. The foreign companies would not have gone ahead unless they were absolutely certain that their Indian partners will be able to deliver what is expected of both of them under the SP model. More to the point, it should be a big relief for MoD that they have joined hands with the Indian companies of their choice without seeking any special dispensation in regard to control over their management.

As an added advantage, these tie-ups help in cutting short the time that will otherwise have to be given to the potential strategic partners – after they are identified by the MoD – to tie up with the foreign companies.. However, in the event of the MoD not recognising the tie-ups already formed, this could end up creating legal difficulties if the main contenders are forced into new arrangements with other Indian companies.

For sure, this problem may not arise if TASL and the Adani Group get selected as potential strategic partners through an unpredictable and laborious selection process. But what will be the point of it all? On the contrary, MoD can take a short route to issuing the Request for Proposal (RFP) if the validity of the tie-ups is acknowledged by it.

This also opens up the possibility of categorising the acquisition programme under the ’Buy and Make (Indian)’ category or the time-tested ‘Buy and Make’ category. In essence, the difference between the two is this: under the former category the RFP is issued to only Indian vendors; and under the latter category it is issued to foreign vendors. The same end-results can be achieved under either of these categories.

Of the two, however, the ‘Buy and Make’ category seems more appropriate in the present case because the success of the entire project hinges on the conduct of the foreign manufacturer, be it with regard to transfer of technology, quality assurance, maintenance, and the like, for which it will be jointly responsible under the terms of the contract along with the Indian partner.

It is difficult to visualise any objective that cannot be achieved under the ‘Buy and Make’ category but which can be achieved only under the ‘Buy and Make (Indian)’ category or by adopting the SP model for this acquisition programme.

In any case, the tricky part will be the drafting of the RFP in a way that serves the objective of the programme, which should primarily be to ensure that the Indian company is not only able to manufacture and maintain the aircraft but is also in a position to undertake its life extension/up-gradation in future without being unduly dependent on the foreign manufacturer or being constrained by IPR issues.

To illustrate, rather than specifying the scope, range and depth of technology required to be transferred by the foreign manufacturer, the RFP could simply seek information as regards the technologies and capabilities that the manufacturer will not be able to transfer as also the reasons for being unable to do so.

The selection of the foreign company should be linked to the MoD being satisfied by the reasons proffered, and assessment as to whether the IAF can live with such denial of technology or capability, and what impact it will have on manufacturing/life-extension/up-gradation of the platform by the Indian company in future.

It should also be possible to compress the time required for carrying out the trials if the platforms are trial-evaluated only in respect of the parameters which have been added to it by the manufacturers after these platforms were last evaluated in the context of the now-aborted programme for the acquisition of 126 Medium Multi-role aircraft, provided it is technically feasible to do so.

All these measures will help MoD leapfrog to the commercial negotiation stage and, with some bold decision-making, even to the contract signing stage much before the end of the next financial year, which is effectively all the time that is available before the next general elections. It goes without saying that all this trouble will be worth the while only if there is a reasonable certainty of the programme not being stymied by the funds-crunch.

About the author:
*Amit Cowshish is a former Financial Advisor (Acquisition), Ministry of Defence and presently a Distinguished Fellow with the Indian Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses. Views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IDSA or of the Government of India.

Source:
This article was published by IDSA

Notes:

• 1. Standing Committee on Defence (16th Lok Sabha), Report No 4, submitted to the Lok Sabha on 22.12.2014, accessible at http://164.100.47.193/lsscommittee/Defence/16_Defence_4.pdf, para 2.8, page 16
• 2. Standing Committee on Defence (16th Lok Sabha), Report No 29, submitted to the Lok Sabha on 09.03.2017, accessible at http://164.100.47.193/lsscommittee/Defence/16_Defence_29.pdf, para 3.19
• 3. Lockheed Martin signs pact with Tata to make F-16 planes in India, the Hindustan Times, 19.06.2017, accessible at http://www.hindustantimes.com/business-news/lockheed-martin-signs-pact-w…
• 4. Dinakar Peri, ‘SAAB ties up with Adani Group to manufacture Gripen in India’, the Hindu, 01.09.2017, accessible at http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/saab-ties-up-with-adani-group-to-m…
• 5. Rohan Ramesh, ‘Aero India 2017: Gripen tussle between SAAB abd Lockheed Martin’, the Deccan Chronicle, 07.02.017, accessible at http://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/in-other-news/070217/aero-india-20…

The ICT supply chain in India is only as strong as its weakest link: the end user. If the user is from rural India, with a limited understanding of the devices and transactions she accesses, her device is a point of vulnerability.

By Samir Saran

Crimes in cyberspace, by one estimate, now cost the global economy $445 billion a year. Cyber insecurity is now a global risk no different from the warming climate or forced displacement. Is such insecurity a business risk or a “public bad”? If the security of digital infrastructure is viewed as a business risk, who should mitigate it? Should states be responsible for the integrity of networks and data within their territories, failing which they will be classified as “risky” to do business in in the digital economy? Were cyber insecurity treated as a “public bad”, governments could justifiably conclude that vulnerabilities in one device or platform affect an entire ecosystem, and create a liability regime that shifts the burden on the private sector.

These issues are important to ponder as the Digital India programme and demonetisation encourage the rapid adoption of digital payments technologies. It is not only difficult to assess the “risk” of transacting in the digital economy, but also determine who such risks should be absorbed by. For instance, a high-end device may be able to offer security on the back of its tightly controlled supply chain, but what if an end user, by opening the door to a hidden exploit, compromised its operating system?

Three crucial trends will decisively influence the future of cyber security — the centralisation of data, the arrival of connected devices, and the rapid adoption of digital payments technologies. Centralised control over data can make access to databases easier and more vulnerable to attacks. The Internet of Things (IoT) ecosystem is set to explode, with more than 24 billion devices expected to be connected to the internet by 2019. The sheer scale, size and diversity of the IoT environment makes risk difficult to measure.

Perhaps the most important factor is the scale and speed at which digital payments have been adopted across the spectrum of transactions. Payment gateways work the same for all users irrespective of the volume or commodities/services transacted, but they are accessed on devices that vary greatly in their ability to protect data. How would insurers gauge the risk inherent in such a diversified market? Consider then, these key questions and conundrums.

First, if cyberspace is a global commons, will the socialisation of “bad” follow the “privatisation of profits”?

Unlike the environment, the oceans or outer space, digital spaces are not discovered — they are created. Cyber insecurity has been made out to be a global threat but the fact remains that the economic gains from securing digital spaces still accrue to a few countries and corporations. Do developed markets have a common but differentiated responsibility to secure digital spaces? If it is the responsibility of all, can developing countries also get a share of the economic gains from electronic commerce?

Second, cybersecurity is a private service — how can we make it a public good?

Digital spaces are common to all, but the provision of their security is increasingly guaranteed by the private sector. This is in stark contrast to governance models in emerging markets, where the state underwrites law and order. How can the public and private sectors work together to provide this common good?

Third, India is moving towards security by identity, but many advanced economies believe security comes through anonymity. Are we on the wrong side of history?

Encryption is becoming the norm in advanced economies, as a result of which data is increasingly out of the reach of law enforcement agencies. On the other hand, India has moved towards biometric identification programmes that place a premium on identity. The “Aadhaar impulse” is driven by a requirement to target beneficiaries effectively, but without strong data protection regulations, the digital economy would be less than secure.

Fourth, if cash-based systems, ATMs and payment gateways are increasingly vulnerable to cyber-attacks, are “distributed ledger technologies” going to make governments adopt cryptocurrencies?

Blockchain and other technologies that “crowdsource” the authentication of online transactions using bitcoins are more difficult to target, because they are by their very nature, distributed ledgers. Will the increasing insecurity of the fintech ecosystem push us towards cryptocurrencies?

Fifth, cyber security is an expensive proposition in advanced economies, where the most sophisticated instruments are also assumed to be the safest. How can India apply its famed “frugal innovation” in this space, and protect the user while providing affordable access to the internet?

The ICT supply chain in India is only as strong as its weakest link: the end user. If the user is from rural India, with a limited understanding of the devices and transactions she accesses, her device is a point of vulnerability. If the device itself is “low-end”, which places a premium on cost over security, this forms a lethal mix that endangers the security of all users in the ecosystem. India cannot afford a false separation between access and security in digital spaces, as the qualitative nature of access will determine ICT security for a billion people.

Sixth, who determines the risk of transacting on the internet, and how?

If transactions in cyberspace will invariably carry an element of risk, who will guarantee them? The buyer, seller or intermediary? As in the case of shipping, will we see a form of cyber-insurance applied to cover the risk of malicious attacks online?

Developments in cyber security leads one to surmise that economies will soon be subject to a risk-assessment based on the integrity of their networks. Risk-based assessments offer predictive value and guarantees of stability to businesses, but they should not perpetuate inequities that exist offline.

Limited means to enhance cybersecurity in developing economies should not set back investments in the digital economy, which in turn create a vicious cycle rendering the overall ecosystem insecure. The international community must articulate ways in which such risks can be mitigated, and facilitate access in emerging markets to technology and finance that generate investments in cybersecurity.

This article originally appeared in Hindustan Times.

Scientists have found a previously unsuspected place where radioactive material from the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant disaster has accumulated–in sands and brackish groundwater beneath beaches up to 60 miles away. The sands took up and retained radioactive cesium originating from the disaster in 2011 and have been slowly releasing it back to the ocean.

“No one is either exposed to, or drinks, these waters, and thus public health is not of primary concern here,” the scientists said in a study published October 2 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. But “this new and unanticipated pathway for the storage and release of radionuclides to the ocean should be taken into account in the management of coastal areas where nuclear power plants are situated.”

The research team–Virginie Sanial, Ken Buesseler, and Matthew Charette of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and Seiya Nagao of Kanazawa University–hypothesize that high levels of radioactive cesium-137 released in 2011 were transported along the coast by ocean currents. Days and weeks after the accident, waves and tides brought the cesium in these highly contaminated waters onto the coast, where cesium became “stuck” to the surfaces of sand grains. Cesium-enriched sand resided on the beaches and in the brackish, slightly salty mixture of fresh water and salt water beneath the beaches.

But in salt water, cesium no longer “sticks” to the sand. So when more recent waves and tides brought in salty seawater from the ocean, the brackish water underneath the beaches became salty enough to release the cesium from the sand, and it was carried back into the ocean.

“No one expected that the highest levels of cesium in ocean water today would be found not in the harbor of the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant, but in the groundwater many miles away below the beach sands,” said Sanial.

The scientists estimated that the amount of contaminated water flowing into the ocean from this brackish groundwater source below the sandy beaches is as large as the input from two other known sources: ongoing releases and runoff from the nuclear power plant site itself, and outflow from rivers that continue to carry cesium from the fallout on land in 2011 to the ocean on river-borne particles. All three of these ongoing sources are thousands of times smaller today compared with the days immediately after the disaster in 2011.

The team sampled eight beaches within 60 miles of the crippled Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant between 2013 and 2016. They plunged 3- to 7-foot-long tubes into the sand, pumped up underlying groundwater, and analyzed its cesium-137 content. The cesium levels in the groundwater were up to 10 times higher than the levels found in seawater within the harbor of the nuclear power plant itself. In addition, the total amount of cesium retained more than 3 feet deep in the sands is higher than what is found in sediments on the seafloor offshore of the beaches.

Cesium has a long half-life and persists in the environment. In their analyses of the beaches, the scientists detected not only cesium-137, which may have come from the Dai-ichi plant or from nuclear weapons tested in the 1950s and1960s, but also cesium-134, a radioactive form of cesium that can only come only from the 2011 Fukushima accident.

The researchers also conducted experiments on Japanese beach samples in the lab to demonstrate that cesium did indeed “stick” to sand grains and then lost their “stickiness” when they were flushed with salt water.

“It is as if the sands acted as a ‘sponge’ that was contaminated in 2011 and is only slowly being depleted,” said Buesseler.

“Only time will slowly remove the cesium from the sands as it naturally decays away and is washed out by seawater,” said Sanial.

“There are 440 operational nuclear reactors in the world, with approximately one-half situated along the coastline,” the study’s authors wrote. So this previously unknown, ongoing, and persistent source of contamination to coastal oceans “needs to be considered in nuclear power plant monitoring and scenarios involving future accidents.”

Gay and bisexual men making less than $30,000 a year and without a university degree have more than five times the odds of attempting suicide compared with their more advantaged peers, according to new research from the University of British Columbia.

“Less-educated men might feel a greater sense of hopelessness because they see few options to improve their lot, compared to their peers, who could address their poverty by using their education,” said study lead author and UBC postdoctoral research fellow Olivier Ferlatte.

Researchers also found that bisexual men who were in a relationship with a woman were less likely to attempt suicide compared with those who were single or had male partners.

“For a bisexual man, having a female partner is probably protective in that it shields them from the stress of being a member of a ‘visible minority’ and from potential discrimination,” said Ferlatte, who works in the men’s health research program at UBC’s school of nursing.

Ferlatte and colleagues from the non-profit Community-Based Research Centre for Gay Men’s Health evaluated data from a national health survey of 8,382 men who have sex with men. Analysis focused on 145 men who reported having attempted suicide in the past 12 months.

“The number of gay and bisexual men who die by suicide is comparable to those who die from HIV/AIDS, yet we know little about the factors contributing to this health crisis – and particularly about how social factors and suicidal behaviours intersect,” said Ferlatte. “Our study is the first in Canada to analyze how socioeconomic factors like income and education are associated with suicide risks for these men.”

Study co-author and UBC nursing professor John Oliffe says the results could be used to design better suicide prevention programs.

“As gay and bisexual men are not affected by suicide equally, interventions should acknowledge the diversity of experiences in this community. We have to make sure that messages are relevant and available to men with lower income and education levels. Information about suicide, mental health and available resources must be specific to their needs and easy to understand,” said Oliffe.

On October 6, Cardinal George Pell will appear in a Melbourne court on trumped up sexual abuse charges. The media will no doubt turn its attention to a report issued in August by the Centre for Global Research at RMIT University, Melbourne, “Child Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church.” It offers what it calls an “interpretive review of the literature and public inquiry reports” on the subject. Its reach is wide: it offers biblical and historical analysis, and covers many nations.

By any measure, the report is deeply flawed and highly politicized. It is also poorly edited—the exact wording on various subjects is repeated several times. Quite frankly, it is one of the most sophomoric attempts to deal with the issue of clergy sexual abuse ever published.

The authors of the report are two embittered ex-priests. Their goal, it is plain to see, is to justify a state takeover of the Catholic Church.

Desmond Cahill is lead author. In 2012, he testified before a committee of the Parliament of Victoria on the subject of sexual abuse. His agenda includes many reforms, ranging from an end to mandatory priestly celibacy to a fundamental restructuring of the priesthood. Most of all he wants to neuter the Church’s authority. “The church is incapable of reform,” he declares, “so the state will have to do it.”

Co-author Peter Wilkinson was one of the founders of the dissident Australian group Catholics for Renewal. Writing in the online publication Catholica, he expressed “a growing conviction that the Church must now rely on outside secular authorities to give it moral guidance.”

In this report, the two authors use similar language. They state that “Catholic bishops around the world have been found to be incapable of addressing the problem of clerical sexual abuse on their own.” They also argue that the Holy See “has never committed itself to resolving the issue of child sexual abuse within the ranks of the Catholic Church.” Furthermore, the “Code of Canon Law has not been and remains clearly not up to the task of dealing with the sex abuse scandal.”

All of this is done to justify state control of the Church.

There is much about the Church they find objectionable. For example, they oppose the autonomy of diocesan bishops and the “monarchy” of the pope. They find the seal of the confessional extremely problematic, and manage to link it to the abuse scandal. Ditto for celibacy. In both cases, the link they establish is pitifully weak, if not non-existent.

This is particularly telling given that just recently Australia’s Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse recommended that the government overrule the seal of the confessional when it comes to reporting sexual abuse of minors. “Clergy should not be able to refuse to report because the information was received during confession,” the Commission stated. Both of the men were consultants to this Royal Commission.

The Commission’s final report is due in December. It will be interesting to see if the enthusiasm these two consultants have for a state takeover of the Church is one of the recommendations.

To make its case against the seal of confession, the authors seize upon the 1962 Vatican document, Crimen Sollicitationis (the Crime of Solicitation). “Priests often identified potential victims and their vulnerability in the confessional, leading them to begin the grooming process.”

This interpretation is beyond flawed: there is absolutely no support for it in the document. In fact, the policy that was crafted not only did not give a priest protection if he engaged in sexual solicitation, it allowed for him to be thrown out of the priesthood. It also made it clear that if the penitent were to tell someone what happened in the confessional (perhaps another priest), he or she had 30 days to report the incident to the bishop or face excommunication. If anything, this proves how serious the Vatican was about an offense—it threatened to punish the penitent for not turning in the guilty priest.

The authors know that if celibacy were the cause of sexual abuse, there never would have been a sudden increase in offenses beginning in the 1960s, so the best they can do is to say it plays a role “when combined with other risk factors.” The truth is their opposition to celibacy reflects their politics, not the data.

In fact, Cahill’s push for ending mandatory priestly celibacy goes back more than 40 years; he links it to his demand for “a fundamental restructuring of the (priestly) ministry.” He made this statement in 1976 in a letter explaining his resignation from the priesthood. Thus, it had nothing to do with the sexual abuse of minors. Of course, if the Church doesn’t make this change, he is quite content with the state authorizing it.

In 2012, Cahill’s politics were featured again when he described the Church as “a holy and unholy mess, except where religious sisters or laypeople are in charge, for example schools and welfare agencies.” He called for “a religious sister with expertise in psychology and religious formation” to chair a group that would “review the selection and education of candidates for the priesthood.” He also called for a national or archdiocesan synod, “with full lay involvement…to deal with the theology and practice of the Catholic priesthood in and for the new millennium.” Anyone but the bishops.

Wilkinson also wants more lay involvement in the selection of bishops, as well as  “full gender balance” in running every aspect of Church governance. Indeed, the dissident group he helped found, Catholics for Renewal, sent an “Open Letter” to Pope Benedict XVI in 2011 deploring the “patriarchal attitude towards women within our church.” The group even went so far as to challenge papal infallibility.

All of this background information is necessary to evaluate how the authors explain the causes of the sexual abuse scandal. Given their ideology, it is not surprising to learn that nowhere do they confront the overwhelming evidence which shows that most of the sexual abuse of minors was committed by homosexuals. This is typical of dissidents in the U.S. as well as Australia.

We know from the best data in the United States that 81 percent of the victims were male and 78 percent were postpubescent. When men have sex with men, that’s called homosexuality. Furthermore, the 2011 report by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, cited by Cahill and Wilkinson, showed that in the United States less than five percent of the sexual abuse was committed by pedophiles. In short, there never was a pedophilia scandal in the Catholic Church—it was driven mostly by homosexuals.

So how do the authors get around the obvious? The Church’s “terrorisation” against masturbation, they contend, caused offending priests and religious to forego masturbation and opt instead for sexual abuse of minors; this reflected their “struggle for sexual purity.” But if this bizarre explanation were true—the “If I can’t masturbate, I’ll settle for raping a minor” thesis—why does it apparently apply mostly to homosexual priests, and not, by and large, to heterosexual priests?

In several parts of the report, Cahill and Wilkinson seem aware that homosexual priests are the real problem, but they don’t have the courage to say so. So they blame the Church’s “homophobic environment,” which they say is especially prevalent in the seminaries. It is homophobia, they claim, which denied “those with a gay orientation the moral and psychological space to successfully and maturely work through their sexual identity.”

But if homophobia accounts for the sexual abuse of minors, why didn’t the scandal  take place in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s? After all, would not everyone agree that that would be the most likely time, in recent history, for so-called homophobia to balloon?  Similarly, why did the explosion in priestly sexual abuse take place when sexual norms in the seminaries were relaxed, if not abandoned altogether? Paradoxically, even the authors offer evidence that makes our point, not theirs.

Citing the 2011 John Jay report, they readily admit that “Men ordained in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s did not generally abuse before the 1960s or 1970s. Men ordained in the 1960s and the early 1970s engaged in abuse behaviour much more quickly after their entrance into ministry.”

Apparently, Cahill and Wilkinson have a hard time connecting the dots. Prior to the sexual revolution of the 1960s, which hit every institution in the Western world, including the Catholic Church, sexual abuse was not a major problem. Why? Precisely because of the reigning ethic of sexual reticence. It is when the lid came off that the rate of sexual abuse soared.

In other words, the more tolerant the Church became of homosexuality, and the less “homophobic” it became, the more homosexual priests began preying on young men. Not to acknowledge this is intellectually dishonest.

The authors are so thoroughly compromised that they make the positively absurd statement that “the majority of offenders were heterosexual even if they abused young boys.” This is twice wrong: (a) most of the victims were not “young boys”—they were adolescents, and (b) it is delusional to say that same-sex acts are acts of heterosexuality.

Finally, the authors take an unfair shot at Cardinal George Pell. “One reason why the Australian Church was never able to develop a national strategy accepted by all bishops was that the largest archdiocese of Melbourne, headed by Archbishop (as he then was) George Pell,” they say, “was determined to develop its own strategy and policies.”

In fact, Pell had developed the Melbourne Protocol because he was impatient with the failure of the Australian bishops to develop an effective national response. He was proactive in meeting his responsibility as a diocesan bishop to deal with the crisis.

It is not hard to conclude that Cahill and Wilkinson are not objective researchers. They have an agenda: They seek to destroy separation of church and state, allowing the government to police the Catholic Church. Only when the Church’s teachings and governing structure are changed to meet secular objectives, will these malcontents be satisfied. But not to worry, the Church has survived these power grabs before, and it will survive this one as well.

The media fraternity of India observed an unusual Gandhi Jayanti this time as scores of scribes across the country organized protest demonstrations in different locations with sole demand for ensuring security and justice to working journalists. Press clubs, journo-bodies and media organizations formed human chains, symbolic protests and also took out missiles in support of the demand.

The reason behind in demonstrating their angers on the birthday of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi on October 2 was the relentless violence against the journalists in different forms across the south Asian nation. With the spirit of Mahatma Gandhi, who was a dedicated journalist before emerging as India’s Father of the Nation, the media fraternity thus committed to defy all mental & physical challenges in their professional lives.

For any reason, the largest democracy in the globe remains an unsafe place for serious journalists irrespective of the regimes in power at New Delhi or any province capital. The populous country witnesses the murder of around five media persons annually and that has not been changed for decades. The land of Lord Bishnu and Bhagawan Buddha has also failed to resolve any of those journo-murder cases legally.

The month of September poured three shocking news of journo-murders in the country and the media fraternity along with their well-wishers have seemingly rediscovered the vulnerability for those scribes who pursue critical journalism. The year 2017 has witnessed the killing of eight journalists in nine months, but as usual the reactions to those killings from the authority and the public remain lukewarm.

It was only Kannada editor-journalist Gauri Lankesh’s murder on September 5 at her Bangaluru (earlier known as Bangalore) residence that aroused massive protests across the country. Publisher of Gauri Lankesh Patrike, a Kannada language newspaper in Karnataka of central India, Ms Gauri was shot dead by unidentified gunmen, following which strong reactions were observed not only from inside the country but also various international organizations.

A Left ideology inclined journalist Ms Gauri’s assassination tempted more civil society groups, which are predominantly against the Hindu nationalist ideologue like Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangha (RSS) along with Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP), to come to streets demanding justice. They were in hurry to make statements that the outspoken journalist was targeted by the ruling political elements as she used to criticize both RSS and BJP absolutely.

However, the Congress ruled Karnataka province government and its chief minister Siddaramaiah had a cordial relationship with Ms Gauri. Soon after her assassination, the province government chief announced her demise as a personal loss. But for reasons, best known to Siddaramaiah only, the chief minister’s reactions against the killer(s) of Ms Gauri, 55, were soft. So does the investigation process!

Protest-demonstrations were so loud that it inspired a Communist Party of India (Marxist) run Tripura government chief to personally join in a demonstration at Agartala. The chief minister Manik Sarkar’s participation in the protest program encouraged the media fraternity of northeast India and he was thoroughly appreciated for the gesture.

But when a young television scribe of Tripura itself was beaten to death by a mob, the same CPI (M) chief minister remained silent. The Agartala based journalists, while condemning the murder of Shantanu Bhowmik on September 20, had to raise voices for getting reactions from Sarkar. Even then the chief minister, also in charge of home portfolio, pronounced a spongy reaction towards the incident.

However, the condemnations from carious national and international bodies were pouring against the brutal murder of Shantanu, 29, who used to work for an Agartala based Bengali-language cable news channel named Din-Raat. A series of protest programs were organized by various Indian media bodies across the country demanding justice to Shantanu’s bereaved mother and sister.

On the fateful day, Shantanu went to cover a program of Indigenous People’s Front of Tripura (IPFT), which was pretesting against the ruling CPI (M) and slowly it turned violent. Claimed to have supports from the tribal population of Tripura, the IPFT maintains its demand for a separate homeland (read Twipraland) for the tribal people out of Tripura. The party, which has seemingly a political understanding with the BJP, continued its violent protests since the last few years.

The IPFT protest program at Mandwai of west Tripura, bordering Bangladesh, soon witnessed the arrival of many cadres belonged to the CPI (M)’s tribal wing Tripura Rajya Upajati Ganamukti Parishad (TRUGP) at the location. Both the parties had already engaged in violent clashes on the previous day at the same location.

So the situation got charged and finally members of both IPFT and TRUGP turned aggressive and later violent. Shantanu started shooting the violent activities with his mobile phone, as his lens-man avoided the professional camera for fear of abusive reactions from the agitators. As Shantanu started capturing the visuals of IPFT members attacking the opponent & police and also damaging vehicles on the roadside, he was asked initially to stop recording.

Later the protesters chased him for the phone and some of them turned unruly to finally attack Shantanu with stick-rods and other sharp items. Blood soaked Shantanu was rescued and sent to the hospital by the police, but till then he stopped breathing. His phone was however missing, which was also revealed by the State police chief Akhil Kumar Shukla.

Meanwhile, Shantanu’s killing was condemned and condoled by various international forums like the New York based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), the Pars based Reporters sans/without Borders (RSF), the Brussels based International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) etc, where everyone asked the Tripura government to go for a ‘thorough investigation’ into the death of Shantanu to bring those responsible to justice and also ensure the future safety of journalists.

Amnesty International, in its condemnation statement pointed out that the killing of journalists cannot become the order of the day. State governments in India must do everything in their power to prevent journalists from becoming targets for their viewpoints or affiliations. Authorities must end impunity for these killings, it added. Condemning the killing of Shantanu, UNESCO director-general Irina Bokova said, “I trust the authorities will conduct an investigation into this killing and bring its perpetrators to justice.”

In India, all influential media bodies like Indian Newspaper Society, Editors’ Guild of India, Broadcast Editors’ Association, Press Club of India, Indian Women’s Press Corps, Federation of Press Clubs in India besides various journalist unions strongly condemned the murder of Shantanu and urged the Manik Sarkar government help delivering justice. Even the Press Council of India, a quasi-judicial body, took note of Shantanu’s killing and sought a report from the Tripura government.

All media bodies of northeast India came put with the protest demonstrations against the killing of Shantanu and demanding a high level probe (preferably by Central Bureau of Investigation).

Extending moral supports to the Tripura journalists for justice, the media bodies asked the government to compensate the family of Shantanu adequately. They also urged the Union government in New Delhi to formulate a national action plan for delivering earliest justices to journo-victim families.

According to the RSF , India is ranked 136th among 180 countries in its World Press Freedom Index (2017) barometer, which is just ahead of its neighbors like Pakistan (139th), Sri Lanka (141), Bangladesh (146) and China (176). Norway topped the list where India’s neighbors including Bhutan (84), Nepal (100), Maldives (117), Afghanistan (120), Burma (131) etc are ahead of it. One party ruled North Korea (180) is at the bottom of the list, where Vietnam and China were placed at 175th and 176th positions respectively.

The string of India journo-killings began with Hari Prakash (killed on January 2) and the trend continued with the murder of Brajesh Kumar Singh (January 3), Shyam Sharma (May 15), Kamlesh Jain (May 31), Surender Singh Rana ( July 29), Ms Gauri, Shantanu and KJ Singh (September 23). India lost six journalists to assailants in 2016, which was preceded by five cases in 2015. It witnessed murders of two scribes in 2014, but the year 2013 reported as many as 11 journalists’ murders.

Earlier this year, the Sisters of St. Brigid invited me to speak at their Feile Bride celebration in Kildare, Ireland. The theme of the gathering was: “Allow the Voice of the Suffering to Speak.”

The Sisters have embraced numerous projects to protect the environment, welcome refugees and nonviolently resist wars. I felt grateful to reconnect with people who so vigorously opposed any Irish support for U.S. military wars in Iraq. They had also campaigned to end the economic sanctions against Iraq, knowing that hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children suffered and died for lack of food, medicine and clean water. This year, the Sisters asked me to first meet with local teenagers who would commemorate another time of starvation imposed by an imperial power.

Joe Murray, who heads Action from Ireland (Afri), arranged for a class from Dublin’s Beneavin De La Salle College to join an Irish historian in a field adjacent to the Dunshaughlin work house on the outskirts of Dublin.

Such workhouses dot the landscape of Ireland and England. In the mid-19th century, during the famine years, they were dreaded places. People who went there knew they were near the brink of death due to hunger, disease, and dire poverty. Ominously, behind the workhouse lay the graveyard.

The young men couldn’t help poking a bit of fun, at first; what in the world were they doing out in a field next to an imposing building, their feet already soaked in the wet grass as a light rain fell? They soon became quite attentive.

We learned that the Dunshaughlin workhouse had opened in May of 1841. It could accommodate 400 inmates. During the famine years, many hundreds of people were crowded in the stone building in dreadful conditions. An estimated one million people died during a famine that began because of blighted potato crops but became an “artificial famine” because Ireland’s British occupiers lacked the political will to justly distribute resources and food. Approximately one million Irish people who could no longer feed themselves and subsist on the land emigrated to places like the U.S. But seeking refuge wasn’t an option for those who couldn’t afford the passage. Evicted by landowners, desperate people arrived at workhouses like the one we were visiting. Our guide read us the names of people from the surrounding area who had been buried in a mass grave behind the workhouse, their bodies unidentified. They were victims of what the Irish call “Greta Mor”—”The Great Hunger.”

It was recently, as I tried to better understand the migration of desperate and starving people now crossing from East Africa into Yemen, that I began to realize how great the hunger was. During that same period, in the latter half of the 19th century, there were 30 million people, possibly fifty million, dying of famine in northern China, India, Brazil and the Maghreb. The terrible suffering of these unknown people, whose plight never made it into the history books, was a sharp reminder to me of Western exceptionalism. As researched and described in Mike Davis’s book, “The Late Victorian Holocaust,” El Nino and La Nina climate changes caused massive crop failures. What food could be harvested was often sent abroad. Railroad infrastructure could have been used to send food to people dying of hunger, but wealthier people chose to ignore the plight of the starving. The Great Hunger, fueled by bigotry and greed, had been greater than any of its victims knew. And now, few in the prosperous West are aware of the terror faced by people in South Sudan, Somalia, northeast Nigeria, northern Kenya and Yemen. Millions of people cannot feed themselves or find potable water.

Countries in Africa which the U.S. has helped destabilize, such as Somalia, are convulsed in fighting which exacerbates effects of drought and drives helpless civilians toward points of hoped for refuge. Many have chosen a path of escape through the famine-torn country of Yemen. The U.S. has been helping a Saudi-led coalition to blockade and bomb Yemen since March of 2015. Sudanese fighters aligned with Saudi Arabia have been taking over cities along the Yemeni coast, heading northward. People trying to escape famine find themselves trapped amid vicious air and ground attacks.

In March, 2017, Stephen O’Brien, head of the UN’s Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, traveled to Yemen, Somalia, South Sudan and Northern Kenya. Since that trip, he has repeatedly begged the UN Security Council to help end the fighting and prevent conflict-driven famine conditions. Regarding Yemen, he wrote, in a July 12, 2017 statement to the UN Security Council that: “Seven million people, including 2.3 million malnourished (500,000 severely malnourished) children under the age of five, are on the cusp of famine, vulnerable to disease and ultimately at risk of a slow and painful death. Nearly 16 million people do not have access to adequate water, sanitation and hygiene, and more than 320,000 suspected cholera cases have been reported in all of the country’s governorates bar one.” This number has since risen to 850,000.

Ben Ehrenreich describes famine conditions along what the Israeli theorist Eyal Weizman calls the ‘conflict shoreline’, an expanding band of climate change-induced desertification that stretches through the Sahel and across the African continent before leaping the Gulf of Aden to Yemen. He notes that this vast territory, once the site of fierce resistance to colonial incursions, is now paying the heaviest price, in disastrous climate conditions, for the wealth of the industrialized north. As the deserts spread south, ever more dire conflicts can be expected to erupt, causing more people to flee.

Of a drought-stricken area of Somaliland, Ehrenreich writes: “People were calling this drought sima, ‘the leveller,’ because it affected all of the clans stretching across Somaliland and into Ethiopia to the west and Kenya to the south.”

“The women’s stories were almost all the same,” writes Ehrenreich, “differing only in the age and number of children sick, the number of animals they had lost and the number that survived. Hodan Ismail had lost everything. She left her husband’s village to bring her children here, where her mother lived, ‘to save them,’ she said. ‘When I got there, I saw that she had nothing either.’ The river and streams, their usual source of drinking water, had gone dry and they had no option but to drink from a shallow well at the edge of town. The water was making all the children sick.”

In 1993, at the Rio de Janeiro “Earth Summit,” delegates conveying the views of then-President George Bush Sr., voiced a refrain of the statement, “the American lifestyle is not up for negotiation.” U.S. demands of the summit incalculably restricted the changes to which it might have led. Representing President Bill Clinton six years later, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright defended planned bombardment of Iraq, saying “If we have to use force, it is because we are America; we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future, and we see the danger here to all of us.”

There is danger that must be recognized. The danger is real and the danger is spreading. Violence spreads the famine, and the famine will spread violence.

I find myself repulsed by assertions voicing U.S. exceptionalism, yet my own study and focus often omits histories and present realities which simply must be understood if we are to recognize the traumas our world faces. In relation to conflict-driven famines, it becomes even more imperative to resist the U.S. government’s allocation of 700 billion dollars to the Department of Defense. In the U.S., our violence, and our delusions of being indispensable stem from accepting a belief that our “way of life” is non-negotiable. Growing inequality, protected by menacing arsenals, paves a path to the graveyard: It is not a “way of life.” We still could acquire a great hunger: a transforming hunger to share justice with our planetary neighbors. We could shed familiar privileges and search for communal tools to preserve us from indifferent wealth and voracious imperial power. We could embrace the theme of the Irish sisters at their Feile Bride gathering: “Allow the Voice of the Suffering to Speak” and then choose action-based initiatives to share our abundance and lay aside, forever, the futility of war.

The Spanish consulting and technology firms Indra has completed the design, manufacturing and integration of critical elements of the radiofrequency system for the LIPAC prototype particle accelerator.

Located in the north of Japan, the accelerator is one of the most advanced anywhere in the world, according to Indra. Indra’s involvement, which includes providing technical assistance to support integration of the supplied systems, is framed under the international IFMIF-EVEDA project, a joint initiative between Japan and the European Union.

The initiative will mark a major scientific milestone on the roadmap toward construction of a large reactor capable of generating vast amounts of clean energy in a consistent and commercially viable manner, and one that can be replicated at different sites around the globe.

The ITER project is set to be the seed from which the ambitious IFMIF (International Fusion Materials Irradiation Facility) initiative will grow. The IFMIF program is subdivided into several pioneering projects. Among these, the IFMIF-EVEDA project focuses on verifying the facility’s principle technical aspects (via the construction of prototypes) and the development of detail engineering.

Indra technology, and the reliability of its solutions, have been a driving force behind the IFMIF-EVEDA project since 2008 in a number of areas: developing detailed design, manufacturing and incorporating eight radiofrequency modules to inject power into several of the accelerator’s cavities; specifying and supplying materials to connect the radiofrequency modules with the cavities; as well as other systems to ensure the correct functioning of subsystems and providing technical assistance and integration expertise.

The final stage of the IFMIF-EVEDA project is underway at the Rokkasho facilities, in the north of Japan, where the prototype is located. Indra staff are overseeing initiation of the advanced radiofrequency systems that have been deployed. The project is especially ground-breaking, as there are no other facilities currently working on irradiation tests capable of reliably simulating conditions inside a fusion reactor. Which is why the project represents a major step forward toward development of magnetic confinement fusion. Spain has already stated its interest in hosting the future accelerator, which will be built in the following stage of the IFMIF-DONES program.

The scientific community has great hopes for fusion as an inexhaustible source of energy with barely any environmental impact. It represents one of the major energy challenges for the coming decades. Thus, together with ITER, the IFMIF program could be key to proving that massive energy generation via nuclear fusion is not only possible, but commercially viable.

The failure of the Non-Proliferation Treaty’s (NPT) Review Conference to produce a document with a substantive consensus has convinced many Pakistani experts that the country’s leadership has made correct decisions on nuclear issues in the past.

The NPT Review Conference has been held after every five years since the treaty went into force in 1970. This year’s conference held at the UN headquarters in New York from April 27 to May 22 looked into the implementation of the Treaty’s provisions since 2010. Review conferences on four previous occasions: 1980, 1990, 1995, and 2005 – had failed to deliver a final declaration.

The failure to produce a consensus document at the 2015 conference has led to disappointment across the world. It was widely expected that steps to be taken for advancing the 64 point Action Plan, agreed at the 2010 conference, for promoting nuclear disarmament, nuclear non-proliferation and the peaceful uses of nuclear energy would be agreed upon. The opposition of the United States towards a plan for convening a conference on the establishment of the Middle East Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone and strong differences between nuclear weapon states and non-nuclear weapon states on the divisive issue of disarmament prevented the participating countries from agreeing on a final document.

One of the Pakistani nuclear strategists pointed out that Pakistan’s nuclear deterrent should be both “credible and symmetric” with its conventional and strategic capabilities and that “refinement of the nuclear capabilities should continue.” Ambassador Tariq Osman Hyder, who untill recently was a member of the Oversight Board for Strategic Export Controls, said the collapse of the NPT Review Conference was a setback to the developed countries, which had projected this flawed and discriminatory treaty as the linchpin of the non-proliferation regime.

Likewise, the future of disarmament is bleak. This has been said upon many forums in or the other way. The disarmament talks are no more something to believe. Besides many optimistic statements on the future of disbarment has been given on and off by the Western powers especially the US. Ironically, when the country who is itself into changing laws and norms of the rules being a custodian itself, one should not consider it intentions of achieving disarmament more than a bluff. Pakistan very rightly took the decision in not joining the NPT and then conducting nuclear tests in 1998. Regarding the disarmament issue, narrating about Pakistan’s position in the Conference on Disarmament (CD), it was not Pakistan, but the major western powers which were obstructing progress on nuclear disarmament.

Talking about the disarmament initiative, the contemporary situation of Russia and the US initiatives was assessed. The point of concern is Russia’s apprehensions on the reduction of nuclear warheads from their countries to 1000 warheads apiece. Since it is the strategic stability in between both countries, a precondition to reduce or cut down the number of nuclear warheads, Russia apprehends that the US is violating or undermining it by developing prompt global-strike systems, expanding its ballistic missile defense and opposing the draft treaty banning weapons in outer space. So, for initiating the disarmament talks again whether bilateral or multilateral, one needs to deal with it through new inter-governmental dynamics or by use of a creative diplomacy; this would positively an add on from the non-proliferation perspective too.

Certainly, the biggest challenge to the future of the non-proliferation regime was from the failure to progress on disarmament. ‘The international non-proliferation regime could “collapse” due to the “short sightedness” of the nuclear weapon states, who are unwilling to give up their hegemony.’

There should be a combined and holistic approach by both nuclear and non-nuclear weapon states for making the non-proliferation regime “non-discriminatory, flawless, effective, and universal”.

The international non-proliferation regime has not only remained inadequate while dealing with instances of proliferation, but has also undermined the objectives of the Article IV of the NPT on transfer of nuclear technology for exclusively peaceful purposes. The major example of which is the Indo-US nuclear deal. This was back in 2008 when the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) decision to lift the ban on nuclear trade with India was taken out. This step constituted a lofty blow to an already beleaguered Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) and global non-proliferation regime. The deal is also cause of promoting nuclear power, a prohibited and problematic technology; the emphasis on nuclear power is likely to deflect from the adoption of more ecologically sustainable sources of electricity generation.

As a part of the fresh bilateral efforts to further strengthen the bilateral ties, Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud will make a historic visit to Russia on October 4-7. The very first visit of a Saudi King (Salman Al Saud) to Russia will be historic, since, as Saudi Minister of Foreign Affairs Adel Al-Jubeir said, that would demonstrate the scale of the dialogue between the two states. The Minister stressed that the Russian and Saudi leaders have focused over the last few years on deepening and strengthening relations in numerous areas.

The visit to Russia will symbolize the extent of the relationship and consultations that take place between the two countries. “Our two countries are much more closely allied than some of the analysts…..try to portray it. We are both oil producers, we have an interest in a stable oil market. We have enhanced Russian investments in Saudi Arabia, Saudi investments in Russia. We have cultural, educational, scientific relations that we are developing. We are also working very closely in the area of security to counter extremism, to counter terrorism,” the Minister Al-Jubeir said, adding that the two countries had the same stance on the situation in the region and moving towards having a identical views on Syria as well.

The Saudi monarch’s groundbreaking trip to Moscow comes after Sergey Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, flew into Saudi Arabia for talks on September 10. Lavrov met with King Salman and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the Saudi heir to the throne who oversees energy and defence policy. After the talks, Lavrov said the Saudis had expressed support for so-called “de-escalation zones” in Syria, which were announced in May after a meeting between Russia, Turkey, and Iran.

Top Russian diplomat Lavrov and his Saudi counterpart Adel bin Ahmed al-Jubeir discussed bilateral relations in a phone call. “The foreign ministers of Russia and Saudi Arabia discussed topical issues of further development of mutually beneficial bilateral relations, including the schedule of respective contacts at various levels,” a statement said. Lavrov and al-Jubeir stressed that the promotion of bilateral relations would help ensure peace and stability at both regional and international arenas, according to the statement.

Russia has been requesting the king to make a trip to Moscow for cementing the relationships. At the end of September 2017, it was confirmed that King of Saudi Arabia Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud will pay a visit to Russia in early October 2017. The visit is to become the first time a Saudi monarch has ever travelled to Moscow in an official capacity.

In April, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel Jubeir confirmed that King Salman had accepted an invitation to come to Moscow, and the terms of his visit were being discussed. On June 21, Russian presidential aide Yury Ushakov said the sides had not agreed on the date of the visit as of yet. Earlier in September, an informed source said that the Saudi king would visit Moscow on October 4-7 to sign a number of documents. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov confirmed on September 21 that the preparation for the visit was underway.

Earlier, the Russian government hoped that Saudi Arabia would determine the date of Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud’s visit to Russia soon in the light of escalation of diplomatic crisis between Qatar and its neighbor states, a source from the Russian Foreign Ministry said. Earlier in the day, Kremlin said that Russian President Vladimir Putin discussed situation regarding Qatar with the Saudi King in a telephone conversation as the crisis around Doha does not promote the consolidation of efforts on the Syrian reconciliation and the fight against terrorism.

In an interview with media, Saudi Minister of Foreign Affairs Adel Al-Jubeir spoke about the forthcoming visit of Saudi King Salman Al Saud to Russia. An informed source said that the Saudi King would visit Moscow on October 4-7 for a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The same day, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov confirmed that the preparation for the visit was underway. “The ministers agreed to continue meaningful dialogue on the ways of resolving continuing Middle Eastern crises,” the Russian Foreign Ministry added.

Meanwhile, Russia is preparing for the maiden visit of Saudi King Salman Al Saud who will arrive in Moscow on October 4 to discuss the deepening cooperation between the two countries. The visit of Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud to Russia is currently being prepared, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said.

Diplomatic relations

The first country to establish full diplomatic relations with the Kingdom of Hejaz and Nejd (the name of the Saudi state until 1932) was the Soviet Union. However, relations cooled later on, with Saudi Arabia closing their legation in Moscow in 1938 and refusing to reestablish relations.

Diplomatic relations began in 1926 but did not take off as Riyadh was not inclined to be an ally of Communist Russia. Moreover, due to regular interference from Washington, relations cooled later on, with Saudi Arabia closing their legation in Moscow in 1938 and refusing to reestablish relations. Diplomatic relations were only reestablished after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the establishment of the Russian Federation. (Despite a lack of relations, about 20 Soviet Muslims were allowed to annually make the Hajj from 1946 until 1990 when liberalization allowed thousands of Soviet Muslims to attend) Relations were strained in the 1980s by Saudi support for the Mujahideen as a part of US led coalition during the Soviet occupational war in Afghanistan and the close alliance with the USA did not the relations to grow.

Despite a lack of relations, about 20 Soviet Muslims were allowed to annually make the Hajj from 1946 until 1990 when liberalization allowed thousands of Soviet Muslims to attend. Relations were strained in the 1980s by Saudi support for the Mujahideen during the Soviet war in Afghanistan and the close alliance with the USA.

King Abdullah’s visit to Russia in 2003, as Crown Prince, was an opening in high level contacts between the countries which did not have diplomatic ties from 1938 until 1990.
Russian President Vladimir Putin made sincere efforts to establish good relations with Riyadh and he met King Abdullah in Riyadh during a high level delegation visit on February 11–12, 2007. It was the first official visit for a Russian leader to the Kingdom. The visit was an opportunity for Moscow to improve its relations with Riyadh regarding various areas, including regional security issues, energy, trade, transportation, scientific cooperation and exchanges.

After the 2008 Georgia-Russia crisis, King Abdullah said that he had the full understanding of the Russian side on the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, but Saudi Arabia did not recognize the two regions yet.

In recent times, relations between the two countries became strained during the Syrian Civil War launched by the USA and its allies in the Syrian opposition as part of Arab Spring, in which Russia, a military ally of Iran, also supports Syria′s president Bashar al-Assad while Saudi Arabia along with Qatar and Turkey supports the Syrian rebels.

USA remains a problem for Saudi and other Arab nations to forge economic ties with Russia. The Middle Eastern kingdom has enjoyed a longstanding and broadly cooperative relationship with the USA, dating back to the start of oil exploration within Saudi Arabia in the 1930s. The latest cast of key characters, headed by US President Donald Trump and Saudi’s King Salman, has established a warmer rapport than seen during the final years of former President Barack Obama’s presidency when tensions developed over Saudi Arabia’s stance on Iran and Yemen. Yet cooperative links are now flourishing between the kingdom and Russia – the USA’s longstanding foe.

Controlled by USA, relations between the Soviet Union and Saudi Arabia were so frosty during the Cold War that the two countries did not even have diplomatic missions in each other’s country. Ties were also strained by Riyadh’s support for fighters who battled the Red Army occupation of Afghanistan.

Rapprochement

The Middle Eastern kingdom has enjoyed a longstanding and broadly cooperative relationship with the USA, dating back to the start of oil exploration within Saudi Arabia in the 1930s.

Relations between the two countries were strained during the Syrian Civil War in which Russia supported Syrian President Bashar al-Assad while Saudi Arabia along with Qatar and Turkey supported the Syrian rebels. Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev warned that if Saudi Arabia along with Turkey went forth with their invasion plans and invaded Syria, the conflict could result in a Third World War.

The latest cast of key characters, headed by US President Donald Trump and Saudi’s King Salman, has established a warmer rapport than seen during the final years of former President Barack Obama’s presidency when tensions developed over Saudi Arabia’s stance on Iran and Yemen.

Cooperative links are now flourishing between the kingdom and Russia – the USA’s longstanding foe. A blossoming friendship between Saudi Arabia and Russia is being reflected in a recent spate of deals, and signals yet another sea change in the ever-evolving global order.

The rapprochement is in the mechanisms of solving the Syrian conflict, while Moscow and Riyadh are the leading players in this process. “Russians are different from others as they keep their promises, and Saudi Arabia believes that Russia’s presence is important for achieving balance of power in the region,” the lawmaker added. “I expect the rapprochement and big mutual understanding… I suppose that the Syrian issue will be the most important topic of the discussion of the two leaders,” Harisi said. Harisi said that he expects the two countries to sign agreements in many areas besides the defense sector. Earlier in September, Saudi Minister of Foreign Affairs Adel Jubeir called the upcoming visit of King Salman to Russia a historic one and demonstrating the scale of bilateral dialogue.

In May 2017 Saudi Arabia and Russia put their weight behind a new agreement to curb oil production; analysts say it should drive up crude prices but also underscores a growing alliance between the two countries. The oil ministers of Saudi Arabia and Russia said they would consult other nations on an agreement to extend the current production deal between OPEC and non-OPEC producers by nine months, about three months longer than the market expected.

The deal to keep 1.8 million barrels of crude from the market is likely to embolden US shale producers to ramp up their production, but it is also a deal that both Russia and Saudi Arabia would see as politically expedient and critical to their domestic finances.

The deal could also include deeper cuts than the 1.8 million barrels a day already agreed to late last year.

King Abdullah’s visit to Russia in 2003, as Crown Prince, was an opening in high level contacts between the countries which did not have diplomatic ties from 1938 until 1990. Russian President Putin met King Abdullah in Riyadh during a high level delegation visit on February 11–12, 2007. It was the first official visit for a Russian leader to the Kingdom.

The visit was an opportunity for Moscow to improve its relations with Riyadh regarding various areas, including regional security issues, energy, trade, transportation, scientific cooperation and exchanges. After the 2008 Georgia-Russia crisis, King Abdullah said that he had the full understanding of the Russian side on the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, however, Saudi Arabia did not recognize the two regions yet.

In February 2016, Saudi Arabia offered for the first time to send ground troops to Syria; a Saudi official confirmed that Riyadh had sent warplanes to Incirlik Air Base in Turkey, a move considered as preparation for an incursion into Syria and seen as inimical to Russia′s as well as Iran′s interests. Russia reacted to the reports with public sarcasm alluding to the Saudi Arabian-led military intervention in Yemen.

Russia’s largest oil producer, Rosneft, and Saudi Arabia’s national oil company Saudi Aramco announced that they will look into joint investments in the kingdom with another Russian gas giant Lukoil also revealing that it will consider marketing oil alongside Saudi Aramco. That same morning, Saudi Arabia confirmed it would evaluate the possibility of joining Russia’s arctic liquid natural gas (LNG) project. These developments followed Trump’s decision to withdraw the USA from the Paris climate change agreement with many commentators questioning the broader and longer-term implications of the USA stepping back from its leadership role in this pivotal international agreement.

The decision does not just reflect a retreat from leadership but a more widespread inability and unwillingness of countries to compromise. This strengthens the rise in power of Eastern countries alongside a decline in the West’s strength and accelerates the shifting of economic engines towards East, towards Asia.

Russia in Arab world

Until Moscow proved itself a militarily-capable player in the region, the Saudis had a negative, disdainful attitude towards Russia. But now the Saudis are beginning to view Russia differently.

Russia may not have the ability to mount a direct challenge to the USA in the Middle East, but Putin’s hardheaded approach to the Syria crisis has restored some of its Soviet-era influence in the region. Putin’s support for Al Assad in the face of international condemnation has proved he is willing to stick by his allies in the Middle East, a trait that will have been duly noted by leaders across the Middle East.

President Vladimir Putin sent Russia’s military into Syria in September 2015 to prop up Syria’s leader, Bashar Al Assad, while the Saudis have been aligned with anti-Assad rebels. But since Russia’s military intervention appears to have assured Al Assad’s survival by altering the balance of power in Syria, Saudi Arabia is pushing for talks with opposition groups. “This isn’t the first time that Russia and Saudi Arabia have tried to agree on things in recent years,” Fyodor Lukyanov, who heads the Council on Foreign and Defence, a Kremlin advisory group aid. “Now the situation has changed because Saudi Arabia realizes that Russia is a much more serious player in the region than it was three or four years ago.

Although the Kremlin’s Syria strategy has proved to be a foreign policy success for Putin and boosted Moscow’s standing in the Middle East, ordinary Russians have little enthusiasm for the war. The ISIL announced it had captured two Russian soldiers in eastern Syria’s Deir Ezzor province. If true, this would be the first time ISIL has taken Russian servicemen hostage. A Russian military spokesman denied the claim.

Moscow’s revived focus on the Middle East has also taken the Russian foreign minister to the Gulf region amid the continuing stand-off between Qatar and other Gulf states. In August, Lavrov met with the leaders of Kuwait, the UAE and Qatar. Russian state media claimed his trip proved Russia was now “the chief negotiator in the Middle East”.

Qatar recently boosted ties with Russia via a $3 billion deal to purchase a stake in Russia’s Rosneft oil company. However, Russia is keen not to be seen as favoring any of the parties to the dispute. Putin reportedly called off visits to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait this summer over fears that such a trip would be interpreted as taking sides.

Russia has also been staking out a position in Iraq, where it was the only major power not to oppose last week’s Kurdish referendum on independence. Russian state oil giant Rosneft recently announced a deal, thought to be worth more than $1 billion, to help Iraqi Kurdistan develop its natural gas industry. Rosneft is believed to have secured deals worth some $4 billion in total since it began doing business in Kurdistan in December.

Saudi support for the zones, which Putin says are vital to ending the war, was previously in doubt because the Riyadh-backed Syrian opposition rejected any role for Iran as guarantor in any peace deal. The reality of the military situation on the ground in Syria has also seen western countries taking a more pragmatic position on the conflict, muting their previous demands that Al Assad must go before any peace deal can be reached.

On June 5, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, presumably on instruction from USA, cut off diplomatic relations with Qatar, expelled all Qataris and banned flights to and from the country, while other Arab states later joined their actions. The dispute centered on Qatar’s public support for the so-called “Islamist terror groups” such as Hamas – real victim of Zionist fascism. Doha denied the accusations and said that no retaliatory measures would be taken.

The Kremlin is eager to unite Arab world and keep USA out of the region once for all. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov met with his Qatari counterpart Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, saying that Moscow calls for direct talks between Qatar and other Arab states to overcome the diplomatic crisis and confirmed its readiness to continue dialogue with Doha in all spheres.

Moscow wants a united front with Arab world against USA in Syria but Arab leaders support USA in ousting or killing Assad. Saudi Arabia, Russia and Egypt support the idea of conducting the second meeting between the Syrian opposition. Talks between the High Negotiations Committee (HNC), Cairo and Moscow groups of Syrian opposition took place in Riyadh. The HNC said that the meeting was not successful due to the Moscow group’s refusal to adopt any document demanding the resignation of Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Economics

The flagship symbol of Russo-Saudi cooperation is the oil output cut agreement between OPEC and non-OPEC members, originally brokered and recently extended thanks largely to the determined efforts of Saudi Arabia and Russia.

As a close economic and strategic ally of USA, Saudi Arabia and Russia do not have much in terms of trade, except in military deals. However, a blossoming friendship between Saudi Arabia and Russia is being reflected in a recent spate of deals, and signals yet another sea change in the ever-evolving global order.

The relations between the two countries are currently strong in military and technical cooperation. Russian consultations with Saudi Arabia in the area of military and technical cooperation are ongoing, the US-Saudi deal is not an obstacle for that.

In May, the USA and Saudi Arabia agreed on a deal worth $110 billion concerning the supply of US military equipment and arms. Russia continues consultations with the Saudi Arabia’s authorities in area of military and technical cooperation. The deal between this country and the USA on acquiring US arms should not and would not serve as an obstacle for our further dialogue,” Vorobyeva said during Paris Air Show — 2017 at the Le Bourget airport.

In September Russia’s Rosatom State Atomic Energy Corporation CEO Alexei Likhachev has held a meeting with representatives of Saudi Arabia on the sidelines of the 61st General Conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna. They discussed the possible construction of a big and powerful plant also capable of desalinating water, to projects concerning floating nuclear power plants.

The flagship symbol of cooperation is the oil output cut agreement between OPEC and non-OPEC members, originally brokered and recently extended thanks largely to the determined efforts of Saudi Arabian and Russian representatives.

OPEC President Mohammed Barkindo told CNBC from St. Petersburg that there was no doubt the “turning point” for the deal was when both countries decided to come together in China last year to sign a statement of cooperation that was “widely acclaimed”. “For them to decide to come together to address the challenges of the market … I think it is a welcome development by all producing countries,” he asserted, adding that both sides had reiterated their joint determination to work together to ensure that the oil market’s volatility is tackled.

In other signs of tightening relations, Russia’s largest oil producer, Rosneft, and Saudi Arabia’s national oil company Saudi Aramco announce that they will look into joint investments in the kingdom with another Russian gas giant Lukoil also revealing that it will consider marketing oil alongside Saudi Aramco. That same morning, Saudi Arabia confirmed it would evaluate the possibility of joining Russia’s arctic liquid natural gas (LNG) project.

These developments followed Trump decision to withdraw the USA from the Paris climate change agreement with many commentators questioning the broader and longer-term implications of the USA stepping back from its leadership role in this pivotal international agreement.

The decision does not just reflect a retreat from leadership but a more widespread inability and unwillingness of countries to compromise, according to Vladimir Yakunin, former Russian Railways president and current chairman of the DOC Research Institute, a German think tank. Speaking to CNBC from St. Petersburg, Yakunin said he expects a turmoil-ridden time ahead for world economies and also predicted that trends showing the rise in power of Eastern countries alongside a decline in the West’s strength would persist, as data continue to show the rapid relative economic growth in Asia. “At the G-20 for example, reputable experts, they are talking about values, they are talking about the shifting of economic engines towards East, towards Asia.

The oil revenues are a big part of the government budget in Russia and Saudi Arabia. For Russia, higher oil prices have helped its economy. Low prices could really create enormous stress for the Saudis. The extension of the production deal was also announced just days before President Donald Trump visited Saudi Arabia on his first overseas trip

Saudi Arabia had felt the pinch of lower prices for oil, though several weeks ago it reversed a move to withhold some pay and benefits to government workers, move analysts saw as a possible effort to ward off unrest. Saudi Arabia also needs a high oil price to help its plan to diversify its economy away from crude, under its Vision 2030 plan.

Saudi Arabia has borne the lion’s share of the production cuts, announced in December and effective in January

Agenda

Like Saudi economy, Russia’s economy is also massively dependent on oil revenues: Putin needs higher global oil prices to allow him to stem rising unhappiness that has been triggered in part by falling living standards.

Despite “deep distrust” between Russia and Saudi Arabia, co-operation by the world’s two largest oil exporters, along with other OPEC member states, has been successful in driving up the price of oil.

King Salman’s visit to Moscow is the first time a Saudi monarch has ever travelled to Moscow in an official capacity. The historic visit by Saudi Arabia’s king to Russia is timed to highlight the Kremlin’s growing political and military clout in the Middle East.
Apart from Syrian solution, both would discuss arms deal as well as nuclear energy deals. Russia is gradually overtaking USA in supplying terror goods to Arab world at cheap rates.

The main topic of talks in Moscow would be Syria, where Russia and the Saudis are backing different sides in the six-year-long conflict. The bilateral royal talks will touch Syria and further rapprochement between the two countries on this issue is possible.
The Kremlin’s hand has also been strengthened by uncertainty over US president Donald Trump’s Middle East policies. The Saudis see the writing on the wall. They are hedging their bets, unsure whether the USA is committed fully to the region’s security, according to a Russian foreign policy analyst. “But Russia is not replacing the United States in the region, the resources committed are incomparable, it is trying to be a second choice.”

Observation

Moscow considers that a regular exchange of opinions between the two countries is a factor of stability in the region and political settlement, with ongoing uncompromising fight against terrorism in all of its manifestations.

The forthcoming visit of Saudi King Salman Al Saud to Russia for the first time in almost hundred years of Saudi-Russian relations and the upcoming talks of Salman and Putin is regarded to be historic. Both sides hope to strengthen bilateral relations and achieve progress on Syrian settlement – burning issue of modern international politics.

Moscow is confident that Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud‘s visit to Russia will give a strong impetus to the development of bilateral relations. “Coordination between the two countries’ foreign ministries is getting closer. Two weeks ago, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov visited Jeddah.” Lavrov praises Saudi Arabian policy towards Syria. Major attention is being paid to business cooperation, we plan to further develop cooperation in the agricultural sector. The intergovernmental commission, which is scheduled to meet in late October or early November in Riyadh, is called to make its contribution to it” Saudi Ambassador to Russia Abdulrahman Al Rassi, in turn, noted that relations between his country and Russia are entering a qualitatively new level of development.

Moscow has been effectively filling the gap as the USA has been pulling back from Iraq. Although Russia did not speak out against the Kurdish referendum, it has also been careful not to damage ties with Baghdad, calling this week for “a unified Iraqi state”, and urging the Kurds to achieve statehood through negotiations, rather than a unilateral declaration of independence. It’s a subtle juggling act, but one that sums up Russia’s increasing skill at promoting its interests in the Middle East.

Russia and Saudi Arabia have more reasons to extend deal than just oil. Relations between Russia and Saudi Arabia have grown closer as they cooperate on oil prices. A deal to extend production cuts for nine months should support a higher level of oil prices as the market rebalances.

It’s not surprising Russia and Saudi Arabia are moving closer together to solve their common problem of low oil prices. They have common interests in increasing their revenues.

It’s not an accident that the two countries [Russia and Saudi Arabia] were moving together at a time when maybe the relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia was problematic

Salman is also behind the Saudi Vision 2030 plan to diversify the economy away from oil.

Thousands of Russians protested last weekend about a plan by the city of Moscow to tear down Soviet-era housing.

The timing of the OPEC production extension coincides with the Russian presidential election next March, another reason Russia may have been keen to strike a new deal.

Independence has been a cherished dream for many people in Catalonia. In fact, the region’s push for autonomy in the 1930’s was one of the reasons behind the Spanish Civil War and the resulting Franco dictatorship.

At the time, Spain was ruled by an authoritarian government, where civil liberties were broken and minorities were suppressed to assimilate into the mainstream Spanish identity. Following the death of Franco in 1975, Spain’s transition to democracy was enshrined in the new constitution and the authority of Madrid was decentralized. The parliament and the autonomy of Catalonia re-emerged and Spain embarked on a path of reconciliation.

Today, the events of the past seemed like ancient history. Barcelona, the capital of Catalonia, has flourished since the restoration of democracy, and it is one of the most celebrated cities in Europe. As for the autonomous state ofCatalonia, it is one of the wealthiest regions of Spain. Catalonia has its own police force and exercises its own control of healthcare, welfare, and education programs. There are also many provisions in place to protect the Catalan identity. With a population of roughly 8 million people, Catalonia accounts for not only nearly a fifth of Spain’s population, but also a fifth of Spain’s total Gross-Domestic Product (GDP).

The disproportionate tax input has been one of the primary reasons in favor of independence which emerged in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. Many Catalans believe that their economic prosperity would translate into a viable sovereign nation, and this has culminated in the latest popular vote for independence. However, the government in Madrid disagrees. Spanish Prime Minster Mariano Rajoy of the Partido Popular (PP), considers the Catalan referendum to be illegal and has thus far dealt with the situation by applying legal and economic pressure on the regional authorities. As such, nearly every referendum related decision by the Catalan government was taken to the Constitutional Court where they have been dismissed as unlawful acts.

Since holding the referendum was in violation of Section Two of the Spanish Constitution, the Spanish Judiciary System is currently investigating if any crimes have been committed during the vote. In this framework, some Catalan officials have been summoned to testify before preventional prosecutors. Ahead of Sunday’s referendum, the situation heated up in mid-September when Spanish law enforcement agencies raided Catalan government offices in search of documents that were linked to the referendum. Spanish security forces also confiscated large quantities of referendum materials such as posters, envelopes, and ballot papers. Moreover, authorities in Madrid also blocked several websites that were connected to the popular vote.

As the Spanish government was determined to undermine the referendum, an independent Catalonia would threaten the existence of Spain and trigger secessionist movements in the Basque region, Andalusia, and Asturias to demand their own referendums. Yet, as significant as the events seem, this is not the first time Catalonia held a referendum for independence. In 2013, the parliament of Catalonia declared that the region had all the merits of an independent state. Although a large majority of the voters supported independence, the overall turnout was quite low. Nevertheless, secessionist sentiment gratefully influenced the 2015 regional elections in Catalonia. Political factions promised a new referendum on independence and as secessionist sentiment prevailed, a combined pro-independence majority in the Catalan parliament scheduled a new referendum for October 2017, and this brings us to the situation we face today.

The aim appeared to be that if Madrid were able to reduce the voter turnout, the central government could hurt the legitimacy of the mandate. Meanwhile, the Regional Catalan Authority needed to do the opposite and attain a higher participation turnout compared to the 2014 vote. Organizers of the referendum claim that 90% of Catalans voted in favor of independence, while opposition members note that those who didn’t support the referendum didn’t vote.

Yet, as determined as the Catalan independence movement is, its supporters are divided into several groups. Some members of the Catalan government believe that the referendum should have complied with the Spanish Constitution, while others argued for a unilateral declaration of independence. The unilateral option is shared by regional political factions who are a part of the independence movement as well. Some of these groups include the Esquerra Republicana de Catalunya (ERC) and the Candidatura d’Unitat Popular (CUP).  However, there are also influential voices such as the Mayor of Barcelona, Ada Colau, who supported the referendum, but rejected a unilateral declaration of independence.

In any case, since members of the independence campaign are not on the same page, Catalan officials will have to be cautious in the aftermath of the referendum. The movement must either maintain a coherent position or risk breaking apart, which could result in the resignation of the regional government and calls for early elections.

Yet, if the Catalan government decides to remain in power and conduct a compromise with Madrid, it could also lead to friction among the Catalan radical factions within the independence movement. In the aftermath if the referendum, Prime Minister Rajoy could exploit the fragile structure of the Catalan movement and discredit the coalition.

However, Rajoy has used a wide range of actions such as counter measures to the referendum preparations. For instance, since secessionist movements are considered illegal according to the Spanish Constitution, civil servants who violate the law could be penalized with fines, banned from holding office, and taken into custody.

Another tactic Madrid could use to dissuade the effects of the referendum is by a means of international isolation. Officials in Brussels who support Rajoy have stated that an independent Catalonia would not become a systematic member of the European Union and the region’s status is an internal matter for Spain to resolve.

Indeed, on Monday, the European Commission said that the referendum was illegal. Since most of Catalonia’s exports go to EU member states, international isolation puts Catalonia in an economically sticky position.

Furthermore, Rajoy has a coalition majority in the Spanish Senate, and according to the Constitution, the Prime Minister has the legal means to suspend the autonomy of Catalonia which would require the Madrid government to take control of the Catalan administration. This measure is extreme, but it is bound to backfire and increase the secessionist movements ability to legitimize protests for Catalan independence.

Suspending Catalan autonomy would also require the use of force, which could create a highly unpredictable environment for negotiations between the Catalans and the central government. Hence, considering the destructive outcome, suspension of autonomy remains an option for Rajoy to consider.

Even though a large number of Spain’s political parties reject Catalan independence, there are those who want to reach a feasible solution. For instance, the Partido Socialista Obrero Espanol (PSOE) and Ciudadanos have expressed a willingness to reform the constitution that would see a fairer federal system in Spain. The proposal for a federal government is still favorable for many Spaniards.

If Catalonia left Spain, there would be a good chance that Spain would leave the European Union. Even some Catalans want to remain a part of Spain, but under different legal terms. For example, a different government that was more favorable for proportionate taxing could garner support from many Catalans.

Sunday’s vote was met by violent protests in the streets of Barcelona and accusations of policy brutality. By forcing the voting process in Catalonia, Madrid cannot hope to reverse the secessionist sentiment in the region. In the short term, Prime Minister Rajoy will seek to exploit the division within the Catalan movement and use economic and legal means to reach a compromise on the issue.

But in the short term, Rajoy’s measures will be enough to keep Catalonia within Spain. However, this will not resolve the Catalan issue and secessionist sentiment will continue to play a key role in Spanish politics.

According to aid workers inside Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh, as of last Friday, more than half a million Rohingyas have poured into the country from Myanmar. More than 60% of these refugees are women and children under the age of twelve. It is feared that young Rohingya men are either butchered by the Myanmar security forces or are being detained and tortured or lynched by security forces and Buddhist neo-fascists, and some may also be hiding in jungles to escape the killing fields. They are victims of a very sinister genocidal campaign inside Myanmar that has become a national project to eliminate Rohingya presence in this Buddhist majority country.

The United Nations have condemned vehemently the criminal activities of Suu Kyi’s government and her ‘rapist and arsonist’ military/security forces. The UN Secretary General has called it a ‘text book case of ethnic cleansing.’ The U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley on Thursday, September 28, called on countries to suspend providing weapons to Myanmar over violence against Rohingya Muslims until the military puts sufficient accountability measures in place. It was the first time the United States called for punishment of military leaders behind the repression, but stopped short of threatening to re-impose U.S. sanctions which were suspended, rather foolishly or thoughtlessly, under the Obama administration.

“We cannot be afraid to call the actions of the Burmese authorities what they appear to be – a brutal, sustained campaign to cleanse the country of an ethnic minority,” Haley told the U.N. Security Council, the first time Washington has echoed the U.N.’s accusation that the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people in Rakhine State was ethnic cleansing.

“The Burmese military must respect human rights and fundamental freedoms. Those who have been accused of committing abuses should be removed from command responsibilities immediately and prosecuted for wrongdoing,” Haley said. “And any country that is currently providing weapons to the Burmese military should suspend these activities until sufficient accountability measures are in place,” Haley said.

Meanwhile, international aid groups in Myanmar have urged the government to allow free access to Rakhine State, where an army offensive has sent more than 500,000 people fleeing to Bangladesh, but hundreds of thousands remain cut off from food, shelter and medical care. Many refugees have died while trying to get into Bangladesh. The United Nations said lately that at least 15 refugees, including nine children, drowned when their boat capsized off the coast in bad weather.

The Myanmar government has stopped international aid groups and U.N. agencies from carrying out most of their work in the north of Rakhine state, citing insecurity since the Aug. 25 insurgent attacks. Aid groups said in a joint statement they were: “increasingly concerned about severe restrictions on humanitarian access and impediments to the delivery of critically needed humanitarian assistance throughout Rakhine State.”  “We urge the government and authorities of Myanmar to ensure that all people in need in Rakhine Sate have full, free and unimpeded access to life-saving humanitarian assistance.”

The sad reality is that despite all condemnations from the world leaders and worries and concerns of international aid agencies and human rights activists, Myanmar is not going to change her criminal course. Its rouge government, since the time of Ne Win, has learned how to ignore world opinion and reinvent its savagery.

The other grim fact is that our world media have had a very small attention span and that soon the ongoing genocidal crimes of the murderous Myanmar government and its neo-fascists within the general public will all be forgotten only to be rudely awakened with another surge of violence inside and refugee exodus from Myanmar. At this rate, I am afraid that not a single Rohingya would be left behind in that of den of extreme intolerance.

Last week, I got a call from my cousin (Sheikh Fariduddin Ahmed Chowdhury who was one of the Dhaka University student leaders of the 1969 Students’ Movement in the then East Pakistan) in Chittagong who had gone to the refugee camps in Cox’s Bazar to personally find out the condition of the Rohingya refugees and provide humanitarian aid. He was simply horrified to learn of their plight first hand. He said he had never seen a people in such a hopeless and despair condition in his life. To the refugees, the world has failed to stop their suffering and life has lost all its charms and meaning to live long; they are totally hopeless.

It is there that – what’s next – is crucial for us to ponder about and find an answer to that may help us all to avoid a repeat of the current events.

‘Boycott Myanmar’ seems to be a good slogan and tactic to try given that all other earlier activities of human rights activists and conscientious global citizens have failed to put the moral compass right for our powerful world leaders. The latter have not done anything to stop the bleeding process other than airing empty words that don’t bite.

Talks will surely not sober a rogue and pariah state that has known and learned that it has its backers in China, India, Israel and Russia (each with their own criminal records of persecuting and oppressing minority Muslims) – to name just few countries.

We have also seen the failure of the BDS (boycott, divest and sanction) movement in making a difference for the Palestinian people for the same reason – Israel has its powerful patrons within the UNSC. No matter what this ‘other apartheid’ state does, with patrons like the USA it need not fear the world opinion. Thus, we had dismal failures to repeat elsewhere the success of the South African experiment.

This experience sums up our dilemma vis -a-vis Myanmar! As Dr. Shwe Lu Maung, a living authority on his native Rakhine state, told me the other day when a person chooses not to wake up and pretends to sleep he would ignore the cries and screams of others; even a bucket full of hot water thrown at him may not do the trick. That is what is happening with Suu Kyi and her criminal government, the rapist and arsonist military and the neo-fascist lynch mobs and monks! As part of a national project to eliminate Rohingyas from the soil of its ancestors, these criminals will continue to do what have proven to expedite their criminal plan. They are all living in a state of self-delusion and -denial of their evil!

Perhaps the only way we could stop these savages is to hang them high – of course, via Nuremburg type trials. Will that ever happen in our time? I am not sure. The Rohingyas, sadly, don’t have celebrity lawyers like Amal Clooney to start the process of incriminating Myanmar government and its murderers.

All said and done, we can surely try a BDS campaign for Myanmar. Who knows what did not work for Israel may work for Myanmar, after all, Myanmar is not Israel! If European countries and the USA plus Japan can be influenced by the moral justification to boycott Myanmar, others may find it difficult to trade with it.

In a world and time when sub-human demons and she-devils are increasingly directing the world affairs affecting all our lives, it’s becoming an uphill battle – a very steep one indeed – to make a difference and alter the course scripted by them. And yet, the struggle must go on for the humans to earn their true humanity! After all, the great Persian poet Shaykh Sa’di (1231-1291 C.E.) wrote more than seven centuries ago:

“Adam’s sons are body limbs, to say;
For they’re created of the same clay.
Should one organ be troubled by pain,
Others would suffer severe strain.
Thou, careless of people’s suffering,
Deserve not the name ‘human being’.”
[Tr. H. Vahid Dastjerdi (Mashriq-e-Ma’rifat)]

It is necessary to study the former Indian Finance Minister Yashwant Sinha’s views on the performance of Narendra Modi government based on what he has said in the context of current economic and political scenario, without giving any weighting for his impressive track record.

It appears that Yashwant Sinha has done great damage to India’s psyche by talking about so called “ impending economic disaster” without his taking a holistic view of the industrial and economic policies of Modi government and the current Indian and global scenario.

Some of the criticisms made by Yashwant Sinha need to be critically analyzed.

Arun Jaitley as Minister for finance & defence at the same time

Yashwant Sinha has criticized the Prime Minister Modi for entrusting the heavy weight Ministries of Finance and Defence along with the department of disinvestment and the ministry of corporate affairs to Arun Jaitley. According to Sinha, the over burdened Arun Jaitley has not been able to pay adequate attention to several ministries under him including Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Finance.

Sinha further said that this was one of the principal reasons for Government of India “cut a sorry figure” in the handling of the implementation of demonetization and GST” and for the criticism of the Comptroller and auditor General of India about the “deficiency in defence preparedness”

Modi is not the first Prime Minister to have done this. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru kept the foreign Ministry to himself for a long period. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh kept the coal ministry to himself. So many other examples can be readily pointed out.

Modi may have his own compulsions and reasons for doing this, which is not known. Now, Prime Minister’s office (PMO) is large and well equipped and with a Defence Advisor, Modi must have extended considerable support to Jaitley in managing the two difficult portfolios. In any case, Jaitley has done a reasonable job.

The criticism of CAG on deficiency in defence preparedness cannot be simply attributed to Modi government , since this is a problem that started in Manmohan Singh government, with the then Defence Minister A.K. Anthony delaying decisions on many defence purchases for whatever reasons. Such problems do not arise over night and do not happen in a six months or so when Jaitley was holding two ministries.

“Sorry figure in handling demonetization & GST”

It is a matter of opinion that demonetization & GST have been managed well or not.

Demonetisation is a difficult strategy which many politicians , bureaucrats and economists advocated in the past but did not have the courage to implement. Modi did this. Element of secrecy is the most important aspect while introducing demonetization and inevitably this would upset some people for short period and some people for very long period.

One would think whether any other Prime Minister would have handled demonetization better. In any case, the positive results of demonetization are already evident which discerning observers see. Visible positive results would be seen as the days go by, since demonetization is necessary and essential strategy and is not a flawed decision.

With regard to GST, it was implemented after extensive consultation with all states. Jaitley showed enormous patience and negotiation ability in arriving at consensus, with many opposition state governments having their own agenda. He has to make some concessions which has created some element of confusion.

Industries say that they face “compliance burden” problem. With extensive computerization, this is not an insurmountable issue at all. In any case, such regulations are necessary as large section of business men, educational institutions and government machinery continue to be steeped in corruption and they have to be closely monitored.

History will applaud Jaitley for this for implementing demonetization and GST with reasonable competence.

“Collapse of industrial production “and “loss of millions of jobs”

With regard to “collapse of industrial production “and “loss of millions of jobs” etc., the accusations of Sinha are based on media rumors and not facts and figures. This is not true at all.

With disturbed black money holders and deregistered shell companies and defaulters facing bankruptcy law, some upsets have taken place which are inevitable and necessary to uproot the parallel economy.

The fear that bankruptcy law will wipe out industries is totally unrealistic. It will lead to change to better hands and better industry performance. For example, Essar Oil which has several thousands crore of rupees of loan default has been forced to hand over the projects to the Russian company Rosneft and the sale realization would be partly utilized to clear the debt. Such trends are likely to take place and inefficient managements will go. This will be a very healthy trend and cleanse the system.

Fall in GDP is a temporary phenomenon

Three months is a very short period to judge the GDP performance and former finance minister should know this. In the month of August 2017 production has picked up. For example, the steel production in August 2017 is 4.1% higher than steel production in August,2016. Production of several agricultural commodities have increased. The consumption in the country has been going up. Steel production is a barometer of progress.

The fundamentals of economy and industry remain strong and” millions of jobs” have not been lost. This is a wild allegation and an exaggerated fiction.

The twin problems are fall in exports due to several inter related factors and lack of job growth due to inadequate skill among large section of work force in the country who are unable to match the skill to the needs of modern trends and technologies.

For example, there are more than 500 engineering colleges in Tamil Nadu with more than 1.5 lakh fresh engineers passing out every year. Several employers have told me that they are not getting suitable candidates meeting their needs. One former Vice chancellor of Anna University has said that 40% of the passing out engineers in Tamil Nadu are unemployable.

Modi has realized this and has been taking steps to promote skill level in the country. These are all problems unattended for several years.

“Economic disaster”

It is extremely uncharitable to say that there is “impending economic disaster”. Indian media always like negative statements and bickerings and perhaps, making such remarks is one way of getting huge publicity.

The 2nd of November 2017 will mark the centenary of the Balfour Declaration – the seminal document that has come to be remembered as either “one of the greatest acts of Western statesmanship in the 20th century” (vide British parliamentarian Richard Crossman) or “the single most destructive political document on the Middle East in the 20th century” (according to Palestinian scholar-activist Walid Khalidi). What is not generally known is that Britain’s Balfour Declaration was preceded – and may have been kick-started – by a letter from the head of France’s foreign office, Jules Cambon, issued on the authority of French prime minister, Alexandre Ribot.

On June 4, 1917, Nahum Sokolow, secretary-general of the World Zionist Organization, received the following:

“You kindly explained to me your project to develop Jewish colonization in Palestine. You believe that, given favourable circumstances, and with the independence of the Holy Places assured, it would be an act of justice and reparation to help in the rebirth, under the protection of the Allied Powers, of Jewish nationality in the land from which the people of Israel were exiled so many centuries ago.

“The French government, which entered the current war to defend a people unjustly attacked, and which continues the struggle to ensure the victory of right over might, can feel nothing but sympathy for your cause, the success of which is linked to that of the Allies.

“I am happy to give you such an assurance.”

As Weizmann’s biographer Jehuda Reinharz has noted, the Cambon letter “in content and form was much more favourable to the Zionists than the watered-down formula of the Balfour Declaration” that followed it. The French accepted a rationale in terms of “justice” and “reparation,” and acknowledged the historical Jewish tie to the land. The letter bound Zionism to the cause of all the Allies.

“The Quai d’Orsay had been skillfully and decisively outmanoeuvered” according to Andrew and Kanya-Forstner. The French obstacle to a possible British declaration had been neutralized.

“Our purpose,” explained Sokolow, looking ahead, “is to receive from the [British] government a general short approval of the same kind as that which I have been successful in getting from the French government.”

And indeed Sokolow deposited the Cambon letter at the British foreign office, where it stimulated a spirit of competition. British officials who sympathized with Zionism now urged that Britain “go as far as the French.”

Nahum Sokolow has been almost neglected by history. Born in Poland, he received a traditional rabbinic schooling but taught himself secular subjects and quickly gained a reputation as a prolific writer. In 1880 he moved to Warsaw, edited a Hebrew journal and was soon acknowledged as the world’s most prominent Hebrew-language journalist.

In 1897, Sokolow reported from the First Zionist Congress and fell under the spell of Herzl. It was he who translated Herzl’s utopian novel Altneuland into Hebrew. Leaving journalism in 1906, he became the secretary general of the World Zionist Organization. He then threw himself into lobbying, diplomacy, and propaganda.

From whichever side of the fence one regards the events of 1917 and beyond, it seems clear that France shares with Britain both the bouquets and the brickbats.

As for the Balfour Declaration itself, for so historic a document, it is surprisingly, even starkly, simple. It is difficult to believe that the British Foreign Office in the very heyday of British imperialism did not run to crested notepaper – which the Cambon letter certainly did. The letter from foreign secretary Lord Balfour to one of the leading figures in Britain’s Jewish community, Lord Rothschild, is a small sheet of paper with the words “Foreign Office” typed just above the date, November 2nd, 1917.

Asking Rothschild to “bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation”, the declaration in question ran:

“His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

Subsequent events are too well known to require elaboration. Following the Great War, the League of Nations endorsed an Anglo-French agreement to dismember the Ottoman empire, assigning control of the territories mainly to the two colonial powers. The British government was mandated to take over the whole region then known as Palestine, and to put into effect its desire, as expressed in the Balfour Declaration, to establish there a national home for the Jewish people.

Despite Britain’s eventual failure to fulfil the hopes set out in the Balfour Declaration, the British government continues to endorse the part it played in the eventual emergence of the State of Israel. In May 2017 a petition to Parliament called on the government to “apologise to the Palestinian people” over the Balfour Declaration because the UK’s colonial policy had caused “mass displacement” and injustice. The petition failed to gather sufficient signatures to trigger a parliamentary debate, but nonetheless the Government issued a formal response: “The Balfour Declaration is an historic statement for which HMG does not intend to apologise.  We are proud of our role in creating the State of Israel. The task now is to encourage moves towards peace.”

As an earnest of Britain’s stance, Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, when in the UK in February 2017, was invited by Prime Minister Theresa May to attend November’s centenary celebrations of the Balfour Declaration in London.

From whichever side of the fence one regards the events of 1917 and beyond, it seems clear that France shares with Britain both the bouquets and the brickbats.

Plastic surgeons at Maastricht University Medical Center have used a robotic device to surgically treat lymphedema in a patient. This is the world’s first super-microsurgical intervention with ‘robot hands’.

The surgeons used the robotic device to suture vessels of 0.3 to 0.8 millimeter in the arm of the patient. The robotic device, created by Eindhoven company Microsure, enhances the surgeon’s precision, making this type of procedure easier to perform. The patient is doing well and the surgeons are enthusiastic. The news of this extraordinary operation has been announced at the 26th World Congress of Lymphology, in Barcelona.

Lymphedema, a chronic condition in which fluid builds up and causes swelling, is a serious disorder. It commonly occurs as a side effect of breast cancer treatment. A relatively new and potentially much better treatment for lymphedema is a super-microsurgery in which lymphatic vessels are connected to blood vessels to restore the flow of lymphatic fluid and alleviate the swelling. This intervention is, however, particularly difficult and stressful to perform given the extreme precision required from the surgeon. Worldwide, only a few surgeons are capable of carrying out this surgical technique by hand.

Microsure

Surgeons in Maastricht found the solution in Eindhoven. The surgical robot of Microsure, a spin-off of Eindhoven University of Technology and Maastricht University Medical Center, is controlled by a surgeon whose hand movements are converted into smaller, more precise movements which then are performed on the patient by a set of ‘robot hands’.

The device also stabilizes any tremor in the surgeon’s movements, which makes the procedure more controlled and thus easier to perform. The Microsure robot is expected to enhance a large number of microsurgical procedures and enable new interventions that are currently impossible to perform by hand. This will lead to better patient outcome and lower healthcare costs due to a reduced rate of complication and less post-operative treatment.

Better result

Shan Shan Qiu Shao, plastic surgeon at Maastricht University Medical Center said, “Microsure enables us to be very precise in our movements during procedures that need a surgical microscope. Their robot allows us to operate on minuscule lymph vessels and blood vessels with more ease, while getting better results for these complex and fatiguing interventions. Besides it is very convenient that, within microsurgery, we can operate on vessels of every size with this robot. Most importantly, of course, this is good news for the patients concerned.”

“We are very pleased and proud that the first intervention using our robot has been a success, and that the surgeons are enthusiastic,” said Raimondo Cau, the technical brain of Microsure. “This proves that our technology is a key breakthrough in improving surgical care. As a next step, we aim to assist surgeons during other types of complex microsurgical procedures like tissue reconstructions after removal of a tumor. Using our device they will be able to perform surgery with better precision and fewer complications.”

During the Middle Ages, nearly everyone in Europe was exposed to the disfiguring, painful and ostracizing disease of leprosy. But did contracting the disease necessarily increase a person’s chances of dying?

“You’d think it would be a shut case,” said ASU-SFI Center Postdoctoral Fellow Mike Price, an author on a new paper in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology. “But interpreting archaeological data is tricky. Archaeologists must study the bones of people who have died, and dead people are not representative of the living. It’s like making conclusions about modern, healthy people by observing sick people in hospitals.”

The paper lays out a model that offers a way to explore both morbidity — contracting a disease — and mortality — dying from it — through a unique data set of bones recovered from a rural monastery in Denmark.

“Our paper does say, yes, if you have leprosy, you will die sooner. But there are subtleties,” said Price. Sex and social status also likely played roles in a person’s risk of death from leprosy.

Leprosy first presents outwardly as boils on the skin. As it progresses, it can form lesions on the bones, allowing for paleopathological study of the disease.

“There’s a paradoxical component to looking at skeletons,” said Penn State bioarcheologist Saige Kelmelis, lead author, who analyzed the skeletons.

Say you have bones of two people who were born in the same year. One died at age 25, and their bones are pristine while the other, who died at age 50, has lesions all over their skeleton. Which person was healthier?

“This model takes into account how we calculate age of death and errors in that, and lesion data, to get a picture of someone’s risk of death. Then we can say something tangible about what the living population would have been like.”

Today, leprosy shows up in different populations in different ways. It’s very rare in the US, but is still an enormous problem in other parts of the world, and people in lower socio-economic statuses are at greater risk said Kelmelis. “Knowing the current state of the disease, we wondered if we could see similar patterns in the past.”

The Vatican newspaper has broken a yearlong silence and weighed in on director Paolo Sorrentino’s “The Young Pope”, giving the series generally positive reviews despite what it called the “frivolous,” “caustic” and “grotesque” way it painted the Vatican, The Associated Press reports.

L’Osservatore Romano dedicated a two-page spread in Sunday’s edition to the 10-episode TV series, which began airing in Italy in October 2016 and in North America earlier this year.

The main essay was penned by Juan Manuel de Prada, a Spanish intellectual who explored the contradictions – in Sorrentino, in the character of Pope Pius XIII, played by Jude Law, and in the Vatican hierarchy – that were presented by the series.

“The Young Pope” opens with the improbable election of Lenny Belardo as history’s first American pope. Despite his youth, Belardo charts a deeply conservative, controversial and at times vicious papacy, still haunted by the trauma of being abandoned by his parents and raised by a nun.

The series features Diane Keaton as the nun, Sister Mary, who is convinced Lenny is a saint, and Silvio Orlando as the scheming secretary of state who spars with him.

In his review, de Prada found that inside Sorrentino’s anti-clerical rants there was also a “docile admiration for the church.”

Sorrentino doesn’t manage to penetrate the church’s mystery “but he manages to convey his own perplexity to the viewer,” de Prada wrote, “who will ask how it’s possible that an institution run by ambitious, lascivious braggarts could survive all these shipwrecks.”

The newspaper’s silence during the Italian run was notable, since other Catholic media were almost unanimous in their criticism. L’Osservatore’s editor-in-chief, Gian Maria Vian, said he specifically chose not to enter into the Catholic media debate while the show was airing.

“They wanted us to either bless it or excommunicate it, and I didn’t want to play that game,” Vian said in a telephone interview Saturday. “But we intervened now because it’s an important television series, an important cultural phenomenon.”

A top L’Osservatore columnist, Lucetta Scaraffia, looked at Sorrentino’s screenplay, which she says has “criticism of the existing church, but in some way hope that something good might come from it.”

Spain’s Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy held meetings with the General Secretary of the PSOE (Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party) Pedro Sánchez, and the President of Ciudadanos, Albert Rivera, on Monday afternoon, to evaluate the events that unfolded on Sunday in Catalonia.

The Spanish government has insisted that Catalonia referendum was illegal. The European Commission has also said that the referendum was illegal as outlined in the Spanish Constitute.

Rajoy commenced the round of contacts that he had announced on Sunday night to study potential political responses to the serious situation of institutional disobedience taking place in the autonomous region of Catalonia.

Rajoy thanked both leaders for their sincerity in outlining their positions and the loyalty that both have shown to our constitutional order, under threat from repeated attempts by some people to wipe out our national sovereignty and the unity of Spain, according to Moncloa.

Moncloa said that Rajoy expressed his interest in responsibly and loyally studying the proposals that the rest of the political forces wished to make, on the understanding that they are only interested in seeking the common good and defending our democratic system. He also conveyed to both political leaders the suitability of everyone maintaining an interest in reaching a consensus to tackle the serious challenge posed to our democratic system.

At his meetings on Monday afternoon, the President of the Government strongly defended the actions taken by the law enforcement agencies on Sunday and recalled that more than 400 police officers have had to be treated and that in 40 cases their injuries required immediate attention.

Moncloa said that on Monday, Rajoy spoke with several European leaders, including the Presidents of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, of the European Council, Donald Tusk, and of the European Parliament, Antonio Tajani, as well as with the Rotating President of the Council of the European Union, the Prime Minister of Estonia, Juri Ratas.

The US Department of State has informed Cuba that it is expelling 15 Cuban officials from that country’s embassy in Washington, D.C.

“The decision was made due to Cuba’s failure to take appropriate steps to protect our diplomats in accordance with its obligations under the Vienna Convention,” said US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson in a press statement. “This order will ensure equity in our respective diplomatic operations.”

On September 29, the US State Department ordered the departure of non-emergency personnel assigned to the US Embassy in Havana, as well as all family members following what it says mysterious acoustic attacks affected the health of nearly two dozen US staff.

“Until the Government of Cuba can ensure the safety of our diplomats in Cuba, our embassy will be reduced to emergency personnel to minimize the number of diplomats at risk of exposure to harm,” Tillerson said, adding that, “We continue to maintain diplomatic relations with Cuba, and will continue to cooperate with Cuba as we pursue the investigation into these attacks.”

Saudi Arabia’s King Salman hopes his visit to Russia this week and talks with President Vladimir Putin and other Russian officials will achieve the aspirations of the two countries, he told the Cabinet on Tuesday.

Addressing the weekly meeting at Al-Salam Palace in Jeddah, the king told ministers he looked forward to the visit enhancing relations between the countries to serve common interests and bring about global peace and security.

The historic visit, the first to Russia by a Saudi monarch, begins on Thursday. The king will lead a high-level delegation of government and private-sector figures.

Saudi Aramco will participate in a range of high-level engagements and activities including an exhibit throughout the royal visit.

The highlight will be the Saudi-Russian Business Investment Forum to be held in Moscow under the theme: Investment, Toward Building a Strong Partnership. The forum will be officially opened by Russia’s Minister of Energy, Alexander Novak.

Senior scholars and businessmen in Riyadh said the visit will open new areas of mutual cooperation and the two countries will reap benefits.

Shoura Council member Maj. Gen. Ali Al-Tamimi told Arab News that Saudi Arabia under King Salman, will open a new chapter not only in Saudi-Russian relations, but also in combating terror in the world.

“The first ever official visit by a Saudi king to Moscow since the foundation of the Kingdom demonstrates that Riyadh is eager to keep a balance in its foreign policy and diversify its ties,” said Mona A. Almushait, another Shoura Council member.

The Russia-Saudi summit is a milestone event to demonstrate that both countries are set for a much closer relationship. Russia and Saudi Arabia are showing the political will to foster bilateral economic ties, and their potential has yet to be fulfilled, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said.

The visit will witness a series of joint economic functions that will bring together 200 representatives of Saudi and Russian companies to promote commercial partnerships and relations.

The Saudi Arabian General Investment Authority (SAGIA) will organize a one-day forum in Moscow on Saudi-Russian investments in cooperation with the Council of Saudi Chambers (CSC) and the joint Saudi-Russian Council, in the presence of a number of Saudi and Russian ministers, and members of the private sector.