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

India: Blocking Maoist Recovery In Chhattisgarh – Analysis

0
0

By Deepak Kumar Nayak*

On October 4, 2017, a group of Communist Party of India-Maoist (CPI-Maoist) cadres killed two civilians on the suspicion of being ‘Police informers’ in the Aundhi area of Rajnandgaon District. The victims, identified as Chandan Kirsam (51) and Vinod Salame (18), were first assaulted and then strangulated by the Maoists.

On September 4, 2017, CPI-Maoist cadres killed a civilian, identified as Bajirao Nareti, near Pendodi village in Rajnandgaon District. “The Maoists rounded up four residents of Pendodi village on Monday night [September 4] and took them outside the village. They trashed the villagers and killed one of them,” a Rajnandgaon District Police statement issued on September 5, disclosed. An unnamed Police officer claimed that the deceased Nareti was involved in supplying food grains to the Maoists.

On September 1, 2017, one civilian was killed by CPI-Maoist cadres near Baghdongari village under Aundhi Police Station limits in Rajnandgaon District. On September 2, the Police stated, “Twenty-eight-year-old Pavan Dehari, a resident of Rajkatta village of Rajnandgoan, was shot dead by the Maoists near Baghdongari village under Aundhi Police Station limits at around midnight on Friday [September 1]. Pavan Dehari was an innocent villager. He was working as a carpenter in Rajkatta village.” The Police asserted that the killing was an “act of frustration by the Maoists”.

According to partial data compiled by the South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP), at least four civilians have been killed in Rajnandgaon District in Left Wing Extremism (LWE)-linked violence in the current year, 2017, so far (data till October 8, 2017). Since the formation of the CPI-Maoist on September 21, 2004, the District has recorded at least 46 such fatalities and is ranked 5th among a total of 15 Districts from where civilian fatalities have been registered in the State. The other Districts of the State which exceed Rajnandgaon in terms of civilian fatalities are – Dantewada (337 fatalities), Bijapur (173 fatalities), Sukma (58 fatalities) and Kanker (57 fatalities ranking 4th). Chhattisgarh State has recorded a total of 761 civilian fatalities since the formation of the CPI-Maoist.

Moreover, Rajnandgaon District shares the 17th rank, along with Purulia in West Bengal, among the 114 Districts across India, from where civilian fatalities were registered through September 21, 2004 – 2017.

The continued insecurity among the civilian population is primarily due to the Maoists retaining a measure of dominance in their face-off with the Security Forces (SFs) in the District. Since September 21, 2004, the Rajnandgaon District has recorded 41 SF fatalities, as compared to just eight fatalities among the Maoists, establishing a staggering kill ratio of 1:5.12 in favour of the Maoists. Significantly, on July 12, 2009, in a major attack, the worst ever by the Maoists targeting SFs in Rajnandgaon, the Maoists killed 30 Police personnel, including a Superintendent of Police (SP), in simultaneous ambushes and landmine attacks at Madanwada, Khoregaon and Sitagaon under the Manpur Police Station limits. Even if this incident is excluded, the kill ratio favours the Maoists at 1:1.25. Notably, out of 12 Districts in Chhattisgarh from where fatalities among both these categories – SFs and Maoists – have been recorded, the kill ratio in seven, including Rajnandgaon, is in favour of the Maoists. Similarly, out of 69 Districts across 14 States of India, from where fatalities in both these categories have been recorded, the kill ratio in 25 Districts is in favour of the Maoists.

Fatalities in Rajnandgaon District: 2004*- 2017**

Year

Civilians
SFs
LWEs
Total

2004

0
0
0
0

2005

1
1
0
2

2006

2
2
0
4

2007

1
1
0
1

2008

2
0
0
2

2009

14
31
0
45

2010

8
0
0
8

2011

6
1
0
7

2012

1
1
0
2

2013

1
0
1
2

2014

1
0
1
2

2015

4
0
0
4

2016

1
2
1
4

2017

4
3
5
12

Total

46
41
8
95
Source: SATP, **Data till October 8, 2017
* Formation of CPI-Maoist on September 21, 2004.

Rajnandgaon District, carved out from the erstwhile Durg District, on January 26, 1973, covers a geographical area of 8,222 square kilometres, out of which 978.87 square kilometres is under forest cover. The District shares its borders with Kabirdham, earlier known as Kawardha in the north and Durg in the east, both in Chhattisgarh; Gadchiroli and Bhandara Districts in Maharashtra, and Balaghat in Madhya Pradesh, in the west; and Bastar in Chhattisgarh, in the south. All these Districts, with the exception of Kabirdham, are Left Wing Extremism-affected. More worryingly, the Bastar District is ranked 11th among the worst affected Districts, out of the 139 Maoist-affected Districts in the country, in terms of fatalities recorded in such violence since 2004. Rajnandgaon was also listed among the 35 worst Naxal (LWE)-affected Districts identified by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (UMHA) in 2010.

It is not surprising, consequently, that the Maoists, who are facing severe reveres across the country, including in Chhattisgarh, struggling to recover the few places where they retain some hold. Rajnandgaon fits into this plan and, therefore, falls under the new ‘guerrilla zone’ – the Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh Confluence zone’ (MMCCZ) – carved out by the Maoists for their operations. Apart from forested pockets in northern Rajnandgaon and parts of Kabirdham and Mungeli Districts in Chhattisgarh, the MMCCZ covers forested pockets in Balaghat District in Madhya Pradesh and Gondia District in Maharashtra. According to reports MMCCZ functions under the Dandakaranya Special Zonal Committee (DKSZC), the most powerful entity within the CPI-Maoist operational setup.

To further their plan, the Maoists are focusing on issues specific to the area in an effort to win over villagers and consolidate their presence. As the village population is predominantly tribal in the new ‘guerrilla zone’ and reportedly feels ‘left behind by development’, the Maoists have included issues of land and differential pricing of bamboo and tendu patta (leaves of the tendu tree). An unnamed villager in Malaida of Rajnandgaon District thus noted, “We live on what we can make from bamboo and tendu patta, but we never get a fair price. Contractors take their cut, and people from other States take away the produce.” Indeed, according to the “District Development and Diversity Index Report for India and Major States,” a joint survey conducted by the US-India Policy Institute (USIPI) and the Centre for Research and Debates in Development Policy (CRDDP), New Delhi, among the 599 Districts across India covered by the survey, Rajnandgaon ranked 414th towards the bottom. The other Districts which fall under MMCCZ and were covered under the survey are – Balaghat (ranked 439th), Gondia (ranked 259th), and Kabirdham/Kawardha (ranked 466th). The report of the survey, which took composite development — measured in terms of economic development and the indices of health, education and material well-being – into consideration, was released on January 29, 2015. Ironically, Rajnandgaon District is the home (Assembly) constituency of three-time Chief Minister Raman Singh.

Importantly, on June 13, 2017, acknowledging the developments in the new MMCCZ, Chhattisgarh’s Special Director General of Police (DGP, anti-Naxal operations), D. M. Awasthi observed, “Yes, it is true that they are attempting to create a new zone called MMC. We are well aware of it and have been working against it. The first intimation we got about this development was in April 2016… So far, they have had little success. There have been some close calls with their leadership in the area, and exchanges of fire as well, but no casualties. A new zone is indeed a matter of concern, and requires us to be especially vigilant.”

Significantly, on June 21, 2017, a high-level meeting to curb the Maoist problem in the ‘MMC Zone’ was held in Rajnandgaon District, attended by the Senior Security Adviser in the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (UMHA), K. Vijay Kumar; D. M. Awasthi; Madhya Pradesh’s Additional Director General of Police (ADGP, anti-Naxal operations), Sanjiv Kumar Singh; Maharashtra’s ADGP, anti-Naxal operations, D. Kanakratnam; Chhattisgarh’s Inspector General of Police (IGP, Durg Range), Dipanshu Kabra; and SP’s of Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh), Gondia (Maharashtra) and Balaghat (Madhya Pradesh). In the meeting, strategies were discussed to thwart Naxal activities on the bordering area through joint efforts of Police from the three neighbouring States. Strengthening of the information network to prepare a special action plan for the exchange of operational intelligence between the affected States was also discussed.

The overwhelming focus is presently on the security situation in the Bastar Division, but it is equally important to block Maoist efforts to regroup in other areas of vulnerability, including Rajnandgaon and its neighbouring Districts, across State lines. Some successes have been achieved by the SFs in Rajnandgaon in the current year. The better kill ratio in favour of the SFs in the current year – 1: 1.66 – is a positive sign. More significantly, SFs have managed to eliminate five Maoists in the current year, the highest number over the last 12 years.

Simultaneously, it is vital to boost development in Rajnandgaon. On February 21, 2016, Prime Minister Narendra Modi launched the Shyama Prasad Mukherji Rurban (rural-urban) Mission from Kurubhat village in the Dongargarh Block (administrative unit) in Rajnandgaon District, with an aim to draw an investment of over INR 50 billion over three years to “transform rural areas to economically, socially and physically sustainable spaces” in Chhattisgarh’s Rajnandgaon, Dhamtari, Kawardha and Bastar Districts. Also, between May 8 and June 8, 2017, Chhattisgarh Police, the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) and Madhya Pradesh’s Hawk Team (a specialised unit for countering terrorist and Naxal operations), set up a joint temporary camp at Gatapar village in Abhanpur tehsil (revenue unit) in Raipur District to conduct operations and facilitate the building of a 13-kilometres road from Gatapar village in Raipur to Malaida village in Rajnandgaon. An ITBP officer guarding the under-construction road, according to a report dated June 15, 2017, noted, “If the Maoists are successful in setting up base here, it will be difficult to uproot them. This can potentially become another Bastar. So it is our job to dominate the area, go to villagers and talk to them, and provide security to the roads.”

*Deepak Kumar Nayak
Research Assistant, Institute for Conflict Management


Muslim Preachers In Social Media: Fighting For Moderation – Analysis

0
0

Indonesian Muslims inclined to moderation have been increasing their presence in social media to counter the extensive influence of hard-line teachings. More than developing platforms, uploaded contents should be presented in a clear and succinct way to appeal to Muslim audiences.

By Satrio Dwicahyo*

Social media is a space that Indonesians often go to learn more about religion. With only a few keywords, Muslims can look up the myriad of opinions on whether an issue like insurance is halal (Islamically permissible) or haram (Islamically not permissible) from videos or short articles. Senior religious authorities may attempt to counter certain simplistic or absolutist claims in the videos by certain religious preachers. However, Muslim audiences may not be so discerning. Videos can also be easily disseminated to their peers via word-of-mouth or sharing through other avenues.

Surrounded by the presence of newly-emerging religious teachers using slick layouts in the virtual world to attract adherents, Muslims in Indonesia who steer the path of moderation have been continuously working to boost their social media presence. The majority of these methods, however, have been limited to “symbolic” efforts with the use of outdated social media platforms such as websites or smart phone apps. Little attention is paid to packaging the content for it to be appealing and easy to digest.

Theology and Technology

Among other characteristics, Salafi-Wahabism often exhibit a rather simplified comprehension of religion without its nuances and context. Nonetheless, this particular aspect suits the transient nature of social media quite well; users prefer to see short and uncomplicated content. To address whether an act is halal or haram, a Salafi-Wahabi preacher can usually provide a solid answer in a two- to five- minute video.

In addition, videos that seek to proselytise are usually made in a very interactive way. Netizens or audiences who log on to the live sessions are able to have their questions answered directly in the video, through e-mail or comments in other social media. Such an interactive method uniquely builds on the intimate bonds between the congregation (jamaah) and the preacher.

Frequent questions concerning daily issues can also be addressed through infographics, comics, and even memes. The creator of the online graphic da’wah is able to upload its e-comic onto three kinds of social media platforms – Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. Muslims who finds these media platforms useful can quite easily share with others who are also motivated by religious orders to “convey even one verse”.

Equipped with both theological and technological advantages, the Salafi-Wahabi brand of Islam had become the most influential stream in social media amongst Muslims in Indonesia. According to Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), a major Muslim organisation that spearheads counter argument against Salafi-Wahabi interpretations, many social media platforms espousing Salafi-Wahabi beliefs were even known to hide their identity by utilising prominent NU insignias namely: Ahlusunnah Wal Jamaah/Aswaja (Adherents to the Sunnah and the community) & Kitab Kuning (Traditional book used by NU’s communities) among others.

Social Media Platforms Good Enough?

Learning from the success of Salafi-Wahabi related methods used in social media, NU and Muhammadiyah may be late in the race to counter such teachings or provide counter-arguments against a literalist interpretation of Islam. The engagement of these indigenous organisations on a captive Muslim audience becomes an uphill battle even as they prioritise the setting up of a social media presence without paying attention to making online content as user-friendly as possible.

Compared with common Salafi-Wahabi videos, NU clerics have more comprehensive yet rather encumbered and time-consuming ways of exegesing a particular text or issue. A simplistic or absolutist approach towards religion would be dangerous for the ummah (Muslim community) with limited religious knowledge. In the traditional practice of pengajian (religious learning), one might have the luxury of expending a longer time to discuss a teaching. However, with social media where the attention span of a user tends to be shorter, a brief straightforward presentation is preferred.

NU’s main website (NU Online), for instance, addresses religious issues via 500- to 700-word articles. Despite being relatively short, Indonesian netizens on average read articles online in less than a minute. Apart from that, a short yet interactive video with clear image and sound reach more Internet users than merely an article. NU Online also functions as one that covers the activities of NU’s members but may not accommodate the ummah’s inquiries. This type of content would likely deter “non-NU” Muslims from exploring the website.

Videos of sermons, if any, are recorded without regard to a proper packaging of content. One consequence would be longer duration of video with unclear answers at the end. Another complaint is that the video resembles more of an ordinary video rather than that of a sermon designed specifically for an audience. Preachers are also usually not aware or savvy of how they can communicate interactively with netizens.

Influential Figures: An Alternative?

To provide the necessary counter argument, some NU members active in social media have begun to initiate efforts in disseminating their ideas. Nadirsyah Hosen, a NU member who resides in Australia, for instance, actively uses his Twitter account to criticise the current Islamisation of everyday life which places emphasis on outward appearances rather than internal comprehension of the religion. Nadirsyah, who joined Twitter since October 2015, has about 60,000 followers and he frequently organises interactive sessions via Twitter.

To a certain extent, the appearance of Islam in the Indonesian public sphere has been greatly influenced by more popular “celebrity” preachers. This new trend, in which traditional modes of Islamic transmission are increasingly challenged by advances in technology, forms the basis of the popularity of these new kinds of preachers.

In just a few years, the trend among Indonesian Muslims is now greatly inclined towards preachers who emphasised a spiritual transformation through some form of outward changes. These include drastic changes in fashion style, social media preference, and patterns of consumption. In other words, it is highly likely that a majority of Indonesian Muslims, at least in social media, prefers preachers who endorse greater Islamisation in everyday life.

In opposition to such a trend, Nadirsyah Hosen as well as other members of NU and Muhammadiyah sees things differently. They emphasised instead religion as being something private and internal. It remains to be seen if such alternative thinking on religion in social media could challenge the current absolutist or literalist interpretation of Islam in the long run.

*Satrio Dwicahyo is a Research Associate with the Indonesia Programme of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore.

New Technology Uses Mouth Gestures To Interact In Virtual Reality

0
0

Researchers at Binghamton University, State University of New York have developed a new technology that allows users to interact in a virtual reality environment using only mouth gestures.

The proliferation of affordable virtual reality head-mounted displays provides users with realistic immersive visual experiences. However, head-mounted displays occlude the upper half of a user’s face and prevent facial action recognition from the entire face. To combat this issue, Binghamton University Professor of Computer Science Lijun Yin and his team created a new framework that interprets mouth gestures as a medium for interaction within virtual reality in real-time.

Yin’s team tested the application on a group of graduate students. Once a user put on a head-mounted display, they were presented with a simplistic game; the objective of the game was to guide the player’s avatar around a forest and eat as many cakes as possible. Players had to select their movement direction using head rotation, move using mouth gestures and could only eat the cake by smiling. The system was able to describe and classify the user’s mouth movements, and it achieved high correct recognition rates. The system has also been demonstrated and validated through a real-time virtual reality application.

“We hope to make this applicable to more than one person, maybe two. Think Skype interviews and communication,” said Yin. “Imagine if it felt like you were in the same geometric space, face to face, and the computer program can efficiently depict your facial expressions and replicate them so it looks real.”

Though the tech is still in the prototype phase, Yin believes his technology is applicable to a plethora of fields.

“The virtual world isn’t only for entertainment. For instance, health care uses VR to help disabled patients,” said Yin. “Medical professionals or even military personal can go through training exercises that may not be possible to experience in real life. This technology allows the experience to be more realistic.”

Students Umur Aybars Ciftci and Xing Zhang contributed to this research.

The paper, “Partially occluded facial action recognition and interaction in virtual reality applications,” was presented at the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo.

Robert Reich: Trump And Weinstein – OpEd

0
0

Donald Trump weighed in on the scandal engulfing movie mogul and Democratic funder Harvey Weinstein, accused by multiple women of sexual harassment (Weinstein has been fired from his company). “I’ve know Harvey Weinstein a long time. I’m not at all surprised to see it,” Trump said.

Trump was subsequently asked by CNN’s Elizabeth’s Landers how Weinstein’s conduct differed from the conduct Trump bragged about on the “Access Hollywood” tape, where he said “when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.” Trump responded that the tape was just “locker-room talk.”

Rubbish. It wasn’t just “locker-room talk.” At least 15 women have publicly accused Trump of sexual harassment and assault, and People Magazine Natasha Stoynoff has six independent witnesses to back up her allegation that Trump “pushed her against a wall, shoved his tongue in her mouth, and told her they were going to have an affair.”

Trump is actively assaulting women in other ways. The Trump administration’s Education Department has moved to make it harder for women at universities to prove sexual harassment. Trump’s Health and Human Services Department has made it harder for women to get contraceptives. Trump has nominated 32 men and just one woman to become U.S. Attorneys. Trump’s 2018 budget calls for a 93 percent cut in funding for federal programs that aid survivors of sexual assault and domestic violence.

Trump and Weinstein are both sexual harassers and predators. But Trump is also president of the United States. That makes him even more dangerous to women.

Ron Paul: Will Tax Reform Increase Or Limit Liberty? – OpEd

0
0

President Trump and the congressional Republican leadership recently unveiled a tax reform “framework.” The framework has a number of provisions that will lower taxes on middle-class Americans. For example, the framework doubles the standard deduction and increases the child care tax credit. It also eliminates the alternative minimum tax (AMT). Created in the 1960s, the AMT was designed to ensure the “wealthy” did not use “loopholes” to “get out of” paying taxes. Today the AMT is mostly a means to increase taxes on the middle class.

The framework eliminates the “death tax,” thus enabling family-owned small businesses and farms to remain family owned. It also helps the economy by lowering the corporate tax rate to 20 percent, reducing taxes on small businesses. The framework also adopts a territorial tax system, which means US companies would only pay tax on profits earned in the United States.

However, the framework is far from a total victory for liberty. Concerns have been raised that, depending on what income levels are assigned to what tax brackets, the plan could increase taxes on many middle- and lower-income Americans! This is largely due to the framework’s elimination of most tax deductions.

The framework also contains a stealth tax increase imposed via the chained consumer price index (chained CPI). Supporters of chained CPI clam the government is currently overstating inflation. The truth is exactly the opposite: government statistics are manipulated to understate inflation.

Chained CPI enhances the government’s ability to lie about inflation. One way it does so is by claiming that inflation does not lower our standard of living if we can substitute cheaper goods for goods made unaffordable by inflation. So inflation does not harm you if you can’t afford a steak dinner as long as you can still buy a cheeseburger.

Chained CPI allows the government to take maximum advantage of “bracket creep,” where individuals are pushed into higher tax brackets not because they are actually earning more money, but because inflation creates the illusion they are wealthier. In fact, by decreasing their purchasing power, inflation makes most people poorer. The inflation tax thus raises taxes on declining incomes. It is hidden and regressive, making it the most insidious of all taxes.

Most of the framework’s problems stem from Congress’ continued refusal to offset tax cuts with spending cuts. Instead, Congress continues to increase spending, with the only real debate over whether the government should spend more on welfare or warfare.

Pairing tax cuts with increases in federal spending and debt — and the drafters of the framework admit their plan will increase the debt by at least $2.2 trillion — means that the economic benefit from the tax cuts will be outweighed by the economic harm caused by the increase in debt. Increasing the debt also means the Federal Reserve will further devalue the dollar in order to monetize that debt. While the Republican tax and budget plans predict uninterrupted economic growth, the US economy is far more likely to undergo a major economic crisis caused by a rejection of the dollar’s world reserve currency status.

While all supporters of individual liberty and sound economics should support tax cuts, the Republicans’ failure to cut spending means that their tax plan will do little to increase liberty or prosperity. Instead of increasing debt, eliminating deductions, and relying on the inflation tax to “pay for tax cuts,” Congress should cut two dollars in spending on the military-industrial complex and other forms of corporate welfare for every dollar in tax cuts. Cutting both taxes and spending is the only way to protect prosperity and liberty.

This article was published by RonPaul Institute.

Iran Says Cooperating With Russia, Turkey On ‘Regional, Global Issues’

0
0

Iran maintains constant consultations with Russia and Turkey about all international and regional issues, spokesman for the Iranian Foreign Ministry said on Monday, October 8, IRNA reports.

Tehran has continuous cooperation and consultation with Moscow and Ankara on the regional and international issues, including Syria, Bahram Qasemi told reporters during his weekly press briefing.

The three countries, addressing issues, coordinate all efforts in due time, Qasemi said.

Asked if Iran has any plan to dispatch inspectors to the northwestern Syrian city of Idlib where the Turkish government has declared the start of a military operation within the framework of the Astana agreement, the spokesman said the expert talks on the issue will be reviewed.

Negotiations are underway to examine expert and military issues, Qasemi said.

‘We hope to reach an agreement on such issues before the seventh round of Astana talks,’ he said

Commenting on the September 2015 Mina tragedy in Saudi Arabia that left scores of Iranian pilgrims dead, and the question of receiving blood money from the country, Qasemi said, Iran is ‘seriously following up’ the issue.

On September 24, 2015, near 500 Iranian pilgrims were killed in a stampede in Mina due to the Saudi mismanagement.

Asked about Russia’s stance on the September 25 referendum in the Iraqi Kurdistan Region, the official said the Russian government supports protecting Iraq’s territorial integrity.

Answering a question on Tehran’s stance regarding the unfounded accusations that Iran has used Afghan teenagers in the Syrian war, Qasemi said, these allegations have been made in continuation of efforts to promote Iranophobia and tarnish the image of the Islamic Republic.

Iran’s Embassy in Kabul has released a statement about a week ago and responded to the issue, Qasemi stressed.

‘If Afghan nationals have had any presence in Syria’ and have done any activities, the issue has nothing to do with Iran, the Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman said, stressing that the issue is baseless and that it is denied by Tehran.

Dismantling White Supremacy – OpEd

0
0

Last weekend, tens of thousands of people marched in Washington, DC in the combined March for Racial Justice and March for Black Women. Native Americans joined black and brown people to lead the march.

At the march, Rev. Graylan Hagler said, “White Supremacy has been given aid and comfort by a so-called president and so-called administration, and so-called leaders of that ideology are comforted and feel that they are back as a centerpiece of American political life.”

From coast to coast, it is true that white supremacists are active and are being more visible than they have in decades. This weekend,  Richard Spencer held another torch rally in Charlottesville. In Houston, fascists attacked a left-wing book fair, and the book fair organizers had to take action to protect attendees while police did not respond. Similar events happened in Portland, OR, San Diego, New York and Washington, DC.

Not all events are successful. In San Francisco, International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU Local 10) members and allies prevented a right-wing racist and violent group from holding a rally, thwarting the group at every attempt. And sometimes, white supremacists have to go to great lengths to hide their gatherings. David Lewis reports on how he infiltrated a secret convention in Seattle and saw how fascism is growing in Seattle the liberal city of the Northwest.

White supremacy is not new, and it manifests itself in many ways, not only in overt white supremacists, but also culturally and systemically. With the rise of open white supremacy, there are discussions about and controversy over how to respond.

Is there room for racism in civilized debates?

This issue is particularly pertinent for us right now because a local Baltimore League of Women Voters chapter is holding a series of panel discussions on immigration to which they invited speakers from anti-immigrant white supremacist groups that are listed as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center. The initial panel was protested by the local Green Party and others after The League refused to dis-invite the speaker and he was prevented from completing his presentation. He left the event.

This sparked discussion in our community and raised many questions: Was this an infringement on his right to free speech? Is this starting a slippery slope to shutting down people’s right to free speech? Should he have been allowed to speak and then challenged during the question and answer period? What is hate speech and should it be prohibited?

We speak about this topic as two white European-Americans who were raised in middle class households that condemned discrimination and bigotry. We have experienced white privilege throughout our lives. We are engaged in ongoing education about white supremacy and how we end it. Our thoughts are:

First, it should be clear that in a legal sense, individuals do not violate another individual’s right to free speech. The right to free speech is guaranteed by the First Amendment, which prevents the government, not individuals, from infringing on a person’s right to free speech. As long as the government protects the First Amendment, there is no slippery slope. Whether the government does protect free speech at present is a whole other conversation.

Second, when it comes to what private organizations do, this is another matter entirely. Organizations and institutions do not have a requirement to include those who espouse hate. They are not required to give a platform to or legitimize white supremacist views. In fact, one could argue that it is anti-social to do so. Professor Matt Pratt Guterl, from Brown University, explains it well in “How American’s Faith in Civilized Debate is Fueling White Supremacy.” when he writes about a debate between WEB DuBois and racist Lothrop Stoddard in 1920′s describing it as based on “the bizarre premise that there are two sides equally deserving our attention.” No, the white supremacist view should not be given legitimacy.

The essential idea is that the question of whether or not racism and white supremacy should exist has been answered. We have already agreed that we have equal human rights, even though we have not yet achieved them. Guterl writes that “Institutions should remember, though, that they exist to foster new ideas and better understandings” and that “mindfulness, civility, and respect are more closely aligned with oft-celebrated concepts like diversity and inclusion.”

Guterl writes about a public debate between W.E.B. Du Bois and a racist, Lothrop Stoddard. He concludes, “We should hear this story and think, with horror, of the obscene false equivalency at the heart of this confrontation – the bizarre premise that there are two sides equally deserving our attention. We should think it a travesty that a man of Du Bois’s erudition and intellect should have to prove that his race deserved to survive.”

Hate speech is legally defined as “speech that is intended to insult, offend, or intimidate a person because of some trait (as race, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, or disability).” A Supreme Court ruling earlier this year found that hate speech is protected from government repression under the First Amendment. Yet, while many injustices are technically legal, that does not mean we should defend them.

The International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, adopted by the United Nations in 1965, clearly states that “all propaganda and all organizations” based on ideas or theories of racial or ethnic superiority should be illegal and that states should take “positive steps to eliminate them.” We would do better as a society to debate the best ways to eliminate white supremacy.

What is white supremacy?

Of course, to eliminate white supremacy, we must understand what it is. Van R. Newkirk discusses this in “The Language of White Supremacy.” White supremacy is not limited to those people who identify as such or who behave in a certain way. He writes that the definition is much more expansive, and he quotes Frances Lee Ansley: “I refer instead to a political, economic and cultural system in which whites overwhelmingly control power and material resources, conscious and unconscious ideas of white superiority and entitlement are widespread, and relations of white dominance and non-white subordination are daily reenacted across a broad array of institutions and social settings.”

White supremacy is the state of Mississippi taking control of Jackson’s schools away from the people of Jackson. It is policies designed to break up and destroy black communities in Baltimore (Cliff DuRand expands on this here). It is families in Flint, MI that lack clean water or in Detroit that have their water shut off for being a few hundred dollars behind in their bills while just down the road Nestlé  pays $200 a year to bottle and sell pubic water.

White supremacy is the attack on public sector unions when it is public jobs that have brought greater prosperity to black families. It is a system of college admissions that favors the wealthy when blacks have much less wealth than whites through centuries of policies that denied them. It is economic inequality in St. Louis that is maintained through racist and violent policing.

It is policies that perpetuate environmental injustice, which Basav Sen explains are just as devastating to communities as the overt white supremacy witnessed in places like Charlottesville. And it is not only the disgraceful lack of action to bring timely aid to our people in Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria, similar to what happened after Hurricane Katrina, but also blatant discrimination by the US in the Marshall Islands.

And it is evident in US foreign policy, which devalues the lives of black and brown people all over the world. Medea Benjamin describes the justifiable outrage over the murder victims in Las Vegas but the silence on the anniversary of the murder of even more Yemenis at a funeral last year. Another example is the brutal ethnic cleansing in West Papua under Indonesian occupation that was made possible more than fifty years ago by the New York Agreement, which left out participation by West Papuan people. They are still bravely fighting for their right to independence.

Dismantling White Supremacy

In our recent experience with the League of Women Voters in Maryland, we were accused of “falling for identity politics that are being used to divide and weaken people.” So, as we work to dismantle white supremacy, let’s recognize that there is already a wide racial divide in the United States. It is obvious every day through the examples given above and more. A powerful way to resist being divided is to unite around efforts to end institutions and policies of white supremacy. We cannot hope to unite as equals and as a strong society until that is accomplished.

To do that, we need to move past allowing white supremacist ideas and theories to have a legitimate place in public debates. They have no place in our society except in textbooks so that future generations understand how destructive they were once upon a time.

Bill Bigelow of Rethinking Schools has an article for “Columbus Day,” which many cities and states celebrate as Indigenous Peoples’ Day. Bigelow  writes that in his review of children’s textbooks, he found “these books teach young readers that colonialism and racism are normal.” There is a long history of mis-education in the United States. Indeed, one candidate at the League of Women Voters panel informed us that we had open borders hundreds of years ago when “nobody was here,” completely ignoring the tens of millions of indigenous people in North America before settlers came.

Peter Saudek describes his journey from being a child surrounded by lessons and symbols that warped his perception of Native Americans to his awakening to the realities of settler-colonialism.

Bigelow leaves us with excellent advice this holiday weekend:

“Let’s pull down the monuments, let’s make the holidays more inclusive, let’s rewrite the textbooks and children’s literature. But let’s also challenge the fundamental structures of ownership, power, and privilege that have given us such a skewed constellation of heroes and holidays.”

US-Turkish Visa Spat: A Fight For Basic Freedoms – Analysis

0
0

Moves by the United States and Turkey that largely ban travel of their nationals between the two countries is about more than two long-standing NATO allies having a spat amid shifting alliances in a volatile part of the world. It is a fight between two leaders, US President Donald J. Trump and his Turkish counterpart, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, confronted with the limitations and fallout of their shared desire to redefine or restrict basic freedoms.

The spat erupted when the US embassy in Ankara announced this weekend that it was suspending the issuance of non-immigrant visas as part of a reassessment of the “commitment of the government of Turkey to the security of U.S. mission facilities and personnel.” The embassy stopped short of banning travel by all visa holders.

Hours later, the Turkish Embassy in Washington went a step further by declaring that it had suspended all visa operations for US citizens, effectively banning all US passport holders from travelling to the country. “This measure will apply to sticker visas as well as e-Visas and border visas,” the embassy said. Turkey’s currency plunged in the wake of the announcement in early morning trading on Asian markets.

The spat is the latest escalation of tensions in a relationship that has been fraying for several years  as a result of increasingly authoritarian policies adopted by Mr. Erdogan, differences over the conflict in Syria, US cooperation with Syrian Kurds, the separate indictments in the United States of an Turkish-Iranian businessman on charges of busting sanctions on Iran and 15 Turkish security guards for involvement in a street brawl, and Turkish allegations of US interference in its domestic affairs.

The latest spat highlights the risks of Mr. Trump’s empathy for authoritarian and autocratic leaders that contrasts starkly with a stress on basic freedoms and the rule of law adopted by his predecessors. Mr. Trump last month described relations with Turkey as “the closest we’ve ever been.”

The spat amounts to the White House getting a taste of its own medicine of ignoring abuse of human rights by some of its closest allies. As a result, US nationals and government employees have become the victims of seemingly arbitrary crackdowns for political rather than national security reasons that violate basic freedoms and make a mockery of the rule of law.

The spat erupted after Turkey indicted in the last year two Turkish nationals working at US diplomatic missions in the country and detained at least a dozen other US nationals, including a Christian missionary, on charges of having ties to Fethullah Gulen, an aging Turkish preacher who has lived in exile in Pennsylvania for the past two decades.

Mr. Erdogan blames Mr. Gulen, the leader of one of the world’s richest Islamic movements and most far-flung education systems, for having last year engineered a failed military attempt to remove him from office. Some 250 people died in the attempt in which dissident Turkish tank commanders fired at the Turkish parliament building in Ankara.

The indictment of the Turkish nationals and arrests of Americans were part of a massive crackdown on government critics that involved the firing up to 150,000 public servants, arrest of tens of thousands, curbing of press freedoms and granting the president wide-ranging powers. Mr. Erdogan has repeatedly justified the crackdown as a legitimate response to the failed coup.

The targeting of Turkish nationals employed by the US government appeared to be a crude attempt to persuade the Trump administration to extradite Mr. Gulen, who has denied having any association with the attempted coup.

The administrations of both Mr Trump and President Barack Obama have rejected Turkish extradition requests because Turkey had provided insufficient evidence to substantiate it’s claim that the preacher was responsible for the failed coup.

Mr. Erdogan also wants the release of Reza Zarrab, a Turkish-Iranian businessman with ties to Turkey’s ruling elite, who was arrested in Miami last year for helping Iran evade sanctions.

Mr. Erdogan last month suggested that he would be willing to swap Andrew Brunson, the detained missionary who ran a small Protestant church in the coastal city of İzmir, for Mr. Gulen. “‘Give us the pastor back,’ they say. You have one pastor (Gulen) as well. Give him to us. Then we will try (Mr. Brunson) and give him to you,” Mr. Erdogan said.

The spat constitutes a serious deterioration of US Turkish relations at a time that Turkish-backed rebels are battling Islamic militants in Syria’s Idlib province. The fighting aims to drive back Al-Qaeda-linked forces and prevent the emergence of a Syrian Kurdish entity on Turkey’s border in the wake of a recent Iraqi Kurdish vote for independence. It also comes as Turkey has forged closer ties with Iran to confront Kurdish moves and has stepped up co-operation with Russia in Syria.

Turkey is not the only country to detain US nationals or green card holders. Ola Al-Qaradawi, a 55-year-old research assistant and daughter of controversial Qatar-based religious scholar Yousef al-Qaradawi who has a green card, and her husband, Hossam Khalaf, have been held in solitary confinement since last year. Their only crime appears to be that she is related to a spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The United States has no consular obligations but Congressman Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the powerful House Armed Services Committee, has taken up their case.

Egyptian general-turned-president Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi, who came to power in a military coup in 2013 that toppled the country’s first and only democratically elected president, has gone much further than Mr. Erdogan in brutally cracking down on opponents and freedoms.

In a rare break with apparent US neglect of abuse of human rights among its allies, Mr. Trump has cut military aid to Egypt, citing legal restrictions imposed on non-governmental organizations. The real reason was more likely Egypt’s relations with North Korea.

The Trump administration has suggested that it would review its aid decision if Egypt breaks off diplomatic relations with North Korea. Acting on US intelligence, Egyptian authorities seized in August a boatload of $23 million worth of rocket-propelled grenades shipped from North Korea and destined for Egypt. Egypt has denied that it was the intended end-user.

To be fair, the repressive policies of Messrs. Erdogan and Al-Sisi as well as Mr. Trump’s attitudes towards authoritarianism and autocracy and his efforts to redefine basic freedoms in the United States enjoy the support of segments of their populations.

As a result, the plight of US nationals and government employees in Turkey is unlikely to persuade Mr Trump to return to the more assertive advocacy of basic rights and the rule of law of his predecessors. It does, however, demonstrate that tacit endorsement of authoritarian or autocratic rule is not without risk for US citizens as well as foreign nationals employed by the US government.

Moreover, it suggests that lack of respect for human rights and the rule of law constitutes a slippery slope that ultimately could put US national security interests at risk on a far larger scale. That has been evident since the 2011 popular Arab revolts that has heralded an era of often volatile and violent transition in the Middle East for which no end is in sight. It is a convoluted and bloody process of change that poses multiple, often unpredictable challenges, many of which are exacerbated rather than alleviated by autocratic and authoritarian rule.


Washington Re-Evaluates Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action: Thumbs Up Or Thumbs Down? – Analysis

0
0

The historic 2015 nuclear deal with Iran could collapse. A key deadline is approaching on October 15, and all eyes are on Washington, where the Trump Administration called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action an ‘embarrassment’ to the United States on the campaign trail and at the United Nations General Assembly.

The JCPOA was welcomed by an overwhelming majority of the global community and was called a landmark deal by the Obama Administration. Now, it looks like the deal might fall apart given the strong opposition within the political elite of Washington, which includes people within the military, the intelligence community, the Republican establishment, and in various foreign policy think tanks throughout the beltway.

President Trump needs to certify that Iran has been complying with the deal according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and a U.S withdrawal from the deal will not only hurt U.S ambitions in the Middle East, but it will hurt Washington’s reputation as a trustworthy world leader within the global community.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has called President Trump’s allegations of Iran being a rogue state, and an exporter of terrorism ‘baseless’ at the UN General Assembly in New York and warned of a decisive and resolute response if Washington violated the deal. If the United States does abandon from the deal, Iran could also walk away and this is a worst-case scenario that could lead to further escalation between Tehran and Washington.

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was signed in 2015 by the United States, Iran, the European Union, the four other permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, and Germany to lift sanctions on Iran in exchange for Iran to curb its nuclear program. The deal restrains the amount of nuclear fuel Iran can keep for the next fifteen years and prevents Tehran’s ability to use uranium and plutonium to create weapons. In order to do this, Iran’s stockpile of low-enriched uranium needed to be reduced by 98% and two-thirds of its installed centrifuges cut.

The deal also calls for sanctions to be imposed quickly if the JCPOA is violated, and inspectors from the United Nations can access Iran’s nuclear sites at any time. President Trump must certify that Iran is complying with the deal every ninety days and the next deadline is next week. If President Trump does not certify that Iran is in compliance with the deal, it is up to Congress to reimpose the old sanctions on Tehran which will once again hurt the Iranian economy.

President Trump has made it clear throughout his presidential campaign and his time in office that he does not like the Iran deal and Trump’s intention was to find a way out of the deal by pushing his national security and foreign policy advisors to get the U.S to walk away from the JCPOA. The problem for Trump is that there is no easy way out and there is no feasible alternative to the current framework.

In addition, the IAEA has released eight reports that have not shown Iran violating the agreement, and it leaves Trump’s team with very little to work with. There are no technical violations on the Iranian side, and there is no alternative to the current deal.

Up until now, President Trump has essentially been forced to certify Iran’s compliance and continue waiving the sanctions. However, Trump may not cite any violations by Iran, but he could simply say that the deal does not align with U.S interests, and then Congress can decide to reimpose sanctions, which would take the United States out of the JCPOA.

It is incredibly difficult to get Americans, Iranians, and Europeans on the same page, but this is what the JCPOA agreement did. Many Obama officials have continued to back the JCPOA, and Rouhani along with Zarif have worked very hard to save the deal. So far, there is still a consensus from Iranian, European, and some American observers of the Middle East that want to preserve the JCPOA. The problem lies within President Trump’s campaign promise to break up the agreement and there are also a small number of hawks in Tehran that don’t like the agreement either. One of the objectives of the JCPOA was to reduce sanctions, and only increasing the sanctions will put the nuclear agreement in serious jeopardy.

The Trump strategy is to build a united front between the White House and Congress to work with the Europeans to build in a pretext to force Iran to commit some sort of violation of either the deal or a U.S-European consensus. This may seem strange, but the Trump Administration has kept Congress at bay telling them not to reimpose sanctions right now, but the Trump team has been working with the French and the British to find a way to create a supplemental agreement where the U.S could renegotiate the JCPOA, and the Europeans could call the agreement a supplement that would address other issues like Iran’s missile program and its role in the region.

The U.S has been pushing Iran not to accept the JCPOA and to have Iran violate the deal. This has been the strategy all along, and this will be something that will continue into next week. Washington is challenging Iran’s compliance with the JCPOA in two ways. One is to frame a consensus with the Europeans on forcing Iran to negotiate on other areas outside the deal and the other way is to push the IAEA to inspect other sites like military sites for the U.S to gain more leverage on creating ground rules to Middle East foreign policy.

The European Union has made it clear that the Iran deal is the only way forward and there is no more room for renegotiation to tweak the deal. If Congress imposes new sanctions on Iran that are not nuclear related, European businesses investing in Iran would be affected, and the E.U would eventually have to decide if they want to stick with the agreement or pull out as well.

If Congress pushes for sanctions that are U.S specific and do not penalize European businesses and banks, then the Europeans will continue to stick with the JCPOA even though they will feel the chills coming out of Washington. The Iran deal was also a major foreign policy accomplishment by the European Union to diversify markets and bring European business to Iran. The Europeans will also continue to support the implementation of the deal even if the U.S backs out.

Right now, all eyes are on Washington for the next week to see if President Trump will either keep the JCPOA in place or simply walk away. The United States should be a world leader who negotiates through strength, and that strength is using diplomacy to resolve global issues that create bridges with former foes, and not barriers. We can only hope that Trump certifies with the deal, but if he doesn’t, Washington, as well as the other signatories to the agreement could ultimately pay the price for making the wrong decision.

Honey Samples Worldwide Test Positive For Neonicotinoids

0
0

A global sampling of honey finds 75% to be contaminated with neonicotinoid pesticides. Of note, the concentrations detected are below the amount authorized by the European Union for human consumption.

The situation is more bleak for pollinators, however. Widespread application of neonicotinoids has been identified as a key factor responsible for the global decline in pollinators, particularly bees.

Edward A.D. Mitchell et al. sought to explore the extent of exposure by testing 198 honey samples for five commonly used neonicotinoids: acetamiprid, clothianidin, imidacloprid, thiacloprid, and thiamethoxam.

Samples were taken across all continents (except Antarctica), as well as numerous isolated islands. Overall, 75% of all honey samples contained at least one neonicotinoid; of these contaminated samples, 30% of contained a single neonicotinoid, 45% contained two or more, and 10% contained four or five.

Concentrations were highest in European, North American, and Asian samples.

While the authors emphasize that the concentrations of neonicotinoids were below levels that the EU authorizes in food and feed products, they do cite some emerging studies on the effects of neonicotinoids in vertebrates, such as impaired immune functioning and reduced growth, which may result in a re-evaluation of these restrictions.

As for the effects on bees, 34% of honey samples were found to have concentrations of neonicotinoids that are known to be detrimental.

These results suggest that a substantial proportion of world pollinators are probably affected by neonicotinoids.

School Year ‘Relative Age’ Causing Bias In ADHD Diagnosis

0
0

Younger primary school children are more likely to be diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) than their older peers within the same school year, new research has shown.

The study, led by a child psychiatrist at The University of Nottingham with researchers at the University of Turku in Finland, suggests that adults involved in raising concerns over a child’s behaviour – such as parents and teachers – may be misattributing signs of relative immaturity as symptoms of the disorder.

In their research, published in The Lancet Psychiatry, the experts suggest that greater flexibility in school starting dates should be offered for those children who may be less mature than their same school-year peers.

Kapil Sayal, Professor of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry at the University’s School of Medicine and the Centre for ADHD and Neurodevelopmental Disorders Across the Lifespan at the Institute of Mental Health in Nottingham, was the lead author on the study.

He said: “The findings of this research have a range of implications for teachers, parents and clinicians. With an age variation of up to 12 months in the same class, teachers and parents may misattribute a child’s immaturity. This might lead to younger children in the class being more likely to be referred for an assessment for ADHD.

“Parents and teachers as well as clinicians who are undertaking ADHD assessments should keep in mind the child’s relative age. From an education perspective, there should be flexibility with an individualised approach to best meets the child’s needs.”

Evidence suggests that worldwide, the incidence of ADHD among school age children is, at around five per cent, fairly uniform. However, there are large differences internationally in the rates of clinical diagnosis and treatment.

Although this may partially reflect the availability of and access to services, the perceptions of parents and teachers also play an important role in recognising children who may be affected by ADHD, as information they provide is used as part of the clinical assessment.

The study centred on whether the so-called ‘relative age effect’ – the perceived differences in abilities and development between the youngest and oldest children in the same year group – could affect the incidence of diagnosis of ADHD.

Adults may be benchmarking the development and abilities of younger children against their older peers in the same year group and inadvertently misinterpreting immaturity for more serious problems.

Previous studies have suggested that this effect plays an important role in diagnosis in countries where higher numbers of children are diagnosed and treated for ADHD, leading to concerns that clinicians may be over-diagnosing the disorder.

The latest study aimed to look at whether the effect also plays a significant role in the diagnosis of children in countries where the prescribing rates for ADHD are relatively low.

It used nationwide population data from all children in Finland born between 1991 and 2004 who were diagnosed with ADHD from the age of seven years – school starting age – onwards. In Finland, children start school during the calendar year they turn 7 years of age, with the school year starting in mid-August. Therefore, the eldest in a school year are born in January (aged 7 years and 7 months) and the youngest in December (6 years and 7 months).

The results showed that younger children were more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD than their older same-year peers – boys by 26 per cent and girls by 31 per cent.

For children under the age of 10 years, this association got stronger over time – in the more recent years 2004-2011, children born in May to August were 37 per cent more likely to be diagnosed and those born in September to December 64 per cent, compared to the oldest children born in January to April

The study found that this ‘relative age affect’ could not be explained by other behavioural or developmental disorders which may also have been affecting the children with an ADHD diagnosis.

However, the experts warn, the study did have some important limitations – the data did not reveal whether any of the young children were held back a year for educational reasons and potentially misclassified as the oldest in their year group when in fact they were the youngest of their original peers.

The flexibility in school starting date could explain why the rate of ADHD in December-born children (the relatively youngest) were slightly lower than those for children born in October and November.

And while the records of publicly-funded specialised services which are free at the point of access will capture most children who have received a diagnosis of ADHD, it will miss those who were diagnosed in private practice.

Formation Of Coal Almost Turned Earth Into A Snowball

0
0

While burning coal today causes Earth to overheat, about 300 million years ago the formation of that same coal brought our planet close to global glaciation.

For the first time, scientists show the massive effect in a study to be published in the renowned Proceedings of the US Academy of Sciences. When trees in vast forests died during a time called the Carboniferous and the Permian, the carbon dioxide (CO2) they took up from the atmosphere while growing got buried; the plants’ debris over time formed most of the coal that today is used as fossil fuel.

Consequently, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere sank drastically and Earth cooled down to a degree it narrowly escaped what scientists call a ‘snowball state’.

“It is quite an irony that forming the coal that today is a major factor for dangerous global warming once almost lead to global glaciation,” said author Georg Feulner from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. “However, this illustrates the enormous dimension of the coal issue. The amount of CO2 stored in Earth’s coal reserves was once big enough to push our climate out of balance. When released by burning the coal, the CO2 is again destabilizing the Earth system.”

The study examines the sensitivity of the climate in a specific period of Earth’s deep past by using a large ensemble of computer simulations. While some of the changes in temperature at that time can clearly be attributed to how our planet’s axis was tilted and the way it circled the sun, the study reveals the substantial influence of CO2 concentrations.

Estimates based on ancient soils and fossil leaves show that they fluctuated widely and at some point sank to about 100 parts CO2 per million parts of all gases in the atmosphere, and possibly even lower. The model simulations now reveal that global glaciation occurs below 40 parts per million.

Today, CO2 levels in the atmosphere have reached more than 400 parts per million. Carbon dioxide acts as a greenhouse gas: the Sun warms Earth’s surface, but most of the heat radiated by the surface escapes into space; CO2 and other greenhouse gases hinder part of this heat from escaping, hence warming the planet.

“We should definitely keep CO2 levels in the atmosphere below 450 parts per million to keep our climate stable, and ideally much lower than that. Raising the amount of greenhouse gases beyond that limit means pushing ourselves out of the safe operating space of Earth,” said Feulner. “Earth’s past teaches us that periods of rapid warming were often associated with mass extinction events. This shows that a stable climate is something to appreciate and protect.”

Millions Could Benefit By Genetically Boosting Corn’s Nutritional Value

0
0

Rutgers scientists have found an efficient way to enhance the nutritional value of corn – the world’s largest commodity crop – by inserting a bacterial gene that causes it to produce a key nutrient called methionine, according to a new study.

The Rutgers University-New Brunswick discovery could benefit millions of people in developing countries, such as in South America and Africa, who depend on corn as a staple. It could also significantly reduce worldwide animal feed costs.

“We improved the nutritional value of corn, the largest commodity crop grown on Earth,” said Thomas Leustek, study co-author and professor in the Department of Plant Biology in the School of Environmental and Biological Sciences. “Most corn is used for animal feed, but it lacks methionine – a key amino acid – and we found an effective way to add it.”

The study, led by Jose Planta, a doctoral student at the Waksman Institute of Microbiology, was published online today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Methionine, found in meat, is one of the nine essential amino acids that humans get from food, according to the National Center for Biotechnology Information. It is needed for growth and tissue repair, improves the tone and flexibility of skin and hair, and strengthens nails. The sulfur in methionine protects cells from pollutants, slows cell aging and is essential for absorbing selenium and zinc.

Every year, synthetic methionine worth several billion dollars is added to field corn seed, which lacks the substance in nature, said study senior author Joachim Messing, a professor who directs the Waksman Institute of Microbiology. The other co-author is Xiaoli Xiang of the Rutgers Department of Plant Biology and Sichuan Academy of Agricultural Sciences in China.

“It is a costly, energy-consuming process,” said Messing, whose lab collaborated with Leustek’s lab for this study. “Methionine is added because animals won’t grow without it. In many developing countries where corn is a staple, methionine is also important for people, especially children. It’s vital nutrition, like a vitamin.”

Chicken feed is usually prepared as a corn-soybean mixture, and methionine is the sole essential sulfur-containing amino acid that’s missing, the study says.

The Rutgers scientists inserted an E. coli bacterial gene into the corn plant’s genome and grew several generations of corn. The E. coli enzyme – 3?-phosphoadenosine-5?-phosphosulfate reductase (EcPAPR) – spurred methionine production in just the plant’s leaves instead of the entire plant to avoid the accumulation of toxic byproducts, Leustek said. As a result, methionine in corn kernels increased by 57 percent, the study says.

Then the scientists conducted a chicken feeding trial at Rutgers and showed that the genetically engineered corn was nutritious for them, Messing said.

“To our surprise, one important outcome was that corn plant growth was not affected,” he said.

In the developed world, including the U.S., meat proteins generally have lots of methionine, Leustek said. But in the developing world, subsistence farmers grow corn for their family’s consumption.

“Our study shows that they wouldn’t have to purchase methionine supplements or expensive foods that have higher methionine,” he said.

Crisis In Catalonia Caused By Spain’s Constitutional Court – OpEd

0
0

After the violence unleashed at the polls by the Spanish national government, many in Europe are holding their collective breath waiting for Catalonia to declare independence.

As we reflect on this crisis in Spain, we would do well to recall just who made all this trouble: the judiciary. The legislature of Catalonia and the Spanish parliament had come to a peaceful agreement.

In 2010, after 4 years of deliberation, Spain’s Constitutional Court struck many provisions of this legislative agreement. Verfassungsblog has a good commentary on this decision. The court’s action sparked the a call for a vote on independence in which 90 percent of those going to the polls voted for secession.

Now we are waiting to see if Catalonia issues a declaration of independence and attempts to set itself up as an independent nation. There is great concern that the Spanish central government will send in troops to prohibit this from happening.

A good lesson to be learned from this crisis is that the courts, when possible, should defer to decisions of the elected branches of government when they have successfully mediated a settlement on a controversial issue. But for the judiciary’s actions in this case, there would have been no independence vote or the saber rattling that is coming from Madrid.

This article was published by The Beacon.

How Billionaires Become Billionaires – OpEd

0
0

America has the greatest inequalities, highest mortality rate, most regressive taxes, and largest public subsidies for bankers and billionaires of any developed capitalist country.
In this essay we will discuss the socio-economic roots of inequalities and the relation between the concentration of wealth and the downward mobility of the working and salaried classes.

How the Billionaires become Billionaires

One of the most likely sources of billionaire wealth is through tax evasion in all of its guises and forms.

Contrary to the propaganda pushed by the business press, between 67% and 72% percent of corporations had zero tax liabilities after credits and exemptions … while their workers and employees paid between 25 – 30% in taxes. The rate for the minority of corporations, which paid any tax, was 14%.

According to the US Internal Revenue Service, billionaire tax evasion amounts to $458 billion dollars in lost public revenues every year – almost a trillion dollars every two years by this conservative estimate.

The largest US corporations sheltered over $2.5 trillion dollars in overseas tax havens where they paid no taxes or single digit tax rates.

Meanwhile US corporations in crisis received over $14.4 trillion dollars (Bloomberg claimed 12.8 trillion) in public bailout money, split between the US Treasury and the Federal Reserve, mostly from US tax payers, who are overwhelmingly workers, employees and pensioners.

The recipient bankers invested their interest-free or low interest US bailout funds and earned billions in profits, most resulting from mortgage foreclosures of working class households.

Through favorable legal rulings and illegal foreclosures, the bankers evicted 9.3 million families. Over 20 million individuals lost their properties, often due to illegal or fraudulent debts.

A small number of the financial swindlers, including executives from Wall Street’s leading banks (Goldman Sachs, J. P. Morgan etc), paid fines – but no one went to prison for the gargantuan fraud that drove millions of Americans into misery.

There are other swindler bankers, like the current Secretary of Treasury Steve Mnuchin, who enriched themselves by illegally foreclosing on thousands of homeowners in California. Some were tried; all were exonerated, thanks to the influence of Democratic political leaders during the Obama years.

Silicon Valley and its innovative billionaires have found novel way to avoid taxes using overseas tax havens and domestic tax write-offs. They increase their wealth and corporate profits by paying their local manual and service workers poverty level wages.

Silicon Valley executives ‘earn’ a thousand times more than their production workers..
Class inequalities are further reinforced by ethnic divisions. White, Chinese and Indian multi-millionaires exploit Afro-American, Latin American, Vietnamese and Filipino workers.

Billionaires in the commercial conglomerates, like Walmart, exploit workers by paying poverty wages and providing few, if any, benefits. Walmart earns $16 billion dollar a year in profits by paying its workers between $10 and $13 an hour and relying on state and federal assistance to provide services to the families of its impoverished workers through Medicaid and food stamps. Amazon plutocrat Jeff Bezos exploits workers by paying $12.50 an hour while he has accumulated over $80 billion dollars in profits. UPS CEO David Albany takes $11 million a year by exploiting workers at $11 an hour. Federal Express CEO, Fred Smith gets $16 million and pays workers $11 an hour.

Inequality is not a result of ‘technology’ and ‘education’- contemporary euphemisms for the ruling class cult of superiority – as liberals and conservative economists and journalists like to claim. Inequalities are a result of low wages, based on big profits, financial swindles, multi-trillion dollar public handouts and multi-billion- dollar tax evasion. The ruling class has mastered the ‘technology’ of exploiting the state, through its pillage of the treasury, and the working class. Capitalist exploitation of low paid production workers provides additional billions for the ‘philanthropic’ billionaire family foundations to polish their public image – using another tax avoidance gimmick – self-glorifying ‘donations’.

Workers pay disproportional taxes for education, health, social and public services and subsidies for billionaires.

Billionaires in the arms industry and security/mercenary conglomerates receive over $700 billion dollars from the federal budget, while over 100 million US workers lack adequate health care and their children are warehoused in deteriorating schools.

Workers and Bosses: Mortality Rates

Billionaires and multi-millionaires and their families enjoy longer and healthier lives than their workers. They have no need for health insurance policies or public hospitals. CEO’s live on average ten years longer than a worker and enjoy twenty years more of healthy and pain-free lives.

Private, exclusive clinics and top medical care include the most advanced treatment and safe and proven medication which allow billionaires and their family members to live longer and healthier lives. The quality of their medical care and the qualifications of their medical providers present a stark contrast to the health care apartheid that characterizes the rest of the United States.

Workers are treated and mistreated by the health system: They have inadequate and often incompetent medical treatment, cursory examinations by inexperienced medical assistants and end up victims of the widespread over-prescription of highly addictive narcotics and other medications. Over-prescription of narcotics by incompetent ‘providers’ has significantly contributed to the rise in premature deaths among workers, spiraling cases of opiate overdose, disability due to addiction and descent into poverty and homelessness. These irresponsible practices have made additional billions of dollars in profits for the insurance corporate elite, who can cut their pensions and health care liabilities as injured, disabled and addicted workers drop out of the system or die.

The shortened life expectancy for workers and their family members is celebrated on Wall Street and in the financial press. Over 560,000 workers were killed by opioids between 1999-2015 contributing to the decline in life expectancy for working age wage and salary earners and reduced pension liabilities for Wall Street and the Social Security Administration.

Inequalities are cumulative, inter-generational and multi-sectorial.

Billionaire families, their children and grandchildren, inherit and invest billions. They have privileged access to the most prestigious schools and medical facilities, and conveniently fall in love to equally privileged, well-connected mates to join their fortunes and form even greater financial empires. Their wealth buys favorable, even fawning, mass media coverage and the services of the most influential lawyers and accountants to cover their swindles and tax evasion.

Billionaires hire innovators and sweat shop MBA managers to devise more ways to slash wages, increase productivity and ensure that inequalities widen even further.

Billionaires do not have to be the brightest or most innovative people: Such individuals can simply be bought or imported on the ‘free market’ and discarded at will.
Billionaires have bought out or formed joint ventures with each other, creating interlocking directorates. Banks, IT, factories, warehouses, food and appliance, pharmaceuticals and hospitals are linked directly to political elites who slither through doors of rotating appointments within the IMF, the World Bank, Treasury, Wall Street banks and prestigious law firms.

Consequences of Inequalities

First and foremost, billionaires and their political, legal and corporate associates dominate the political parties. They designate the leaders and key appointees, thus ensuring that budgets and policies will increase their profits, erode social benefits for the masses and weaken the political power of popular organizations.

Secondly, the burden of the economic crisis is shifted on to the workers who are fired and later re-hired as part-time, contingent labor. Public bailouts, provided by the taxpayer, are channeled to the billionaires under the doctrine that Wall Street banks are too big to fail and workers are too weak to defend their wages, jobs and living standards.
Billionaires buy political elites, who appoint the World Bank and IMF officials tasked with instituting policies to freeze or reduce wages, slash corporate and public health care obligations and increase profits by privatizing public enterprises and facilitating corporate relocation to low wage, low tax countries.

As a result, wage and salary workers are less organized and less influential; they work longer and for less pay, suffer greater workplace insecurity and injuries – physical and mental – fall into decline and disability, drop out of the system, die earlier and poorer, and, in the process, provide unimaginable profits for the billionaire class. Even their addiction and deaths provide opportunities for huge profit – as the Sackler Family, manufacturers of Oxycontin, can attest.

The billionaires and their political acolytes argue that deeper regressive taxation would increase investments and jobs. The data speaks otherwise. The bulk of repatriated profits are directed to buy back stock to increase dividends for investors; they are not invested in the productive economy. Lower taxes and greater profits for conglomerates means more buy-outs and greater outflows to low wage countries. In real terms taxes are already less than half the headline rate and are a major factor heightening the concentration of income and power – both cause and effect.

Corporate elites, the billionaires in the Silicon Valley-Wall Street global complex are relatively satisfied that their cherished inequalities are guaranteed and expanding under the Demo-Republican Presidents- as the ‘good times’ roll on.

Away from the ‘billionaire elite’, the ‘outsiders’ – domestic capitalists – clamor for greater public investment in infrastructure to expand the domestic economy, lower taxes to increase profits, and state subsidies to increase the training of the labor force while reducing funds for health care and public education. They are oblivious to the contradiction.

In other words, the capitalist class as a whole, globalist and domestic alike, pursues the same regressive policies, promoting inequalities while struggling over shares of the profits.

One hundred and fifty million wage and salaried taxpayers are excluded from the political and social decisions that directly affect their income, employment, rates of taxation, and political representation.

They understand, or at least experience, how the class system works. Most workers know about the injustice of the fake ‘free trade’ agreements and regressive tax regime, which weighs heavy on the majority of wage and salary earners.

However, worker hostility and despair is directed against ‘immigrants’ and against the ‘liberals’ who have backed the import of cheap skilled and semi-skilled labor under the guise of ‘freedom’. This ‘politically correct’ image of imported labor covers up a policy, which has served to lower wages, benefits and living standards for American workers, whether they are in technology, construction or production. Rich conservatives, on the other hand, oppose immigration under the guise of ‘law and order’ and to lower social expenditures – despite that fact that they all use imported nannies, tutors, nurses, doctors and gardeners to service their families. Their servants can always be deported when convenient.

The pro and anti-immigrant issue avoids the root cause for the economic exploitation and social degradation of the working class – the billionaire owners operating in alliance with the political elite.

In order to reverse the regressive tax practices and tax evasion, the low wage cycle and the spiraling death rates resulting from narcotics and other preventable causes, which profit insurance companies and pharmaceutical billionaires, class alliances need to be forged linking workers, consumers, pensioners, students, the disabled, the foreclosed homeowners, evicted tenants, debtors, the under-employed and immigrants as a unified political force.

Sooner said than done, but never tried! Everything and everyone is at stake: life, health and happiness.


Did The Indians Understand The Concept Of Private Property? – Analysis

0
0

By Ryan McMaken*

One of Ayn Rand’s most notorious claims is that Europeans and their descendants were justified in driving Indian tribes off their lands because aboriginal Americans “did not have the concept of property or property rights,” and because they “wish[ed] to continue a primitive existence.” Rand also claims the Indian tribes had no right to the land they lived on because “they didn’t have a settled society,” and “had predominantly nomadic tribal ‘cultures.'” Rand even uses scare quotes around “cultures” to perhaps imply that Indian culture was not any type of culture at all.

Today, many critics of laissez-faire liberalism (i.e., libertarianism) continue to quote these lines in order to indict all defenders of private property, whom critics like to associate with Rand’s peculiar ideology.

As with so many accusations that conflate Rand’s beliefs with libertarians, this is misplaced. Many libertarian writers have approached the issue from a a perspective which assumes the tribes were treated unjustly. Leonard Liggio, for example, discussed the issue from this perspective in the early 1970s, and Rothbard repeatedly wrote with sympathy in Conceived in Liberty about the tribes who interacted with colonial Americans. To this day, Indian-tribe sovereignty, as weak as it is, continues to be an important check on federal power.

Regardless of how one views European and American policy toward the tribes, however, the argument that the tribes and individual Indians had no concept of property — and thus whites were justified in seizing tribal lands — is a terrible argument for a variety of reasons.

First, as we shall see, the claim that the Indians and tribes had no concept of property is completely alien to the actual historical facts in the matter.

Second, this argument is especially damaging and misguided because it creates the impression that the concept of private property is not apparent to all rational human beings, and is perhaps even an invention of European theorists. This argument, of course, is beloved by Marxists and other anti-capitalists ideologues who argue that the idea of private property is peculiar to capitalists who invented the concept to justify their own “exploitation” of workers.

Fortunately, this is not the case at all. The concept of property — in any situation where scarcity exists — is self-evident, and does not require complex theories spun by Europeans to become apparent.

Indian Tribes Were not All the Same

One of the main reasons that even educated people like Rand believe that North American Indians were virtually all “nomadic” and did not understand the concept of property, is the influence of Hollywood. In Rand’s day especially, popular culture virtually always focused primarily on Plains Indians — frequently the Lakota and Cheyenne tribes — and rarely portrayed Indian tribes with very different social structures.

In real life, Indian tribes across North America — prior to the 20th century — varied considerably in social structure, the usage of technology, and lifestyle. Indeed, whenever one encounters commentary that refers to “the Indians” as a uniform group, this should be a red flag to the reader that the argument is being made by someone who knows next to nothing about the tribes.

The Pueblo Indians of New Mexico were not nomadic at all, and employed agriculture, much like the so-called “Five Civilized Tribes” (i.e., Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole). The Cherokee, of course, were known for their highly-successful use of agriculture (which prompted whites to later steal their fertile lands under Andrew Jackson). The Iroquois rotated their living quarters among several preferred locations that were regarded as the best for farming and hunting.

Virtually all Indian tribes recognized the validity of personal property. Individual tribe members were not expected to “share” their horses, weapons, dwellings, and slaves among all other members of the tribe.

Indeed, many tribes, especially among the Plains Indians, developed complex economic and social rules and mores around the so-called “horse culture” in which ownership of the highest quality horses were a status symbol, and a means of attaining power and prestige within the tribe.

In regards to the Comanches of the southern plains, economist Bruce Benson has observed:

private ownership was firmly established for such things as horses, tools for hunting and gathering, food, weapons, materials used in the construction of mobile shelters, clothing, and various kinds of body ornaments that were used for religious ceremonies and other activities. Cooperative production (group raids to take horses from enemy tribes or group hunts ) did not imply communal ownership. The product of such cooperative activities was divided among participants according to their contributed effort. Individuals might share such things as food at times, but they did so out of generosity. Food could be given but not taken because it was private property not communal property.

One of the reasons that many continue to think that aboriginal Americans had no concept of private property, however, is because many tribes did regard land as being communally owned. Carl Watner explores the topic in The Journal of Libertarian Studies:

Misunderstanding arising from their differing concepts of property in land was one of the main causes of disputes between the Europeans and the Indians. The Indians did not recognize land appropriation by individual members of the tribe, and even Roger Williams recognized that landownership among the Indians was usually held by the tribe. Nevertheless, among the Indians articles of personal property were owned by the individual. Each Indian tribe was perfectly well acquainted with the limits and bounds of its landholdings, even though these holdings were not enclosed in the normal European fashion.

As voluntary associations, the tribes could, and in fact did, historically, sell their rights to the soil by allowing their chiefs to represent tribal interests. These chiefs were authorized to make and execute deeds on behalf of the tribe, to receive for the tribe the consideration for the deeds, and to divide such consideration among the individuals of the tribe. The authority of the chiefs, so acting for the whole tribe, is attested by the presence and assent of the individuals composing the tribe and by their receipt of their respective share of the price.” Thus could the Indian tribes deal with the Europeans for the sale of their lands, and granted that the chiefs had this authority, it must be admitted that they were capable of determining what in their opinion would be ample compensation for their lands.

To take this reality and thus conclude that Indians — or the tribes — had no concept of private property — is to define down property to the point of being useless.

As I’ve noted in the past, communal property is private property, since ownership is restricted to specific groups of people, to the exclusion of others. Communal property is not “shared” among just anyone who wants to use it. Communal property is not unowned.

This issue is further complicated by an overly restrictive idea of homesteading employed by some libertarian theorists.

John Locke, of course, famously asserted that ownership of land can be obtained through three methods:

  1.  Homestead it via fencing it in, protecting it, and proclaiming that it is under your ownership.
  2.  Acquiring the property title via voluntary transfer.
  3.  Claiming abandoned land by adverse possession: move on it, fence it, mix one’s labor with it, etc.

Those who claim that the Indian tribes had no right to their land, often employ this reasoning to build their case. But this is too limiting in its idea of homesteading the land. Consider, for example, that a plot of land exists with a lake on it. Inside the lake are fish. A group of Indians then claims the lake as their own, in order to catch the fish, and excludes other groups from entering into the land. Have they homesteaded it?

A strict view of Lockean “improvement” (i.e., mixing labor with the land) might be that the group of Indians have no claim to the land because they have not improved it by planting trees or putting a fence around it. In fact, the very act of excluding others is an act of improvement because limiting use of the lake ensures the lake is not overfished, and preserves the value of the land for use by a specific group of owners. The homesteading tribe has not left the lake to its “natural” state. Access has been controlled for the specific purpose of preserving value.

In practice, value can be added to land in any number of ways, and land is useful for many purposes other than planting crops or building a factory.

Thus, when nomadic tribes exclude others from specific hunting lands, they are preserving those resources — such as fertile grazing areas for game — that give the land value. If hunting grounds are not exclusive, and result in overhunting which drives away game, then the value of the land has been destroyed for hunting purposes. By preventing this destruction of value, the homesteaders have asserted their ownership of the land in question.

In spite of the tribes’ habitual use of personal property, and in spite of a clear understanding that ownership in land can be both asserted and traded, the idea that the Indians “did not have the concept of property or property rights,” continues to endure in some corners of the libertarian world and among conservatives. It is an ahistorical and fact-free approach that should be abandoned as soon as possible.

About the author:
*Ryan McMaken 
(@ryanmcmaken) is the editor of Mises Wire and The Austrian. Send him your article submissions, but read article guidelines first. Ryan has degrees in economics and political science from the University of Colorado, and was the economist for the Colorado Division of Housing from 2009 to 2014. He is the author of Commie Cowboys: The Bourgeoisie and the Nation-State in the Western Genre. Contact Ryan McMaken

Source:
This article was published at MISES Institute

Understanding North Korean Threat: Lt. Gen. (Ret) In-Bum Chun – Report

0
0

By Ash Khayami*

(FPRI) — Since the Cold War, few crises have put so many Americans on edge as the escalating tensions between the U.S. and North Korea. While Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and President Donald Trump continue to send mixed signals of negotiation attempts alongside threats of annihilation, Kim Jong-un has shown no signs of abandoning his nuclear ambitions. Retired South Korean Lt. Gen. In-Bum Chun argues that the primary goal for the U.S. should be getting the North Koreans to the negotiating table without military intervention. While current U.S. rhetoric has been effective at confusing and perhaps even shocking North Korean officials, Lt. Gen. Chun’s insights into North Korea’s internal political, social, and economic landscape reveal the dangers of further escalating the crisis.

Brief North Korean History

Lt. Gen. Chun explains that after the Korean War ended in a stalemate, the North Korean regime held a meeting in 1962, where it set out to achieve several key military and security reforms. These included modernizing the military and perfecting its officer training program, as well as moving the bulk of the country’s manufacturing and storage facilities underground to protect them against U.S. air strikes. But one of the most significant reforms the regime took was to militarize a large section of the population. North Korea was so effective at carrying out these reforms that the regime currently has 1.5 million active duty soldiers and 5-6 million reserve soldiers who receive at least 200 hours of military training a year.

Starting in the 1980s, the North Koreans began making advances in both nuclear and missile technology. They got their first break in 1980, Lt. Gen. Chun explains, when Egypt exported a Scud-B missile for them to reverse-engineer. Within ten years, North Korea was exporting its own ballistic missiles back into the Middle East. At the same time, the U.S. had turned a blind eye to the nuclear enrichment program in Pakistan. North Korea, realizing at the time that Pakistan did not possess missile technology, initiated a trade where Pakistan swapped its centrifuges—the essential tool for enriching uranium—for North Korean missile technology. And while the collapse of the Soviet Union stripped North Korea of a key benefactor state, North Korea hired many of the old Soviet scientists and bought much of their technology on the black market.

The North Korea of the 21st Century

Progressing into the 21st century, the North Korean regime has continued its decades-old mission of establishing a robust nuclear weapons program. Much like its arrangements with Pakistan and the Soviet Union, North Korea continues to enlist the help of amiable state actors. In 2012, the North Koreans and the Iranians signed an agreement to cooperate in science and technology, which Lt. Gen. Chun suggests facilitated cooperation between the two countries with respect to ballistic missile technology. He points out that Iranian ballistic missiles today bear a striking resemblance to North Korean ballistic missiles and that there are photos of Iranian officers at North Korean military parades.

In addition to its growing nuclear capabilities, Lt. Gen. Chun argues that the North Korean regime’s political and social structures are non-conducive to a democratic uprising in the short term. Within the country, Kim Jong-un, the head of state, is revered as a god. Children who enter pre-school at the age of 5 are instructed to bow everyday at pictures of the Kim dynasty, which has ruled North Korea since its inception. This indoctrination continues throughout their schooling, as well as in their mandatory military service from the age of 18 to 31. This indoctrination not only breeds extreme nationalism, but also anti-U.S. sentiment. In fact, young officers who underestimate U.S. capabilities are replacing older generals who lived through the Korean War. Lt. Gen. Chun says that these new generals are increasingly buying into their own propaganda, which may increase the North Korean military establishment’s willingness to engage in violent conflict.

How Do South Korea and China Fit In?

Apart from the U.S., South Korea and China also play crucial roles in influencing the North Korea crisis. Lt. Gen. Chun claims that China-North Korea relations are not as strong as they used to be. Even though Kim Jong-un came to power almost seven years ago, he has yet to make a trip to China, which is highly irregular. He also points out that North Koreans do not feel the same sense of loyalty to the Chinese for their help in the Korean War that South Koreans do for the U.S. The North Koreans believe China was ultimately looking after its own interests in supporting them. Despite these frictions, China still does not want to see a unified pro-U.S. Korea, a leftover policy stance from the Cold War era. Furthermore, a significant sector of the Chinese government maintains that North Korea is justified in its pursuit of nuclear weapons because of the belligerent rhetoric the U.S. has used against it. Ultimately, China has no decisive allies in this situation, and therefore has exerted only minimal pressure on North Korea via U.N. sanctions to bring the regime to the bargaining table.

Lt. Gen. Chun explains that while South Korea is taking steps to defuse the situation, they have several concerns. First, South Koreans, both military officials and civilians, are concerned that inflammatory rhetoric, while it may have a strategic purpose, can also be destabilizing with terrible repercussions, considering Seoul’s vulnerability to North Korean conventional weapons. Second, South Koreans embrace democracy, tolerance, and freedom as core values, and thus are weary of reunifying with North Koreans, who have lived under a totalitarian and cult-like regime. If done too quickly, Lt. Gen. Chun says, North Koreans may fail to integrate into a Western style democracy, which will result in socio-political clashes and a period of prolonged political instability for South Koreans.

To counter and deter threats of North Korean aggression, South Korea is developing several key defense programs. One of these programs is the Kill Chain, which is designed to first identify when and where North Koreans are building their missiles and then pre-emptively destroy them before they become operational. In the event that this strategy fails, the South Korean military is also building a missile defense system—Korea Air and Missile Defense—that could shoot down any missile launched by North Korea. Lt. Gen. Chun states that these defense measures serve two purposes: They are deterrents to North Korean aggression, and measures designed to instill a sense of security for the South Korean people.

What Should We Do?

Given the complex nature of the crisis and the gravity of a potential nuclear conflict, Lt. Gen Chun advocates for peaceful negotiations to de-escalate the nuclear standoff. At the same time, he recognizes certain realities about what goals are feasible and what are not. Currently, the U.S. and its Western allies are most likely underestimating Kim Jong-un’s nuclear weapon capabilities, especially given the regime’s level of confidence. Lt. Gen Chun also claims that North Korea will never give up its pursuit for nuclear weapons, as they view it as a right and essential to their national security. However, this doesn’t mean that the only substantive approach for the U.S. and its allies is containment.

Lt. Gen. Chun believes that the U.S. should start negotiations geared towards non-proliferation and de-escalation of tensions. In addition, we should treat de-nuclearization as a long-term goal rather than an initial demand to get the North Korean regime to the negotiating table. Lt. Gen Chun emphasizes that while time might be on the regime’s side as far as preventing the development of advanced ballistic missiles in the short term, the regime’s rejection of democracy, tolerance, and freedom are not aspects of sustainable governance. This is why it is important, he says, to use both UN sanctions and humanitarian aid—in the form of food and medicine—to further weaken the Kim regime and to fight anti-Western propaganda respectively. While the regime might steal some of the aid, ultimately, the North Korean people will know and understand that the international community is providing the medicine and/or food on which they rely.

Currently, we may never realize these long-term goals if we fail to start a dialogue with North Koreans regarding de-escalation in the short term. Lt. Gen Chun believes that it is essential that the U.S. and South Korea not only maintain a robust military alliance, but also coordinate and participate in a joint diplomatic strategy to defuse the situation. Kim does not seem like he’s backing down, and the longer tensions remain heightened, the longer all involved parties continue to risk nuclear warfare as the result of miscalculations or excessive posturing.

** On Tuesday, October 3, General In-Bum Chun delivered a briefing on North Korea at the Foreign Policy Research Institute. He retired from the ROK military in 2016, after 35 years of service. He is now a Visiting Scholar at the US-Korea Institute at SAIS/Johns Hopkins University and at the independent Institute for Corean-American Studies. This program was cosponsored by UPenn’s Center for East Asian Studies.

About the author:
*Ash Khayami
is an intern at the Foreign Policy Research Institute and a recent graduate of Haverford College

Source:
This article was published by FPRI.

Catalonia Declares Independence, But Suspends Implementation

0
0

By Jamie Dettmer

Catalonia’s hardline secessionist leaders pulled back from the brink by declaring independence from Spain but suspending implementation to allow negotiations to take place with the central government in Madrid.

Speaking before Catalonia’s regional parliament, its president, Carles Puigdemont, urged Madrid to enter into dialogue. He said Catalonia had earned the right to independence.

A spokesman for the center-right government of Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy said, “The government rejects Catalonia’s tacit declaration of independence.” The spokesman added there couldn’t be dialogue when the Catalan leaders had already decided they want secession.

Puigdemont told regional lawmakers Tuesday night, “Today I assume the mandate for Catalonia to become an independent state in the form of a republic.”

Addressing a packed Catalan parliament, he also said, “The ballots boxes said yes to independence, and this is the only language we understand. We propose to suspend independence declaration to start dialogue in the coming weeks.” He was referring to the controversial October 1 plebiscite, which was declared illegal by the Spanish government and the country’s constitutional court.

Analysts said Puigdemont’s speech, in which he blamed Madrid for refusing to talk in the past and criticized the Spanish government for persecuting secessionists, will worsen the political crisis, the most dangerous to buffet Spain since a failed coup in 1981.

Rajoy threatened over the weekend to suspend the semi-autonomy of the restive northeast region, shutter Catalonia’s political institutions and impose direct rule from Madrid.

Puigdemont’s announcement Tuesday was delayed by more than an hour as dramatic last-minute appeals flowed in from Spanish leaders as well as from European capitals. Catalan politicians opposed to secession moved to delay Tuesday’s session of the Catalan regional parliament.

Just hours before the Catalan government met to hear Puigdemont speak, Rajoy said he couldn’t rule out drastic solutions to the challenge posed by Catalonia. Spain’s interior minister, Juan Ignacio Zoido, urged the Catalans to “get on the path of legality and the rule of law.”

European leaders joined in the appeals.

Donald Tusk, the president of the European Commission, called on Puigdemont not to divide Spain. He said he was speaking also as a member of an ethnic minority and “as a man who knows what it feels like to be hit by a police baton” – a reference to Madrid’s attempt to stop the October 1 independence referendum that triggered the confrontation between Catalonia and Madrid.

“Today I ask you to respect – in your intentions – the constitutional order and not to announce a decision that would make such a dialogue impossible,” he said.

Tusk urged restraint also on Spain, saying he had asked “Prime Minister Rajoy to look for a solution to the problem without the use of force. To look for dialogue. Because the force of arguments is always better than the argument of force.”

Puigdemont and other secessionist leaders had vowed to announce a breakaway state within 48 hours of the controversial October 1 plebiscite, which was declared illegal by the government and courts in Madrid.

More than 90 percent voted in the referendum to break with Spain, but the turnout was just over 40 percent and opinion polls have consistently suggested that more Catalans want to remain in Spain than want to secede.

An exodus of businesses, including two of Spain’s leading banks, a major telecommunications company and a construction group, as well as a massive weekend protest in Barcelona, the Catalan capital, by 350,000 Catalans opposed to separation, started to take its toll among moderate secessionists, who were alarmed at the prospects of economic collapse and civil unrest.

In the run-up to Tuesday’s announcement, they called for a pause and more efforts to open up negotiations with Rajoy, who is under pressure from his own party to maintain a strong line with the secessionists. Barcelona’s mayor, Ada Colau, argued Monday night against declaring independence, saying it would threaten Catalonia’s “social cohesion.”

She called for urgent negotiations and warned that Spain faced its “greatest institutional crisis” since its return to democracy following the death of General Francisco Franco in 1975.

The secessionists’ coalition, Together For Yes, commands only a thin majority in the Catalan parliament. The far-left Popular Unity Candidacy (CUP) urged Puigdemont to honor the result of the disputed referendum, pointing out that under the referendum law, the parliament passed ahead of the plebiscite, the legislature pledged to do so.

Even senior members of Puigdemont’s more moderate Catalan European Democratic Party have been urging caution in the past few days, including Ramon Tremosa, a member of the European Parliament.

He suggested following Slovenia’s strategy when it broke away from what was then Yugoslavia. Slovenia announced secession, but suspended implementation pending negotiations with its Yugoslav neighbors and European powers. That appears to be Puigdemont’s strategy.

Inching Catalonia closer to breaking away may still invite as firm a response from Madrid as an open declaration of independence.

Some analysts suspect Prime Minister Rajoy may invoke Article 155 of the constitution, which allows the central government to take control of an autonomous region, if it fails to “fulfill the obligations imposed upon it by the constitution or other laws, or acts in a way that is seriously prejudicial to the general interest of Spain.”

Article 155 has never been invoked before and it risks angering even more secessionist Catalans, who are still furious at the Spanish national police’s efforts to disrupt the independence referendum, in which officers raided polling stations, beat voters and fired rubber bullets at crowds. Thousands of Guardia Civil and national police who were deployed by Madrid to stop the vote have remained in the region.

Rajoy has warned he would do everything in his power to prevent Catalonia from breaking away. In an interview with Spain’s El País newspaper, he said, “We are going to prevent independence from occurring…I can tell you with absolute frankness that it will not happen.”

Pedro Sanchez, leader of the opposition Socialists, said Monday his party will support the government against any unilateral attempt to dismember the country.

Catalan leaders appear to be putting their hopes in international mediation, pressing European leaders to come to their aid.

Official Statement By Puigdemont On Political Situation In Catalonia

0
0

I stand here before Parliament to present to you the results of the referendum held on October 1 and to explain the political consequences derived from it. I am conscious, as I’m sure are many of you, that today I also stand before the people of Catalonia and before many others, who have focused their attention on what happens today in this chamber.

We are living in an exceptional time, of historical dimension. The consequences and effects run beyond our country and it’s evident that, far from being an internal and domestic affair, as we have often had to hear from those who neglected their responsibility by not wanting to know about what’s happening, Catalonia is a European issue.

Do not expect, from my speech, threats, blackmail nor insults. The current moment is serious enough for everyone to assume their corresponding responsibility and for the necessity to de-escalate tension and not to contribute to it, neither through word nor gesture. On the other hand, I wish to address the people; those who came out on the 1st and the 3rd of October, those who went to the demonstration on Saturday to advocate for dialogue, and those who came out massively on Sunday in defence of the unity of Spain. And to those who haven’t come out in any of those gatherings. All of us, with all of our differences, with all our points of understanding and divergence, all form part of the same people, and we must continue to work together, whatever happens, because that is how the history of a people who want to build a future is made.

Obviously, we will never agree on everything. But we do understand, because we’ve already demonstrated it, that the way forward can be none other than through democracy and peace. That means respecting those who think differently, and finding a way to make possible collective aspirations, with the realisation that that requires a large dose of dialogue and empathy.

As you may well imagine, in these recent days and hours many have spoken with me, suggesting both what needs to be done and what needs not be done. All of those suggestions are valid, respectable and appropriate for a moment like this. In all cases where I could I appreciated receiving them, because in each one I’ve heard good reasons which are worth listening to. I have also asked the opinion of many people, which has helped me and enriched the analysis of this moment in time and the perspective for the future, and I want to give them my heartfelt thanks.

But what I’m presenting to you today is not a personal decision, nor is it the obsession of any one person: it’s the result of the 1st of October, of the will of the government which I preside over having maintained its commitment to call, organise and hold a referendum of self-determination, and naturally of the analysis of the following facts which we have shared at the core of Government. Today is the time to talk about the results in the Parliament and that’s what we’re going to do.

We are here because on the 1st of October Catalonia held a referendum of self-determination. It was done in conditions, which were, rather than difficult, extreme. It’s the first time in the history of European democracies that an election day was held in the midst of violent police attacks against voters who were cueing to post their vote. From 8 in the morning until the close of polling stations, the Police and Guardia Civil beat defenceless people and obliged the emergency services to attend to more than 800 people. We all saw it, as did the world, which was horrified as the images came through.

The objective was not only to confiscate ballot boxes and voting papers. The objective was to cause panic and make people, as they saw the images of indiscriminate police violence, stay at home and renounce their right to vote. But those politically responsible for these ignominious acts shot themselves in the foot. 2, 286, 217 citizens overcame their fear, left their homes and voted. We don’t know how many were unsuccessful in doing so, but we do know that the polling stations which were closed down violently represented the votes of 770,000 more people.

More than two million two hundred thousand Catalans were able to vote because they overcame their fear, and because when they arrived at their polling station they found ballot boxes, envelopes, voting slips, constituted voting tables and an operative and reliable electoral list. The operations and police searches of the previous weeks in seeking ballot boxes and voting slips did not prevent the referendum. Phone taps, following people, cyber-attacks, the closure of 140 websites, interference in correspondence, none of these things could stop the referendum. I repeat: in spite of the efforts and resources dedicated to prevent it happening, when the citizens arrived at the polling stations, they found ballot boxes, envelopes, voting slips, constituted voting tables and an operative and reliable electoral list.

I wish, therefore, to recognise and appreciate all of the people who made possible this logistical and political success. To the volunteers who slept in the polling stations. To the citizens who kept the ballot boxes in their homes. To those who printed the voting slips. To the computer technicians who came up with and developed the universal electoral list. To the workers in the Government. To those who voted yes or no, and those who voted blank. To so many anonymous people who did their part to make it all possible. And above all, I send my best wishes and solidarity to all those injured and mistreated in the police operation. Those images will remain in our memories forever. We will never forget.

We must recognise and denounce that the actions of the state have caused tension and worry in Catalan society. As President of Catalonia, I’m very conscious that at this time there are many people who are worried, anxious and even scared about what is happening and what may come to pass. People of all ideas and political leanings. Gratuitous violence and the decision of some companies to transfer their headquarters, in a decision, allow me to say, more related to their markets than to real effects in our economy (what does have real effect on our economy is the 16 billion Catalan euros which are obliged to leave each year), are facts which without doubt have clouded the picture. To all those people who are afraid, I wish to send them a message of comprehension and empathy, and also of serenity and tranquillity: the Government of Catalonia will not deviate one millimetre from its commitment to social and economic progress, democracy, dialogue, tolerance, respect for difference and a willingness to negotiate. As President I will always act with responsibility and keeping in mind the seven and a half million citizens of the country.

I would like to explain where we are, and especially why we are where we are. Today as the world is watching us, and indeed, today as the world is listening to us, I think it’s worth going back and explaining ourselves.

Since the death of the military dictator Francisco Franco, Catalonia has contributed at least as much as anyone else to the consolidation of Spanish democracy. Catalonia has been not only the economic engine of Spain, but also a modernising and stabling influence. Catalonia believed that the Spanish Constitution of 1978 could be a good starting point to guarantee its self-government and its material progress. Catalonia was deeply involved in the process of returning the Spanish state to European and international institutions after 40 years of isolation.

The passing of the years, however, began to show that the new institutional structure which came out of the Transition, which Catalonia saw as a good starting point towards evolving to new heights of democracy and self-governance, was seen by the hegemonic elite of the state not as a point of departure, but in fact as a point of arrival. With the passing of the years, the system not only stopped evolving in the desired direction for the people of Catalonia, but began to devolve.

Consistent with this finding, in the year 2005, a large majority, 88% of this Parliament, I repeat an 88% majority in this Parliament, following the steps marked out by the Constitution, I repeat, following the steps marked out by the Constitution, approved a proposal for a new Statute of Autonomy, and sent it to the Spanish Congress of Deputies. The Catalan proposal unleashed an authentic campaign of Catalanophobia, tied to an irresponsible manner by those who wanted to govern Spain at any price.

The text which was finally submitted for referendum in 2006 was already very different from the initial proposal from the Catalan Parliament, but despite that was approved by the citizens who voted on it. Turnout was 47%, and the votes in favour of the Statute were 1,899,897. I’d like to point out that that’s 145,000 votes fewer than the yes vote for independence on the 1st of October.

The state, however, hadn’t had enough with the first reduction. In 2010, four years after the entry in law of the watered down Statute, a Constitutional Court made up of magistrates hand-picked by the two main Spanish political parties, emitted an disgraceful sentence which watered down the Statute for a second time, modifying the content which had been voted on by the people in a referendum.

It’s worth remembering this, and underlining it. Despite having followed all the procedures of the constitution, despite being backed by 88% of the Parliament of Catalonia, and despite popular approval in a referendum, the combined action by the Congress of Deputies and the Constitutional Court converted the Catalan proposal into an unrecognisable text. And it’s worth remembering and underlining also: this unrecognisable text, doubly edited and not voted upon by Catalans, this is the current law in force. This has been the result of Catalonia trying to modify its Juridical Statute by constitutional means: a humiliation.

But that’s not everything. Since the sentence of the Constitutional Court against the Statute voted upon by the people, the Spanish political system not only has not moved a finger to try to go back and repair this break, but rather it has activated an aggressive and systematic program of recentralisation. From the point of view of self-government, the last seven years have been the worst of the last forty: continual degradation of competencies through a series of decrees, laws and sentences; inattention and lack of investment in the basic system of infrastructure in Catalonia, a key part of a country’s economic progress; and hurtful disrespect towards our language, culture and the way of life in our country.

Everything that I explain in these short lines has had a profound impact in Catalan society. It’s got to the point that during this period many Catalans, millions of Catalans, have come to the rational conclusion that the only way to guarantee survival, not only of self-government, but of our values as a society, is the foundation of Catalonia as a state. The results of the last elections to the Parliament of Catalonia are a testament to this.

Furthermore, something even more relevant has happened: in parallel with the formation of a pro-independence absolute majority in the Parliament, a broad consensus has been forged that the future of Catalonia, whatever it may be, had to be decided by the Catalan people, democratically and pacifically, through a referendum. In the most recent poll by an important newspaper in Madrid, not from here, from Madrid, 82% of Catalans expressed this idea.

With the objective of making possible this referendum, in the last few years the Catalan institutions and civil societies have generated many initiatives before the Spanish government and its institutions. It’s all documented: up to 18 times, and in all possible formats, opening a dialogue has been proposed to agree a referendum similar to the one held in Scotland on 18 September 2014. A referendum with the date and a question agreed between the two sides, in which both sides could campaign and present their arguments, and in which both sides commit to accepting and applying the result through a negotiation which protects their respective interests. If that has been possible in one of the oldest, most consolidated and exemplary democracies in the world, as the United Kingdom is, why could it not also be done in Spain?

The answer to all of those initiatives has been a radical and absolute no, combined with police and judicial persecution of Catalan authorities. Ex-President Artur Mas and ex-ministers Joana Ortega and Irene Rigau, as with the ex-minister of Presidency Francesc Homs, have been banned from holding office for having promoted a non-binding participative process without juridical effect on the 9 of November 2014. And not only banned from public office, but also fined in an arbitrary and abusive way: if they do not deposit more than 5 million euros to the Spanish Court of Accounts, all of their assets will be embargoed and their families may be affected.

Apart from them, the bureau of this Parliament and dozens of municipal elected officials have been charged for expressing support for the right to decide and permit debates on the referendum. Charges have been brought against the President of the Parliament and its bureau to prevent them permitting the debate to take place. The last wave of repression against Catalan institutions has resulted in the detainment and arrest of 16 officials and public servants in the Government of Catalonia, who had to appear in court handcuffed and without being informed of the accusation against them. The world needs to know too that the leaders of the entities which have led the biggest peaceful demonstrations in Europe’s history are charged with the crime of sedition, which carries a sentence of up to 15 years in prison. These are people responsible for having organised demonstrations which amazed the world for their civility and lack of incident.

This has been the answer of the Spanish State to Catalan demands, which have always been expressed in a peaceful way and through the majorities obtained at the polls. The people of Catalonia have demanded the freedom to be able to decide for years. It’s very simple. We have not found anyone to dialogue with in the past nor are we finding one in the present. There is no State institution that is open to talking about the claim of the majority of this Parliament and of Catalan society. The last hope we could have left was for the monarchy to exercise the arbitration and moderating role that the constitution attaches to it, but the last week’s speech confirmed our worst assumptions.

I now turn to the citizens of the whole of the Spanish state who are following with concern what is happening in Catalonia. I want to convey a message of serenity and respect, a willingness to dialogue and of political accord, as has always been our desire and our priority. I am aware of the information that is conveyed to them by most media and the narrative that has been established. But I dare to ask them to make an effort, for the good of all; an effort to know and recognise what has led us here and the reasons that have driven us. We are not delinquents, nor are we crazy, nor are we attempting a coup, nor just some bad people: we are normal people who ask to be able to vote and who have been willing to undertake all necessary dialogue to carry it out in an agreed manner. We have nothing against Spain and the Spanish. Quite the opposite. We want to understand each other better, and that is the desire of the majority in Catalonia. Because today, for many years now, the relationship isn’t working and nothing has been done to reverse a situation that has become unsustainable. And a people can not be compelled, against its will, to accept a status quo that it did not vote for and does not want. The Constitution is a democratic framework, but it is equally true that there is democracy beyond the Constitution.

Ladies and gentlemen, with the results of the referendum on October 1st, Catalonia has earned the right to be an independent state, and has earned the right to be heard and respected.

I must recognise that today Catalonia is being listened to and respected beyond our frontiers.
The yes to independence won an absolute majority in the elections, and two years later it has won a referendum under the attacks of batons. The ballot boxes, the only language we understand, say yes to independence. And this is the route I am committed to traveling.

As is known, the Referendum Law establishes that, two days after the official proclamation of the results, and in the case where the number of Yes votes is superior to the number of No votes, the Parliament (and I cite the wording of the law) “will hold an ordinary session to put into effect a formal declaration of the independence of Catalonia, its effects and agree the beginning of the constituent process”.

There’s a before and after the 1st of October, and we have achieved what we committed ourselves to at the beginning of this legislature.

Arriving at this historic moment, and as President of the Generalitat I take it upon myself to say, in presenting to you the results of the referendum before Parliament and our co-citizens, that the people have determined that Catalonia should become an independent state in the form of a republic.

That is what needs to be done today, responsibly and with respect.

In with the same solemnity, the Government and I myself propose that the Parliament suspends the effects of the declaration of independence so that in the coming weeks we may begin a dialogue without which it is impossible to arrive at an agreed solution. We firmly believe that this moment needs not only a de-escalation of tension but also a clear and committed willingness to advance the claims of the people of Catalonia from the results of the 1st of October. We must keep these results in mind during the period of dialogue which we are willing to open.

It is well-known that since the referendum different mediation initiatives have been put in place, regarding dialogue and negotiation and at national, state and international level. Some of these are publicly known, while others are not known yet. All are serious attempts, and were difficult to imagine happening just a short time ago. The cries for dialogue and for no violence have been heard from all corners of the globe; yesterday’s declaration by a group of eight Nobel Peace Prize winners; the declaration the group The Elders led by the ex-secretary general of the United Nations Kofi Annan and made up of people of great world relevance; the positions of Presidents and Prime Ministers of European countries, European political leaders…

There’s a prayer for dialogue which runs through Europe, because Europe already feels interrupted by the effects of what could happen with a bad resolution of this conflict. All of these voices deserve to be listened to. And all, without exception, have asked that we open a time to give dialogue with the Spanish state a chance.

That is also what needs to be done today, responsibly and with respect.

In finishing, I call on the responsibility of everyone. To the citizens of Catalonia, I ask that we continue to express ourselves as we have done up to now, with freedom and with respect fro those who think differently. To companies and economic stakeholders, I ask that they continue to generate wealth and not fall into the temptation to use their power to influence the population. To the political parties, I ask that they contribute with their words and actions to lower the tension. I also ask this of the media. To the Spanish government, I ask that they listen, not to us if they don’t want, but to those who advocate for mediation and to the international community, and to the millions of citizens around Spain who ask that they renounce repression and imposition. To the European Union, I ask that they get deeply involved and hold up the fundamental values of the Union.

Today the Government of Catalonia makes a gesture of responsibility and generosity, and again reaches out its hand in dialogue. I’m convinced that, if in the coming days everyone acts with the same responsibility and fulfils their obligations, the conflict between Catalonia and the Spanish state can be resolved in a manner that is serene and with accord, respecting the will of the people. For us, this will not stop here. Because we want to be true to our long history, to all who suffered and made sacrifices, and because we want a future of dignity for our children, for all those people who want to make Catalonia their land of welcome and hope.

Thank you very much.

*Carles Puigdemont Casamajó, President of the Catalan Government

Qatar Condemns Storming Of Al-Aqsa Mosque

0
0

Qatar has strongly denounced and condemned the storming of hundreds of settlers into Al-Aqsa Mosque.

In a statement, Qatar’s Foreign Ministry described the act as a dangerous violation and another provocation of the feelings of millions of Muslims around the world.

The statement warned of the repercussions of the repetitive Israeli violations in Al Aqsa Mosque, and called on the international community to shoulder its responsibility and immediately stop these actions.

Viewing all 73339 articles
Browse latest View live


Latest Images