By Leman Zeynalova

Possible end of the Iranian nuclear deal can push the oil prices up, Cyril Widdershoven, a Middle East geopolitical specialist and energy analyst, a partner at Dutch risk consultancy VEROCY and SVP MEA-Risk, told Trend.

It was earlier reported that the US President Donald Trump is expected to announce soon he will decertify the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

“The unilateral end to the JCPOA by Washington is partly already figured into oil prices at present. However, the oil market is too optimistic about the possibilities that it will happen. Washington will be putting some new sanctions for sure, and in principle end the deal,” said the expert. “Western companies will be feeling the heat of this, leaving less room for investments and operations in Iran.”

Iran could really be hit if Washington would put sanctions on all companies worldwide if they act or work with Iran, the expert believes.

“It also could put sanctions on imports of Iranian crude oil, petroleum products and natural gas. This would not only hit Iran, but also take out a vast part of Iran’s oil exports to the global market. If this would also be feasible for Iranian oil swaps with other countries, the prices will shoot up,” noted Widdershoven.

He went on to add that any new disturbance in the region will have a direct effect.

“Oil prices are at present still showing very much movement upwards, new instability and possible war/sanctions will only increase the push for higher prices,” added the expert.

As for the possibility of abandoning the nuclear deal, Widdershoven said there is a real chance that the US will end the nuclear deal.

“Most probably, the US will set up a strategy in which it will partly abandon the deal, with specific demands on Iran to comply. First main issue will be that Washington will be demanding a full stop to the development of ballistic missiles,” he said.

Another demand will be full openness to Iranian nuclear technology developments, said the expert, adding that at present, the deal is also asking openness, but this only in cooperation with Iran.

“Trump’s position would be detrimentally hit if he would now not put something very hard in place. For Iran, the direct effects can be minimal, as the deal is not with the US but with a long list of other countries too. It will not end the cooperation with Russia, and several European countries. However, if Washington not only end its part of the deal, but increases severely the US sanctions on doing business with Iran, Tehran could be and will be hit,” said Widdershoven.

A full scale sanctions regime on not only oil and gas projects but also others would be very bad for Tehran, according to the expert.

“The latter could escalate, looking at the statements made by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps ( IRGC) of Iran. If Tehran’s military would act or even provoke the US at present, a full scale military action is not infeasible. Hardliners in Washington, but also Europe, will be waiting for a reaction of Iran, if negative, the country will be facing possible military action. Saudi Arabia, UAE and others will be taking part if necessary, while Egypt could be also assisting,” he said.

A military action in the Gulf region will only be another reason for a price hike, concluded the expert.

Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany signed the JCPOA on July 14, 2015 and started implementing it on January 16, 2016.

Under the agreement, limits were put on Iran’s nuclear activities in exchange for, among other things, the removal of all nuclear-related bans against the Islamic Republic.

In 2016, farmers worldwide planted more than 240 million acres (98 million hectares) of genetically modified corn, cotton and soybeans that produce insect-killing proteins from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt. These Bt proteins kill some voracious caterpillar and beetle pests, but are harmless to people and considered environmentally friendly. While organic farmers have used Bt proteins in sprays successfully for more than half a century, some scientists feared that widespread use of Bt proteins in genetically engineered crops would spur rapid evolution of resistance in pests.

Researchers at the University of Arizona in Tucson, Arizona have taken stock to address this concern and to discover why pests adapted quickly in some cases but not others. To test predictions about resistance, Bruce Tabashnik and Yves Carriere in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences analyzed the global data on Bt crop use and pest responses. Their results are published in the current issue of the journal Nature Biotechnology.

“When Bt crops were first introduced in 1996, no one knew how quickly the pests would adapt,” said Tabashnik, a Regents’ Professor and head of the UA Department of Entomology. “Now we have a cumulative total of over 2 billion acres of these crops planted during the past two decades and extensive monitoring data, so we can build a scientific understanding of how fast the pests evolve resistance and why.”

The researchers analyzed published data for 36 cases representing responses of 15 pest species in 10 countries on every continent except Antarctica. They discovered resistance that substantially reduced the efficacy of the Bt crops in the field in 16 cases as of 2016, compared with only three such cases by 2005. In these 16 cases, pests evolved resistance in an average time of just over five years.

“A silver lining is that in 17 other cases, pests have not evolved resistance to Bt crops,” Tabashnik said, adding that some crops continue to remain effective after 20 years. The remaining three cases are classified as “early warning of resistance,” where the resistance is statistically significant, but not severe enough to have practical consequences.

Fred Gould, Distinguished Professor of Entomology at North Carolina State University and leader of the 2016 National Academy of Sciences study on genetically engineered crops, commented, “This paper provides us with strong evidence that the high-dose/refuge strategy for delaying resistance to Bt crops is really working. This will be critically important information as more crops are engineered to produce Bt toxins.”

According to the paper, both the best and worst outcomes support predictions from evolutionary principles.

“As expected from evolutionary theory, factors favoring sustained efficacy of Bt crops were recessive inheritance of resistance in pests and abundant refuges,” Carriere said.

Refuges consist of standard, non-Bt plants that pests can eat without exposure to Bt toxins. Planting refuges near Bt crops reduces the chances that two resistant insects will mate with each other, making it more likely they will breed with a susceptible mate. With recessive inheritance, matings between a resistant parent and a susceptible parent yield offspring that are killed by the Bt crop.

“Computer models showed that refuges should be especially good for delaying resistance when inheritance of resistance in the pest is recessive,” Carriere explained. The value of refuges has been controversial, and the Environmental Protection Agency has relaxed its requirements for planting refuges in the U.S.

“Perhaps the most compelling evidence that refuges work comes from the pink bollworm, which evolved resistance rapidly to Bt cotton in India, but not in the U.S.,” Tabashnik said.

In the southwestern U.S., farmers collaborated with academia, industry, EPA scientists, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to implement an effective refuge strategy. Although India similarly required a refuge strategy, farmer compliance was low.

“Same pest, same crop, same Bt proteins, but very different outcomes,” said Tabashnik.

The new study revealed that pest resistance to Bt crops is evolving faster now than before, primarily because resistance to some Bt proteins causes cross-resistance to related Bt proteins produced by subsequently introduced crops.

An encouraging development is the recent commercialization of biotech crops producing a novel type of Bt protein called a vegetative insecticidal protein, or Vip. All other Bt proteins in genetically engineered crops are in another group, called crystalline, or Cry, proteins. Because these two groups of Bt proteins are so different, cross-resistance between them is low or nil, according to the authors of the study.

Yidong Wu, Distinguished Professor in the College of Plant Protection at Nanjing Agricultural University in China, said, “This review provides a timely update on the global status of resistance to Bt crops and unique insights that will help to improve resistance management strategies for more sustainable use of Bt crops.”

Although the new report is the most comprehensive evaluation of pest resistance to Bt crops so far, Tabashnik indicated it represents only the beginning of using systematic data analyses to enhance understanding and management of resistance.

“These plants have been remarkably useful, and resistance has generally evolved slower than most people expected,” he said. “I see these crops as an increasingly important part of the future of agriculture. The progress made provides motivation to collect more data and to incorporate it in planning future crop deployments.”

“We’ve also started exchanging ideas and information with scientists facing related challenges, such as resistance to herbicides in weeds and resistance to drugs in cancer cells,” Tabashnik said.

But will farmers ever be able to prevent resistance altogether? Tabashnik doesn’t think so.

“We always expect the pests to adapt. However, if we can delay resistance from a few years to a few decades, that’s a big win.”

The high-IQ society Mensa said it would be willing to host President Donald Trump and secretary of state Rex Tillerson in an IQ test, following the widespread outrage over a joke Trump made in a recent interview.

“American Mensa would be happy to hold a testing session for President Trump and Secretary Tillerson,” Charles Brown, the group’s communications director, told The Hill.

Mensa is a non profit organization open to people who score at the 98th percentile or higher on a standard, supervised intelligence test.

It’s important to note that our admissions test is not the sole way to qualify for Mensa ‒ there are hundreds of other prior-evidence tests that can qualify a member,” Brown said. “And the early success of many presidents no doubt exposed them to those types of qualifying avenues.”

Brown cited former President Clinton’s experience as a Rhodes Scholar, Jimmy Carter’s work as a nuclear engineer, and George H.W. Bush’s time as a military pilot.

“Each could have encountered standardized academic tests (LSAT, GMAT, Miller Analogies), where qualifying scores would have propelled them into Mensa,” he told the Hill.

In an interview with Forbes published Tuesday, Trup quipped he could go head-to-head in an IQ showdown with Tillerson, commenting on last week’s NBC News story ‒ denounced as false by both the State Department and the White House ‒ about Tillerson calling him a “moron” in a meeting with other government officials.

“I think it’s fake news,” Trump told the magazine, “but if he did [say] that, I guess we’ll have to compare IQ tests. And I can tell who is going to win.”

During a press briefing on Tuesday, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Trump had “made a joke” when referring to the IQ challenge. The president “has full confidence in the secretary of state,” she said, adding that the White House press corps should “get a sense of humor.”

Last week, NBC reported that Tillerson had disparaged Trump following a July 20 meeting at the Pentagon with members of Trump’s national security team and Cabinet officials, citing three unnamed officials familiar with the incident. It was alleged that Vice President Mike Pence had to convince Tillerson to stay on the job.

The report was “categorically false,” said Pence’s spokesman.

“I have never considered leaving this post,” Tillerson said on October 4, dismissing the NBC report as “erroneous” and “petty nonsense.”

By Inday Espina-Varona*

It is easy to hate Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte when he convulses with glee at killings, dismisses laws, and treats government as his personal fiefdom.

It is harder for Filipinos to examine and admit collective responsibility in nudging the country closer to fascism.

Three decades after booting out a dictatorship, the Philippines faces a tyrant who coats himself with populist glitz as he assaults structures of justice.

Duterte now wants a special commission to investigate the head of the government’s constitutional anti-graft body, which launched a probe into his alleged hidden wealth, Congress has started impeachment proceedings against Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, while police are dropping by homes of activists, warning of a crackdown.

All these show how much Duterte is hurting from an upsurge in unrest.

The Movement Against Tyranny movement gathered 25,000 people last month to accuse Duterte of being the mastermind behind an avalanche of extrajudicial killings. A recent national survey shows that more than half of respondents believe police have summarily executed thousands of innocent people.

In response, the president threatens to unleash the armed forces on critics. Rabid supporters urge him to topple democracy and establish a “revolutionary government.”

His justice secretary attended the launch of a paramilitary group “Citizen National Guard,” which includes retired soldiers and police. In purple prose that echoes Duterte’s rhetoric, they have vowed to go after “terrorists, communist rebels, drug cartels, and foreign intelligence agencies,” the latter accused of fomenting unrest.

The president now warns against a “yellow-red” conspiracy, referring to followers of former president Benigno Aquino and the hundreds of thousands of militants from the legal and underground Left.

The threatened groups are not blinking. The 40,000-strong Anakbayan youth movement has demanded Duterte’s resignation.

On Oct. 6, groups massed in Manila to show support for the defiant and targeted ombudsman, Conchita Carpio Morales.

The #StopTheKillings networks and the multi-faith coalition Rise Up for Life and Rights also continue with their Black Friday protests against summary executions. Church bells in Catholic churches across the country toll nightly for justice. The Archdiocese of Lingayen-Dagupan has taken in police whistleblowers remorseful for their role in Duterte’s drug war. More bishops are offering their churches as sanctuaries.

The fractious political opposition is slowly coming together. But there are many bridges to span and realities to confront. It will take plenty of unflinching honesty and the junking of discredited models to solve the problem that is Duterte.

It is easy to confront a monster and harder to face one’s reflection in the mirror. As Filipino actor Pen Medina said at an anti-tyranny protest, many who protest now against autocracy displayed the same tendencies through a series of governments since the 1986 People Power revolt that ousted Ferdinand Marcos.

The chairman of the Commission on Human Rights, an ally of former president Aquino, has admitted that the former president’s emotional distance from the people allowed Duterte to win the elections.

That barely skims the problem. Aquino defied the Supreme Court when it barred the executive branch from tweaking the national budget, taking away funds from critical areas to reward allies. His social welfare secretary subsumed almost all welfare services to his anti-insurgency campaign, resulting in new growth for Asia’s longest-running communist rebellion.

Aquino’s top aides sneered as police opened fire at hungry farmers protesting the lack of social safeguards against disasters born of climate change. Aquino’s friends charged with corruption were untouchables. The former president even jeopardized his own peace process in the southern Philippines by allowing a national police chief, suspended for corruption, to mount a secret operation that failed to coordinate military support.

It was easy for Duterte to brand himself the people’s wolf, a beast to turn loose on perceived enemies and oppressors.

Missionary priest Benjamin Alforque said Filipinos learned perverse aspirations from centuries of skewed power dynamics. When the rural poor, facing hunger and war, fled to urban areas, they carried a basic contradiction: They hated injustice and yet saw their tormentors as models of success.

“The horror of feudalism is the strong mesh of abuse and patronage that leave generations subservient, even thankful, for their oppressive state,” said Father Alforque.

Philippine leaders’ ruthless use of the state’s might and bureaucracy made the powerless accept their fate and turn on each other to scramble for scraps from their masters’ tables. Duterte, for decades a city mayor, is a master at manipulating that feudal mindset.

It is actually a sea change, said the missionary priest, to see the poor dragging a squeamish middle class in the current battle against tyranny. The worst thing Duterte’s powerful detractors can do is to dismiss their festering grievances.

Opposition politicians like to trot out fallacies: The numbers of those killed under the past administration pale in comparison to Duterte’s kill list; let’s forget the past and focus on one big enemy.

But there is that face in the mirror. It is the face of injustice with roots buried so deep in the national psyche that it has become our norm. Until people who claim to be better than others learn to accept part of the blame for that, the Philippines will continue to slide into the jaws of tyranny.

*Inday Espina-Varona is an editor and commentator based in Manila.

By Adelaide Mena

A political advertisement for pro-life Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) has been blocked by Twitter for statements about Planned Parenthood selling fetal body parts for medical research.

“I’m 100 percent pro-life. I fought Planned Parenthood, and we stopped the sale of baby parts, thank God,” Blackburn says in her video.

Twitter blocked the ad, telling the Blackburn campaign that the comment was “deemed an inflammatory statement that is likely to evoke a strong negative reaction.”

The tech company said the advertisement would be reinstated if the comment was removed.

Blackburn encouraged her supporters to join her in “standing up to Silicon Valley” by sharing the video. Although the video cannot be part of a paid promotion on Twitter, users can link to the video on the site and retweet Blackburn’s post of the video.

Blackburn is running for a U.S. Senate seat in Tennessee which will be left open by the retirement of current senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.).

Earlier in the two-and-a-half-minute video, Blackburn claims that the “left calls me a wingnut or a knuckle-dragging conservative,” criticizes the Senate’s failure to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and affirms her support of Second-Amendment rights and the Trump Administration’s immigration policies.

After investigative reporting by the Center for Medical Progress which revealed Planned Parenthood’s practice of taking money from medical research companies in exchange for aborted fetal tissue, Blackburn chaired a Republican-run House panel to investigate the organization and fetal tissue research more broadly.

After their investigation, she and her panel urged Congress to stop the funding of Planned Parenthood.

.@Twitter shut down our video ad, claiming it’s “inflammatory” & “negative.” Join me in standing up to Silicon Valley → RETWEET our message! pic.twitter.com/K3w4AMgW6i

— Marsha Blackburn (@VoteMarsha) October 9, 2017

The practice of fetal tissue donation is legal in the United States if the donating company makes no profit off of the transaction. Planned Parenthood has since announced that it would no longer donate aborted fetal tissue for reimbursement.

Pro-life activists criticized Twitter’s move to refuse promotion of the ad.

“We are profoundly disappointed, but not surprised that Twitter continues to censor pro-life speech,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the pro-life advocacy organization, Susan B. Anthony List, in a statement.

“While we have observed that this censorship seems to be applied selectively to pro-life groups, Twitter’s move has broad, chilling implications for all sorts of advocacy and political speech. We hope anyone seeking to engage in political speech will join us in denouncing the censorship of Rep. Blackburn,” Dannenfelser said.

“Such heavy-handed tactics only backfire on those who use them.”

By Terri Moon Cronk

Islamic State of Iraq and Syria fighters remain on the run in Iraq and Syria as coalition troops clear territory once controlled by the enemy, a Pentagon spokesman said Tuesday.

Iraqi security forces are continuing clearance operations in the so-called “Hawija Pocket” in Iraq’s Kirkuk province while facing small pods of ISIS resistance as they transition to a persistent hold posture, Army Col. Rob Manning told reporters.

“In the past 24 hours, they have cleared 1,083 square kilometers [about 418 square miles],” he said. “The federal police are conducting clearance and security operations throughout the Northern Hawija Pocket.”

ISIS Cleared in Western Anbar

Clearance operations also are eliminating the enemy in western Anbar province, Manning said. In Ninevah province, police are continuing their routine patrols and security checkpoints as part of Mosul security operations.

“Security forces operating in Mosul and Tal Afar have reported success in finding and eliminating several locations storing or producing explosives and [improvised explosive device] systems,” he said.

Over the weekend, coalition military forces conducted seven strikes in Iraq against ISIS targets in Qaim, Huwija, Rawa, Hit and Tuz, Manning said.

Syria: Day 126 in Raqqa

Today marks Day 126 of operations to defeat ISIS in Raqqa, Syria, where the Syrian Democratic Forces continue to take in civilians who are fleeing from ISIS control there, Manning said.

“They continue to make steady progress, liberating 17 city blocks in Raqqa and 26 square kilometers [10 square miles] along the Jazeera axis in the past 24 hours,” he added.

More than 80 percent of the city has been cleared so far, Manning said.

Fighting to Continue

While the impending defeat of ISIS in Raqqa will be “a significant operational and moral blow” to ISIS, there is more fighting to be done as the enemy continues to hold a large amount of territory along the Euphrates River Valley,” the colonel noted.

In the past 24 hours, the Syrian Democratic Forces have cleared 9 square kilometers – more than 3 square miles – in the Khabur River Valley and Dayr Az Zawr province, Manning told reporters.

“The coalition and its partners remain committed to continued deconfliction with Russian officials and call on all forces to focus their efforts defeating ISIS,” he said.

By Mariya Cheresheva

Hristo Stoichkov will be removed from his position of Honorary Consul of Bulgaria to Spain after being at the centre of a recent diplomatic row in which he compared Spain’s deputy PM to a follower of the dictator Franco.

Bulgaria’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has launched proceedings to remove Spanish football legend Hristo Stoichkov from his post of Honorary Consul of Bulgaria to Spain’s Catalan and Aragon regions, it announced on Tuesday.

According to the ministry, Stoichkov’s diplomatic duties have been recently hampered by the fact that he spends most of his time in the US, as well as by “complicated” communications with the official authorities of Spain stemming from his “recent public appearances”.

Apparently angered by police violence during the Catalan independence referendum on October 1, the former Barcelona striker said on Mexican television show Univision that Spain’s deputy Prime Minister Soraya Saenz de Santamaria and her family were Francoists – those following the doctrine of the Spanish dictator Francisco Franco.

“Her grandfather – Francoist, her father, too, she herself, probably her son as well. Is she the one to tell us what to do?” said Stoichkov, while wearing a band bearing the colours of the Catalan flag on his arm.

“She has to resign, because one cannot send the police to beat up innocent people. Spanish government, you are a shame,” he added.

In response, on October 4, Saenz de Santamaria threatened to take Stoichkov to court.

The footballer apologized to the deputy prime minister, but insisted that he was still outraged by the scenes of violence at the Catalan independence vote.

“The Spanish Kingdom is a strategic partner and a friend of Bulgaria, we maintain excellent bilateral relations on all levels and intensive cooperation in all spheres of common interest,” Bulgaria’s foreign ministry said in the announcement of Stoichkov’s dismissal.

The decision is yet to be reviewed by the Bulgarian Council of Ministers.

Famous for his short temper, Stoichkov is one of the most beloved football idols not only in Bulgaria, but also in Barcelona, where he was among the best strikers in the 1990s.

He was a member of the legendary Bulgarian national team that finished fourth in the 1994 World Cup and won the World Cup Golden Shoe with six goals that year. He also won the Ballon d’Or in the same year.

Trump and conservatives in Congress are planning a big tax cut for millionaires and billionaires. To justify it they’re using the oldest song in their playbook, claiming tax cuts on the rich will trickle down to working families in the form of stronger economic growth.

Baloney. Trickle-down economics is a cruel joke. Just look at the evidence:

1. Clinton’s tax increase on the rich hardly stalled the economy. In 1993, Bill Clinton raised taxes on top earners from 31 percent to 39.6 percent. Conservatives predicted economic disaster. Instead, the economy created 23 million jobs and the economy grew for 8 straight years in what was then the longest expansion in history. The federal budget went into surplus.

2. George W. Bush’s big tax cuts for the rich didn’t grow the economy. In 2001and 2003, George W. Bush lowered the top tax rate to 35 percent while also cutting top rates on capital gains and dividends. Conservative supply-siders predicted an economic boom. Instead, the economy barely grew at all, and then in 2008 it collapsed. Meanwhile, the federal deficit ballooned.

3. Obama’s tax hike on the rich didn’t slow the economy. At the end of 2012, President Obama struck a deal to restore the 39.6 percent top tax rate and raise tax rates on capital gains and dividends. Once again, supply-side conservatives predicted doom. Instead, the economy grew steadily, and the expansion is still continuing.

4. The Reagan recovery of the early 1980s wasn’t driven by Reagan’s tax cut. Conservative supply-siders point to Ronald Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts. But the so-called Reagan recovery of the early 1980s was driven by low interest rates and big increase in government spending.

5. Kansas cut taxes on the rich and is a basket case. California raised them and is thriving. In 2012, Kansas slashed taxes on top earners and business owners, while California raised taxes on top earners to the highest state rate in the nation. Since then, California has had among the strongest economic growth of any state, while Kansas has fallen behind most other states.

So don’t fall for supply-side, trickle-down nonsense. Lower taxes on the rich don’t generate growth and jobs. They only make the rich even richer, at a time of raging inequality, and they cause bigger budget deficits.

[*Our thanks to Alexandra Thornton and Seth Hanlon from the Center for American Progress]

Investigations of a Singaporean national Imran Kassim on terrorism-related charges reveal that a flawed understanding of the concept of bay’at (oath of allegiance) played a role in his violent radicalisation. It is vital to advance a nuanced understanding of the concept to prevent people from falling prey to extremists’ narrative and exploitation of concepts like bay’at.

By Muhammad Saiful Alam Shah Bin Sudiman*

In July 2017, Singapore authorities arrested two Singaporeans on terrorism-related charges. One of them is 34-year-old Imran Kassim, managing director of a logistics company. He was put under an Order of Detention (OD) for intending to undertake armed violence overseas. The Singapore Ministry of Home Affairs also stated that Imran had pledged allegiance or bay’at to the leader of the ‘Islamic State’ (IS) terrorist group, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in 2014.

Imran’s detention raises several important questions about the concept of bay’at. To begin with, what is bay’at? Why is the concept frequently exploited by violent self-proclaimed “Islamist” groups? How should Muslims react to it?

The Origin of Bay’at

Bay’at is an Arabic term that denotes a pledge of allegiance, alliance and loyalty. It predates Islam and was a common practice among Arabs. In pre-Islamic Arabia, a pact, which was observed through the pledge of alliance, was employed between Arabian tribal groups to establish security in the absence of state power.

In early Islamic history several accounts of bay’at were recorded between Prophet Muhammad and residents of Medina and between his companions. For example, a group of men from the city met the Prophet at a location called ‘Aqaba to embrace Islam.

They pledged not to commit customary practices of that time such as polytheism, robbery and adultery. Bay’at continues to be practised to this day in a few countries, especially between leaders and their followers in tribal societies, and among some Muslim groups.

Distortion of Bay’at by Southeast Asian Militants

In the last several decades, the concept of bay’at has been exploited by Muslim militant and terrorist groups to compel obedience and loyalty to the group’s leader and agenda. On 23 July 2014, a splinter of the militant Filipino Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) under the Basilan wing leader Isnilon Hapilon pledged allegiance to IS which had declared the establishment of a so-called worldwide Muslim caliphate several weeks earlier.

Another Filipino group, the Raja Sulaiman Islamic Movement (RSIM), uploaded a YouTube video showing ASG members in Bicutan prison in the Philippines taking an oath of loyalty to al-Baghdadi. Similarly, in December 2015 and June 2016 IS released several videos showing acceptance of bay’at by various battalions under Hapilon.

The acceptance symbolises recognition of the groups by IS and its leaders, as well as approval to wage military operations under the banner of IS. Almost a year later the Siege of Marawi erupted. Likewise, in Malaysia, Muhammad Wanndy Mohamad Jedi who led a terrorist cell called Gagak Hitam (Black Crows) declared bay’at to IS. Wanndy was instrumental in orchestrating the Movida attack in Puchong, Selangor in June 2016.

Bay’at in Singapore

Bay’at made its first presence in Singapore’s security scene in 2002. The Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) detainees revealed they had pledged allegiance to JI and/or leaders of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF). JI members were also warned that breaking the bay’at would result in divine retribution, hence deterring those who had reservations about the group’s objectives from leaving.

Today, Singapore’s security landscape is once again challenged with the threat of ‘religiously-motivated’ violence, this time by IS which brings together with it concepts popularised by JI such as bay’at. The arrest and detention of IS supporters in Singapore, like Mohamed Omar bin Mahadi (in July 2016) and Imran Kassim among others once again highlight the distortion of religious beliefs and exploitation of practices like bay’at.

In the case of Mohamed Omar, he had memorised the bay’at which he intended to take to al-Baghdadi. He and his wife were at IS’ disposal to carry out any assignments IS had for them once he had taken the oath. In respect of Imran, he harboured the intention to attack Singapore Armed Forces personnel deployed in the Global Coalition against IS. These examples show that terrorist group supporters are prepared to fulfil their bay’at in pursuit of their leader’s agenda even if it means resorting to acts of violence and killing.

Bay’at from Islamic Perspective

Bay’at is mentioned in both the Qur’an and Hadith (Prophetic Traditions and Sayings). Its purpose is for the promotion of good and enjoining what is right and the prevention of evil and forbidding what is wrong. This doctrine is in congruence with Islamic jurisprudence which states that “actions and policies should be in the people’s interest”.

A bay’at to IS, however, is totally at variance with this positive maxim as IS has shown that its actions disregard public interest and welfare and only cause civil disorder and mayhem. IS legitimises indiscriminate killings, torture, forced conversions, and desecration of the deceased, to name a few. Bay’at to al-Baghdadi in effect constitutes support and endorsement of IS transgressions of Islamic laws and ethics.

Militant and terrorist groups like IS and JI in fact use bay’at as a mechanism to ‘trap’ members within the organisation and ensure their commitment and compliance. In Islam, any bay’at that advances violations of Islamic doctrines and practices is null and void; it is entirely permissible to break one’s oath in such circumstances.

Two Types of Bay’at

There are two types of bay’at. The first is al-bay’at al-muṭlaqah, an irrevocable pledge. This only applies to Prophet Muhammad. According to Islamic creed, prophets and messengers of God are trustworthy, truthful, wise and divinely guided and protected from violation of God’s laws. These guarantee that the bay’at given to the Prophet will not be abused to commit acts that violate religious doctrines and precepts.

The other pledge is al-bay’at al-muqayyadah or conditional pledge given to a person other than a prophet or messenger of God. This bay’at is, according to a prophetic saying, subject to the condition that “There is no obedience to any human being if it involves disobedience of Allah”. The pledge is not absolute and it is revocable if it involves the commission of sins and acts against God.

Bay’at to al-Baghdadi clearly falls into this second category. Individuals who may have pledged allegiance to al-Baghdadi can therefore revoke their pledge without any fear of divine retribution.

The recent detention of Imran Kassim again demonstrates the vulnerability of some people to terrorist ideology and propaganda. Continuous vigorous efforts are therefore necessary to counter and expose the flawed and erroneous interpretations of religious texts and exploitation of practices such as bay’at.

*Muhammad Saiful Alam Shah Bin Sudiman is an Associate Research Fellow with the International Centre for Political Violence & Terrorism Research (ICPVTR), a constituent unit of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

By Miguel Otero-Iglesias*

Recent headlines have underscored the entrance to the German Parliament of a xenophobe party –Alternative for Germany (AfD)– for the first time since the Second World War. But the real news is that despite the arrival of more than a million refugees in 2015 and 2016 –for which Merkel received heavy criticism from both within and outside her party– she has won a fourth election. This is an unprecedented feat among Western democracies in the last decades, a period during which, as Moises Naim has pointed out, it has become easier to gain power but also easier to lose it.

If she finishes her new term, Merkel will have been in power for more than 15 years, a good measure of her political stature and cunning. However, this historic achievement –only comparable to the trajectory of Helmut Kohl (and in his time there was no Internet)– comes with a high price. Her centrist policies have stimulated the parties of the extremes, in particular, the AfD, which at the time of the last election (2013) did not yet even exist.

The appearance of the AfD in the Bundestag constitutes a political earthquake but, as is often true with real earthquakes, it was more than expected. The only uncertainty was its ultimate intensity. In the end, the AfD captured 13% of the vote and nearly 100 seats in the Bundestag, becoming the third largest political force. This has shocked a nation that since the Second World War has always prided itself on the absence of xenophobic parties from its parliament.

Resultados de las elecciones al Bundestag del 24 de septiembre. © The Federal Returning Officer, Wiesbaden 2017

Thus, the German exception has come to an end. Like its neighbours –France, Austria, the Netherlands and, of course, Poland–, the German people, and their elites, will have to deal with the problem of an exclusionary, anti-globalisation, anti-EU and anti-immigration nationalism.

Up to now it had always been said that German politics were boring. Merkel made sure of that. She formed stable government coalitions, twice with the Social-Democratic SPD and once with the Liberals of the FDP, and she has always governed from the centre. The last grand-coalition government held 80% of the parliamentary seats. But as in other European countries, the hegemony of the centre has come under attack from the extremes and collapsed, not sufficiently to defeat Merkel but enough to radically change the political landscape. Together Merkel’s Christian-Democrats and Schulz’s Social-Democrats lost more than 100 seats.

The AfD benefited from the protest vote. Nearly a million of its votes came from Merkel’s CDU: the discontented with the Chancellor’s open-door refugee policy. Concentrating on the centre, Merkel has (consciously) ignored her right flank.

It should also be emphasised that many AfD votes came from Eastern Germany. This is striking. The regions that have voted the most for the xenophobic party are those that have the fewest immigrants. The motives appear to be fed by fears of what changes might come rather than by a rejection of the status quo. The vast majority of Germans, including AfD voters, acknowledge that they enjoy a high standard of living. It is also true that both inequality and precariousness do exist in Germany. Many of those having a hard time voted for Die Linke (the extreme Left) or the AfD. Another interesting piece of data is that the extreme-right mobilised more than a million voters from among those who previously did not vote. In fact, AfD had more Twitter and Facebook traffic than any other party.

The AfD will therefore bring a lot of noise with it to the German Parliament. But that will not be the only change. The Social-Democrats have already said they are now in the opposition. The election results were the worst in their history and they appear to have been significantly damaged by their participation in the coalition government with Merkel. They have no choice but to rethink their discourse and reform. Social Democracy is on the decline throughout Europe, partly because its parties have not effectively adapted to the new times. The industrial revolution saw the birth of workers’ parties; the digital revolution could end up burying them. Nevertheless, it is important that the SPD is in the opposition because otherwise the AfD would become the leading opposition party, lending it an influential spotlight in the Parliament and the media.

With the SPD out of the equation, Merkel has only one possible coalition option: agreement with the FPD and the Green Party, both of which would be incorporated into the Jamaica coalition, named after the colours of the three political groups (black, yellow and green). But any such coalition deal will be tough. The Liberals and the Greens occupy opposing parts of the spectrum on many issues, including European integration, the phasing-out of diesel fuel and immigration policy. Nevertheless, if anyone has experience in forming coalitions it is Merkel. If she cannot form another, her options will be either to govern in minority (complicated, but possible) or to call for new elections.

The normal thing, of course, would be for a sense of duty to prevail and for the three parties –actually four if the CDU’s Bavarian partner, the CSU, is considered– to engage in lengthy negotiations, presumably until Christmas, to produce a government agreement along well-defined lines. The Greens would likely to get the Ministry of Foreign Affairs while the Liberals would presumably be assigned the Ministry of Finance (which could imply replacing Schäuble, another high price to pay for Merkel) or of the Economy (which would make sense because the FDP is a pro-market, pro-business party).

The Liberals have drawn a red line regarding many of Macron’s proposals for advancing the integration of the monetary union. This has caused concern in Spain. In principle, the FPD opposes a euro-zone budget of any substantial size and would like to dismantle the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), created during the latest crisis to assist countries under financial stress, Spain among them. It remains to be seen whether it will maintain its hard-line stance. The Liberal leader, Christian Lindner, is a young and pragmatic politician who knows that with barely more than 10% of the vote he cannot impose his point of view on all fronts. He could, for instance, get a substantial tax cut and economic reforms in exchange for giving ground on Europe, where the Greens will want Merkel to be more generous.

At any event, it is a mistake to think that Germany would have earmarked billions of euros for a euro-zone budget with Schulz either in the government or as a minor partner. The German consensus position on this question is long-established. From Berlin’s perspective, a real budget would not only imply the mutualisation of debt, but would necessarily also mean control over spending and income. This is to say that Eurozone countries would have to cede some fiscal sovereignty. And it remains to be seen if France, even with Macron (Lindner has repeated this point several times), is even willing to do so itself. Another thing altogether would be for such a budget to go to an incentive fund for reforms in different countries. In the end, the real question is: what is this common budget for? If it is for a macroeconomic stabilisation mechanism that costs various percentage points of the euro-zone GDP, then opposition will come not just from Linder, but also from Merkel. If the idea is to create a common fund of up to €50 billion to be destined as economic aid to support concrete reforms, then an agreement might be possible.

Lindner and Macron have a common agenda: digitalisation, an overhaul of education, strengthening of active employment policies, invigoration of entrepreneurship and modernisation (and heightened transparency) of the administration. This is not the dream of the federalists, but it could help to strengthen the monetary union by fostering a greater confidence –and, who knows, perhaps even convergence– among member states.

In the end, in the wake of the elections, Germany now looks more like France. The two countries, along with most other Western countries, now face an axis of tension between one part of the electorate which is open and cosmopolitan and another which is nativist and nationalist. The good news is that the Jamaica coalition (if it takes shape) will be formed by three parties that are pro-Europe and in favour of openness (although Lindner did flirt with Euroscepticism during the election campaign). The fear is that these parties will prove to be incapable of protecting and empowering the nativists so that they can look more favourably on European integration and globalisation.

For Merkel the real work will start at home because if in the end there is a Jamaica coalition, it will be dominated by West Germany (where the three parties have much of their support) as opposed to East Germany (where they have less). To bridge the gap will be crucial to the European integration project: if the average German sees that investment in the East has been worthwhile, then he will also view the creation of a European fiscal union more favourably.

About the author:
*Miguel Otero-Iglesias, Senior Analyst for International Political Economy at the Elcano Royal Institute and Associate Professor at IE University | @miotei

Source:
This article was published by Elcano Royal Institute. Original version in Spanish: Merkel paga un alto precio por su cuarto mandato

Never miss an opportunity in the security business. A massacre in Las Vegas has sent its tremors through the establishments, and made its way across the Pacific into the corridors of Canberra and the Prime Minister’s office. Australia’s Malcolm Turnbull is very keen to make hay out of blood, and has suggested another broadening of the security state: the creation of a national facial recognition data base.

It stands to reason. Energy policy is in a state of free fall. The government’s broadband network policy has proven disastrous, uneven, inefficient and costly. Australia is falling back in the ranks, a point that Turnbull dismisses as “rubbish statistics” (importantly showing that President Donald Trump is not the only purveyor of fanciful figures).

The Turnbull government is also in the electoral doldrums, struggling to keep up with a Labor opposition which has shown signs of breaking away into a canter. The only thing keeping this government in scourers and saucepans is the prospect that Turnbull is the more popular choice of prime minister.

Enter, then, the prism of the national interest, the chances afforded to his political survival by the safety industrial complex. Turnbull, a figure who, when in the law, stressed the importance of various liberties, is attempting to convince all the governments of Australia that terrorism suspects can be detained for periods of up to 14 days without charge. Lazy law enforcement officials, rejoice.

Tagged to that agenda, one he wishes to run by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) in Canberra, is the fanciful need for a national facial recognition database. This dystopian fantasy of an information heavy, centralised database is one Australians have historically have opposed with admirable scepticism. It has been something that Anglophone countries have tended to cast a disapproving look upon, a feature of a civilization suspicious of intrusions made by the executive.

In the 1980s, the Australia Card was suggested as an administrative measure of convenience, but deemed by critics to be the first steps in the creation of a national surveillance system that would stretch, extend, and ultimately enlarge the powers of the state.

As law academic Graham Greenleaf would argue in 1987, the Australia Card Bill 1986 would “go beyond being a mere identification system, which the Government claims it is, and will establish the most powerful location system in Australia, and a prototype data surveillance system.”[1]

Had it been implemented, the card system would have applied to people of all ages, and, while not being compulsory, would have made it impossible, in Greenleaf’s sombre words, “for anyone to exist in Australian society without it”. Receipt of pay would not have been taxed at the required rate; receiving health insurance and social security payments would have been impossible.

Importantly, the bill was rejected twice in the Australian senate, generating the grounds for a move by the Hawke government to take Australia to the polls. It proved so unnerving to the senses of the public that the then prime minister quietly shelved it. The civil libertarians had won.

Times have darkened. In Australia, civil libertarianism is in quiet retreat, and the defenders of Big Brother chant with approval. Security and fear are garlanded and worshipped. Criticisms of the authoritarian bugbear are being treated with varying degrees of disdain and scorn.

Turnbull prefers to offer a chilling vision: “Imagine the power of being able to identify, to be looking out for and identify a person suspected in being involved in terrorist activities walking into an airport, walking into a sporting stadium.” It’s always good to imagine, to identify the citizen, to pretend that precision is the order of the day.

Concerns that this data base might be vulnerable to intrusive hacks and enterprising data pinchers is not a concern for the man in Canberra. This is the prime minister who presided over the creation of a data retention scheme on communications, a step deemed inimical in certain parts of the world to liberties (The European Court of Justice certainly thought so in 2016.)

“You can’t allow the risk of hacking to prevent you from doing everything to keep Australians safe”. Safety is truly in the eye of the plodding beholder, and such a system risks entrenching a state of insecurity.

The operating rationale here is contempt for privacy, or that the Australian citizen could even care. That’s the nub of Turnbull’s argument: the state is abolishing an undervalued, near irrelevant concept for the sake of security. “I don’t know if you’ve checked your Facebook page lately,” he chided journalists on Wednesday, “but people put an enormous amount of their own data up in the public domain.”[2] Yet another dangerous authoritarian argument for the books.

Over three decades have passed since the failure of the Australia Card. But Turnbull won’t be concerned. The age of fear has been normalised, and those in the business of harnessing and marketing it see opportunities rather than concerns. As Channel Nine’s Sonia Kruger, co-host of the cerebrally light Today Show Extra exclaimed: “I like it. I do. Bring it on. Big Brother, bring it on.”[3]

Notes:
[1] https://opennet.or.kr/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/The-Australia-Card-towards-a-national-surveillance-system.pdf

[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2017/10/03/turnbull-dismisses-privacy-concerns-in-asking-for-a-national-facial-recognition-database_a_23231863/

[3] http://www.smh.com.au/technology/consumer-security/wake-up-sonia-kruger-there-are-real-risks-to-a-national-facial-recognition-database-20171004-gytx7x.html

As the October 15^th deadline for Pres. Trump to certify Iranian compliance with the P5+1 nuclear deal, the administration through various media leaks made clear it will refuse to do so.  His grounds for refusal are the flimsiest imaginable: Iran has engaged in objectionable behavior which the President wishes violated the deal, but doesn’t.  That’s an exceedingly thin reed on which to hang an entire policy.

Trump and the GOP are locked into a rejectionist, even nihilist approach toward Iran.  This should be familiar to many Americans, because It’s very similar to the one being used against North Korea. Threats, bellicosity, all substitute for a real policy.  Furthermore, they elevate countries and foreign policy issues far above their real importance, even to the brink of nuclear war.  Does anyone believe that whatever issues we may have with North Korea, it’s worth the death of tens of millions of Asians and Americans to prove a point?

In Iran’s case, the war hawks object to Iran’s missile tests and its support for fellow-Shia in Syria and Lebanon.  They also side with their oil rich Sunni allies in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf, who declare Iran to be a mortal threat.  In truth, none of these Iranian actions violate the nuclear deal which, as its title suggests, only deals with nuclear issues.

If the Trump administration accepted the P5+1 agreement, and then sought to negotiate a separate one dealing with some of all of these issues, this would he a far more constructive approach.  But the GOP knows that many of these issues involve far more players than just Iran, including Syria, Russia, Sunni Islamists like al-Qaeda and ISIS, and their proteges, among them Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.  In other words, you can’t isolate Iran’s role without taking into account the roles of all the other parties intervening in Syria.

Iran’s missile tests, which so enflame Israel and the GOP, do not violate the JPOA.  That doesn’t stop the anti-Iran media and GOP from declaring that they do.  Of course, it would be possible to open a new round of negotiations to restrain them.  But only in the context of an open process in which all parties are treated with respect. Something sorely lacking in current U.S. foreign policy.  The current thinking seems to be that the U.S. will simply declare Iran must stop missile testing, Iran will acquiesce, and demand nothing from us in return.  Nor should it have the right to do so.

But that’s simply not the way international negotiations work (as Trump, of all people, should understand).  If one party wants the other to give away something, then you must give something in return.  There simply is no sense of reciprocity in U.S. policy.  Which is why it is doomed to failure. Iran will not be brow-beaten into submission.  You might even reduce Iranians to eating grass as North Koreans once did during a famine, and they still wouldn’t buckle.  So unless the U.S. is prepared to pursue a policy of outright sadism leading to the death of tens of thousands through starvation and plague, we are doomed to fail.

That’s what the worst elements of the neocon policy élite want to see. Former administration officials like Tom Ridge and Washington think tanks allied with the Israel Lobby have published screeds calling for violent overthrow of the Iranian regime.  Their op-eds are bought and paid for by former terror groups like the MeK charged with assassinating U.S. diplomats.  Ridge alone has earned tens of thousands of dollars for giving 15-minute speeches addressed to MeK gatherings around the globe.  Scores of other past officials including Howard Dean, Rudy Giuliani, Ed Rendell, John Bolton, have also joined the gravy train.

When Sam Husseini questioned Ridge at an MeK press conference about this, it was not received kindly:

I asked Ridge about any financial arrangement between him or the other speakers and the MEK. He reacted with anger, questioning my motives and my affiliations. Rendell said in much calmer tone that no one was getting paid for today’s event but that people there had been paid for other speeches at other events. One of the speakers indicated that Ridge had personally paid for today’s event. Ridge in his remarks derided the notion that money would ever influence men of the stature of those speaking at the event. I asked if he was arguing that there was no problem of money influencing politics. Rendell cut that off.

Many analysts believe that MeK’s mysterious largesse originated in the treasury of the Saudi regime, a sworn enemy of the Iran’s Shia regime.  NBC, quoting Obama administration sources, claimed the Mossad was an important funder as well.  Meir Dagan, Israel’s former Mossad chief, publicly boasted of Israeli acts of terrorism sponsored inside Iran.  Clearly, these sorts of operations need Iranian insiders and MeK is a likely culprit.  The same NBC report asserted that the MeK participated in the assassination of five Iranian nuclear scientists.  I reported here, based on a high-level Israeli former military officer, that the Mossad and MeK jointly coördinated the attacks.  Other journalists have reported that the Saudis gave Israel $1-billion for various operations to sabotage Iran’s nuclear program including the assassinations and the Stuxnet malware attack.

It would be totally in character for the MeK to accept funding from Iran’s enemies, as it was once sheltered in Iraq by Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war.

Returning to the U.S. president, the problem with the Trump approach is that he has no strategy, no ultimate vision for future relations between the U.S. and Iran.  As the old Talking Heads song went: “We’re on the road to nowhere.”  His policy is designed for media sound bytes and tweets.  It’s pure posturing.  This is something that could end up getting many millions killed.  And for what? To mollify the ego of a madman?  That would be our madman, not their’s.

It’s pitifully ironic that amidst all the gnashing of teeth about Iran’s supposed effort to attain nuclear weapons the GOP dominated Congress shows no sense of outrage for Israel’s 200 weapon stockpile and its refusal to join the Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT).  Unlike Israel, Iranian leaders have never contemplated or advocated using nuclear weapons against their enemies during wartime.  Unlike Israel, Iran is a member of NPT and has permitted numerous inspections of its facilities by the IAEA, which has affirmed the country’s adherence to the JPOA.  Israel on the other hand has never permitted legitimate inspections of its Dimona nuclear reactor, which produces its nuclear weapons.

This week, the Nobel committee awarded its Peace prize to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons.  Iran, though it does not have nuclear weapons, has made clear that it will never use them or deploy them. Israeli leaders have urged their use during past wars. If Iran knew that its enemies heeded the call of this NGO for a nuclear ban, it would have no need for such weapons, even were it to be pursuing their production.  The fault and burden here is on Israel which has them, not Iran which doesn’t.

One hopes that this award will increase pressure on Israel to abandon the folly of its own nuclear arsenal.  In Israel’s case, nuclear weapons have enabled it to pursue a reckless, rejectionist policy toward its neighbors.  WMD enables it to avoid dealing with a festering, decades-old political problem.  Trump’s reckless decertification of the nuclear deal could lead Iran to follow the same path.

This article was published at Tikun Olam.

By Oscar Silva-Valladares

The Catalonian independence push, to be understood, addressed and hopefully solved peacefully, needs to be seen beyond constitutional legalities in the context of what sovereignty and self- determination mean for societies.

The right of political self-determination is fundamental for any organized society. Historically and factually, this right is the ultimate basis of most existing sovereign states (unless of course a state claims conquest as its raison d’être).  Neither history nor social evolution have finished and, therefore, this right still exists, as act or potency. While self-determination may be limited or wholly unacceptable within a certain constitutional arrangement, it cannot be ignored based on today’s frontiers or much less dismissed in international politics.  We do not need to remember the numerous states that have been born in Europe over the last quarter of a century.  Despite its bad reputation, nationalism is alive and well, not only in Catalonia but as the engine of any sovereign state, including Spain.

The soundness of the efforts of any society seeking political autonomy from an existing state can only be measured by its social weight; that is, by matters such as population strength, unity of purpose, consistency and relative political strength.  In the short term, its legitimacy may be questioned by the constitutional structure where such society sits, but such efforts cannot be dismissed as a social force capable of effecting change. This is just a long way of saying that sovereignty ultimately resides with the people.

Whether or not the historical roots, social comparisons, or ideological grounds argued by a society seeking sovereignty are valid or false is irrelevant.  Whether or not Catalonia had its autonomy before in 1714 only to lose it is inconsequential.  Ranking the validity of Catalonia’s aspirations with other societies is a useless exercise. Whether or not the Catalonian children are being brainwashed, as some people claim, is also a sterile discussion.  The truth about such allegations will not add or lessen the ultimate weight of the social force, whatever that might be.  For societies that have sovereign ambitions, such as Catalonia, what finally matters is whether or not they can present a case in a form and substance that is finally accepted in the international order.  In this context, a peaceful claim, such as the Catalonian’s, does mean a lot in today’s world, at least among civilized nations.

Rightly so, the duty of any responsible government is to upheld and defend its constitutional order.  The Spanish government is formally correct in disputing the Catalonian sovereignty movement viewing the recent independence referendum as illegal. But the responsibility of a mature government goes beyond being just the defender of its state’s existing order and the enforcer of its legal establishment. Unfortunately, this seems to be the narrow position that the Spanish government has taken during this entire dispute. A government is also responsible for ensuring that society can operate harmoniously to fulfill its peoples’ needs. The Spanish government has utterly failed at this higher responsibility.  It has completely dismissed all the warnings that Catalonia has been giving for years on its aims for more autonomy and has refused any dialogue that could lead to a challenge of the current constitutional scaffolding.

Beyond errors of substance that the Spanish government has incurred until now, errors of form have made matters worse.  The Spanish police has shocked the world using violence against peaceful people performing, at worst, an act of civil disobedience.  For whatever it may matter to the Catalonians bent on achieving independence, the recent speech from the Spanish king is a historical textbook on how clumsiness from rulers has precipitated undesired and even catastrophic events through centuries.  Showing closed fists and the picture of one of his autocratic ancestors in the back, the king did not bother to utter a single phrase in the Catalan language, a simple gesture that would have not hurt his case.  The word ‘dialogue’ was also absent from his speech. The unifying and moderating role that the Spanish constitution (in its article 56, to be precise) demands from the crown was completely missing in his words and manner.

It is quite tempting to dig into the Spanish character to try to shed some light on the reasons behind the strict rigidity that its central government has taken in the case of Catalonia. That characteristic stubbornness (with a not-so-subtle touch of idealism and exaltation of principle) that served well Castile, Aragon, and later Imperial Spain at the height of its glories backfired at the time of the Spanish colonies’ wars of independence and also in 1898 when Spain lost its remaining dominions.  It is not hard to sense the same psychological trait in the recent behavior of the Spanish government and of its Bourbon king.

As background noise, although quite effective, a good portion of the Spanish mainstream media has mimicked the government’s position chanting for Spain’s uncompromising unity. The Catalonian independent movement is incoherently being accused of having Nazi, anarchist and leftist roots. The independence referendum has disjointedly been characterized as non-existent, defective and illegal. The proverbial Russian interference has, of course, been flagged as well.

It needs to be emphasized that no constitutional order is frozen. The tragi-comic re-writing of constitutions by South American republics until recent times does not belittle the good reasons for social evolution.  In today’s battle of wills between the Spanish government and the majority of Catalonians (majority that today cannot be disputed), only a negotiation leading to effective federalism seems to be the realistic path for reconciliation within a united Spain.

Deaf ears are still prevailing, unfortunately. ‘Facing the Sun’ (Cara al Sol) was the battle-hymn of the pro-Franco hordes during the Spanish Civil War.  And ‘Covering it with a Finger’ seems to be, quite sadly, the sequential lyrics that the Spanish establishment has penned with its actions, at least until now.

The opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints expressed by the authors are theirs alone and don’t reflect any official position of Geopoliticalmonitor.com.

Achieving a nuclear-free world is a major challenge, given sharp divisions among Russia, China and the US

By Richard Weitz*

The decision to award a Nobel Peace Prize to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons is sensible given the award’s disarmament criteria. But UN meetings in September saw a wide gap among Russian, Chinese and US assessments of the causes, consequences and solutions regarding nuclear proliferation. Given these divisions, severe challenges remain in realizing a nuclear-free world.

The growing gap among the nuclear powers was there for all to see at the UN General Assembly. In his September 19 address to the General Assembly, US President Donald Trump denounced “a small group of rogue regimes” – naming North Korea, Iran and several others – as “the scourge of our planet.”

Since Pyongyang’s “reckless pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles” presents a global threat, he called on other UN members to deny support to “this band of criminals,” warning that the United States was prepared “to totally destroy North Korea” in self-defense against the regime’s “suicide mission.”

Trump insisted that the international community also confront Iran, another “reckless regime …whose chief exports are violence, bloodshed, and chaos.” He demanded that Tehran stop violating neighbors’ sovereignty, supporting terrorism and developing ballistic missiles. He warned that the White House would withdraw from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, “if it provides cover for the eventual construction of a nuclear program.”

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, while visibly differing with Trump on many issues, aligned fully with his boss on nuclear proliferation.

In contrast to Trump’s stark rhetoric, the secretary provided a more analytical framework for US nonproliferation policies in a September 21 UN Security Council session devoted to the issue.

Tillerson contrasted the costs incurred by countries that illegally pursue nuclear weapons with the gains to those, such as Ukraine, that have renounced nuclear weapons. He noted that any country possessing this technology bore onerous burdens and responsibility for its safeguarding. Even so, he justified US nuclear forces as helping avert wars and decreasing allies’ need for their own nuclear arsenals.

Tillerson called for greater international cooperation against further proliferation since the spread of nuclear weapons is inherently destabilizing and escalatory. He noted that any country that newly acquires nuclear weapons would lack the sophisticated safeguards of the experienced nuclear powers, raising “the risk of miscalculation, accident, or escalation.” Even worse, the possible acquisition of these capabilities by “irresponsible third parties” such as Iran and North Korea would be especially dangerous since these regimes pursue nuclear weapons as shields for regional aggression and subversion rather than self-defense. To counter these dangers, he proposed fortifying the Non-Proliferation Treaty against further cheating or circumvention.

According to Tillerson, Russia and the United States have “the greatest responsibility for upholding nonproliferation” due to their large nuclear arsenals and prior collaborations. Yet he related how Moscow has recently violated arms treaties, impeded nuclear security cooperation and limited investigations of illegal nuclear weapons programs. Tillerson also saw China as another crucial, if underperforming, partner in averting nuclear proliferation. In his view, a stronger stance by Beijing would go far toward ending North Korea’s nuclear weapons program.

Regarding nuclear terrorism, Tillerson saw enhanced collaboration among Russia, China and other countries as critical for preventing non-state actors from obtaining nuclear materials, technologies and expertise. He advocated increasing intelligence collaboration, more effectively executing UN Security Council resolutions, and renewing multilateral efforts to provide alternative employment for former nuclear weapons specialists. For him, all “levers of power, whether diplomatic, economic, digital, moral, or, if necessary, military,” should be pooled to counter proliferation, deter rogue regimes and kill terrorists.

In his UN address, Trump thanked China and Russia for joining other Security Council members in imposing severe sanctions on North Korea. Yet, China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi told the UN Security Council that, while sanctions can “promote a resumption of talks and dialogue” and may be “necessary to exercise pressure” against violators of their nonproliferation obligations, “sanctions are not the panacea.”

In Beijing’s view, pressure is only productive in pursuit of negotiations and dialogue. In the case of North Korea, Wang saw negotiations as “the only way out.” He said that all the parties to the nuclear dispute should meet each other halfway by addressing one another’s legitimate concerns.” For the United States, this means adhering to the “Four Nos” that Beijing claims Tillerson agreed to on August 1 – no pursuing regime or government change in Pyongyang, striving for rapid Korean reunification, or sending the US military into North Korea. The visible tensions between Tillerson and Trump regarding North Korea leave Chinese policymakers uncertain whether the United States will respect these injunctions.

In addition, Chinese representatives reaffirmed their dual-suspension proposal – that South Korea and the United States cease major military exercises in exchange for Pyongyang’s freezing missile and nuclear tests. Wang still insists that the September 2005 Six-Party Talks Joint Statement offers a viable roadmap towards eventual Korean denuclearization. Yet, US officials have lost faith in the Six-Party Talks and reject such a freeze as leaving North Korea with excessive nuclear missile capacity.

Maintaining JCPOA with Iran is crucial for achieving a similar negotiated settlement with North Korea, Wang suggests, as well as for buttressing the nuclear nonproliferation regime and global governance: The Iran deal demonstrates the benefits of resolving conflicts through diplomacy with Pyongyang and other potential nuclear aspirants.

The Russian nonproliferation presentations deviated even more from the US stance. Like Wang, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov affirmed that, “threats will only antagonize the countries that we want to influence” and instead we should engage in diplomacy with all parties. Russian UN Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia objected that the Security Council nonproliferation dialogue should focus on “general” issues rather than “someone’s idea of ‘pariah states’.” In the General Assembly, Lavrov denounced unilateral US sanctions applied without collective Security Council approval, especially extraterritorial ones that affect foreign firms. Any US nonproliferation concerns, he argued, should be addressed within the Security Council and other multilateral formats.

Regarding the two immediate nonproliferation threats of Korea and Iran, Lavrov agreed with his Chinese counterpart that, while “it is inadmissible to watch silently North Korea’s missile gambling,” using military force “is equally inadmissible.” Rather than “military hysteria,” Lavrov called for implementation of the dual-freeze proposal, which Beijing and Moscow backed in a joint statemate in July, followed by comprehensive negotiations.

Referencing Iran, Nebenzia said that, “if the United States does leave the JCPOA, this will be the worst signal we can send to North Korea.” Lavrov expressed fear that a US decision to unilaterally re-impose sanctions on Iran would undermine the credibility of promised collective sanctions relief to North Korea for denuclearization. Calling the agreement “one of the key factors of international and regional stability,” he said that Moscow would make its own judgment regarding Tehran’s implementation.

The challenge for international diplomacy is that the gulf separating the United States from Russia and China extends well beyond nonproliferation issues. These trilateral nonproliferation divergences at the UN occurred in the context of continuing great power differences regarding general world order issues. While Trump emphasizes global terrorism, unfair trade deals and America First, Wang and Lavrov describe globalization as generally positive and affirm the primacy of multilateral diplomacy over unilateralism.

That Russia has interfered in the US elections, backed separatists in Ukraine and deepened economic ties with rogue regimes stymies the Trump-Tillerson aspirations to improve ties with Moscow. Meanwhile, Lavrov’s praise of Trump’s emphasis on national sovereignty, mutual respect and leading by example rather than imposition was clearly backhanded. He expressed skepticism that Trump’s actions would match his words and that the world would see the end of some countries “lording it over others.”

*Richard Weitz is senior fellow and director of the Center for Political-Military Analysis at Hudson Institute. His current research includes regional security developments relating to Europe, Eurasia and East Asia as well as US foreign, defense and homeland-security policies. He would like to thank the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation for supporting his research and writing on nuclear non-proliferation issues.

Approximately 10 percent of the general population take a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) drug to block stomach acid secretions and relieve symptoms of frequent heartburn, acid reflux and gastroesophageal reflux disease. That percentage can be as much as seven times higher for people with chronic liver disease. Researchers at University of California San Diego School of Medicine have discovered evidence in mice and humans that stomach (gastric) acid suppression alters specific gut bacteria in a way that promotes liver injury and progression of three types of chronic liver disease.

The study is published October 10 in Nature Communications.

“Our stomachs produce gastric acid to kill ingested microbes, and taking a medication to suppress gastric acid secretion can change the composition of the gut microbiome,” said senior author Bernd Schnabl, MD, associate professor of gastroenterology at UC San Diego School of Medicine. “Since we found previously that the gut microbiome — the communities of bacteria and other microbes living there — can influence liver disease risk, we wondered what effect gastric acid suppression might have on the progression of chronic liver disease. We found that the absence of gastric acid promotes growth of Enterococcus bacteria in the intestines and translocation to the liver, where they exacerbate inflammation and worsen chronic liver disease.”

Liver cirrhosis is the 12th leading cause of death worldwide and the number of people with chronic liver disease is increasing rapidly in Western countries. The increase is partly due to the rising prevalence of obesity, which is associated with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and steatohepatitis (NASH). Approximately half of all cirrhosis-associated deaths are related to alcohol.

PPIs, which include brand names such as Prilosec, Nexium and Prevacid, are among the most commonly prescribed medications in the world, particularly among people with chronic liver disease. They are also relatively inexpensive medications, retailing for approximately $7 for a recommended two-week course of generic, over-the-counter Prilosec (omeprazole). But the frequency of use adds up — one study estimates Americans spend $11 billion on PPIs each year.

To determine the effect of gastric acid suppression on the progression of chronic liver disease, Schnabl’s team looked at mouse models that mimic alcoholic liver disease, NAFLD and NASH in humans. In each, they blocked gastric acid production either by genetic engineering or with a PPI (omeprazole/Prilosec). They sequenced microbe-specific genes collected from the animals’ stool to determine the gut microbiome makeup of each mouse type, with or without blocked gastric acid production.

The researchers found that mice with gastric acid suppression developed alterations in their gut microbiomes. Specifically, they had more Enterococcus species of bacteria. These changes promoted liver inflammation and liver injury, increasing the progression of all three types of liver disease in the mice: alcohol-induced liver disease, NAFLD and NASH.

To confirm it was the increased Enterococcus that exacerbated chronic liver disease, Schnabl’s team also colonized mice with the common gut bacteria Enterococcus faecalis to mimic the overgrowth of intestinal enterococci they had observed following gastric acid suppression. They found that increased Enterococcus alone was sufficient to induce mild steatosis and increase alcohol-induced liver disease in mice.

The team also examined the link between PPI usage and alcoholic liver disease among people who abuse alcohol. They analyzed a cohort of 4,830 patients with a diagnosis of chronic alcohol abuse — 1,024 (21 percent) were active PPI users, 745 (15 percent) were previous users and 3061 (63 percent) had never used PPIs.

The researchers noted that PPI intake among these patients increased stool concentrations of Enterococcus. What’s more, the 10-year risk of a diagnosis of alcoholic liver disease was 20.7 percent for active users of PPIs, 16.1 percent for previous users and 12.4 percent for never users. In other words, the rate of liver disease in people who chronically abuse alcohol was 8.3 percent higher for those who actively use PPIs compared to those who never used the acid-blocking medications.

The researchers concluded that there is an association between PPI use among people who abuse alcohol and risk of liver disease. However, they can’t yet rule out the possibility that there could be other unidentified factors that differ between patients that do and do not take PPIs, which might confound the relationship between PPI use and liver disease.

While this study relies upon mouse models and a patient database, and a large, randomized, controlled clinical trial would be needed to definitively show causality between PPI usage and risk of chronic liver disease in humans, Schnabl said the initial data should at least get people thinking about reducing their use of PPIs in cases where they aren’t a necessity.

There are inexpensive and readily available alternatives to PPIs. However, even non-PPI-based antacids (e.g., Pepto-Bismol, Tums, or H2 blockers such as Tagamet and Zantac) still suppress gastric acid to a lesser degree. While these other types of antacids were not tested in this study, Schnabl said any medication that suppresses gastric acid effectively could cause changes in gut bacteria and thus potentially affect the progression of chronic liver disease. Alternatively, non-pharmacological methods for managing heartburn are an option for some patients, including losing weight and reducing intake of alcohol, caffeine, and fatty and spicy foods.

“Our findings indicate that the recent rise in use of gastric acid-suppressing medications might have contributed to the increased incidence of chronic liver disease,” Schnabl said. “Although obesity and alcohol use predispose a person to acid reflux requiring antacid medication, many patients with chronic liver disease take gastric acid suppressive medications without appropriate indication. We believe clinicians should consider withholding medications that suppress gastric acid unless there is a strong medical indication.”

This new information might also provide a new therapeutic avenue researchers could explore as a means to reduce risk of liver injury in some people.

“We might someday be able to manipulate the gut microbiome, and in particular Enterococcus faecalis, to attenuate alcohol-related liver disease associated with gastric acid suppression,” Schnabl said.

The Cambodian government’s filing of a politically motivated legal case on October 6, 2017 to dissolve the main opposition party will render national elections in July 2018 undemocratic, Human Rights Watch said. If the government-controlled Supreme Court rules against the Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP), this would deny Cambodians the fundamental right to elect a government of their choosing.

In recent months, the government of Prime Minister Hun Sen has engaged in an intensified crackdown against the country’s political opposition, the independent media, and human rights groups. Last month, the government arrested CNRP leader Kem Sokha on dubious charges of treason and threatened to arrest other senior party members. It forced the closure of the Cambodia Daily, independent local radio stations, and FM stations that re-broadcast Radio Free Asia and Voice of America’s Khmer language service.

“The Cambodian government’s lawsuit to dissolve the main opposition party ahead of the 2018 elections is a naked grab for total power,” said James Ross, legal and policy director. “Governments that still insist Cambodia is democratically ruled should act to reverse this development, or share the blame for democracy’s demise under Hun Sen’s autocratic rule.”

At least 20 of the approximately 36 opposition and civil society activists arbitrarily arrested since July 2015 remain imprisoned; many of them were prosecuted in summary trials that fell far short of international standards.

The current crackdown appears motivated by the ruling Cambodian People’s Party’s (CPP) concerns about winning national elections scheduled for July 29, 2018. The CNRP made significant electoral gains during both the 2013 national elections and the June 2017 commune elections.

On February 20, the CPP adopted amendments to the Law on Political Parties that severely undermine the ability of opposition parties to function. Article 38 of the law provides the minister of interior with the authority to “file a complaint to the Supreme Court to dissolve that political party in case of committing a serious offence.” A new provision, article 18, sets out that senior members of a political party “shall not be a person convicted of a misdemeanor or a felony without having their sentence suspended.”

Sam Rainsy, the founding president of the CNRP, had to step down from his party’s leadership because of a criminal conviction in a politically motivated defamation case from 2013, in order to avoid giving the government grounds to dissolve the party. Rainsy is currently in exile and faces at least two years in prison were he to return to Cambodia.

On September 3, the government arrested Kem Sokha, who became the CNRP’s leader after Rainsy’s resignation. Kem Sokha had been subject to de facto house arrest at CNRP headquarters in Phnom Penh for six months in 2016 in a separate politically motivated case. Since his arrest, as many as half of the CNRP’s national members of parliament, as well as senior party staff, have fled the country.

Several other elected opposition leaders, including MP Um Sam An, Senator Hong Sok Hour, Senator Thak Lany, and Commune Councilor Seang Chet, remain in detention after politically motivated prosecutions.

The international community played an important role in supporting Cambodia to reach a peace agreement in Paris in 1991 in the wake of the 1975-79 Khmer Rouge genocide and the Vietnamese occupation and civil war. The Cambodian signatories to that deal, including Hun Sen, agreed to “ensure respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Cambodia” and “support the right of all Cambodian citizens to undertake activities which would promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms.” Key government donors involved with Cambodia – including the United States, Japan, European Union countries, and Indonesia, among others – signed the deal as guarantors and agreed “to promote and encourage respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Cambodia.”

Paris signatories and other concerned countries should respond robustly to this political crackdown, starting with diplomatic moves to threaten targeted economic sanctions and travel bans on senior Cambodian officials involved in the crackdown, including Hun Sen. They should call on Hun Sen to end all politically motivated cases against opposition leaders, civil society activists, and media outlets, and allow the democratic process to proceed with full respect for fundamental rights and liberties.

“Hun Sen’s latest crackdown could be the final nail in the coffin of the Paris Peace Agreements,” Ross said. “With national elections eight months away, the countries that struggled to obtain that agreement, which enshrines respect for human rights and democracy in Cambodia, should urgently act to save it.”

Players kneeling during the national anthem is the most recent NFL controversy, but certainly not the first nor the biggest.

Concussion has dogged the NFL since the 1990s, and its initial response — avoidance and superficial gestures to mollify critics — damaged its public image. However, in recent years, the league has repositioned itself as a leader in concussion prevention and research, a new University of Michigan study shows.

The study found that the NFL’s newly proactive stance shows how a large organization can wrest control of and shape the very issue that haunted it.

“They said, ‘We’ll change, but it’s going to be on our terms. We want to be the leaders in concussion,'” said study author Kathryn Heinze, U-M assistant professor of kinesiology. “They said, ‘If we have to change, we’ll take credit. We’ll create the funding. We’ll create the partnerships with other organizations. We’ll work to pass new laws.’ When they finally realized they had to do something they realized they had to be the leaders.”

The NFL is likely one of the few organizations that could achieve this, largely because it’s so influential, Heinze said. Still, the league would have been better off implementing these changes years earlier.

“There’s a lesson here around getting ahead of these changes sooner and avoiding the intermediate stages where organizations resist or avoid change,” Heinze said. “They may have avoided some of those lawsuits, or the Judiciary Hearings on concussion, yet we still see this path very often.”

The study’s purpose wasn’t to judge the NFL’s handling of concussion, but rather to look at how one organization reacted to demands for institutional change. Heinze stressed that findings in no way suggest that the NFL has done all it can to protect players from concussion, only that it has now adopted a leadership role in addressing the problem.

Researchers looked at the NFL’s response to concussion from the early 1990s to 2015. From the 1990s to 2008, the NFL either dismissed concussion as a non-issue or made superficial gestures that didn’t yield substantial change, a strategy called decoupling. Later the league made significant but incremental changes that didn’t yield fundamental shifts.

For instance, in 1994 the league created a concussion study committee, but most members were affiliated with the league and weren’t concussion experts. Later, it appointed an independent director, but 10 of the 14 members remained tied to the league in some way.

However, from 2009 to 2015, the league responded to intense, coercive internal and external pressure by making fundamental organizational shifts, the study says. For instance, it abolished the existing, much-criticized concussion committee and established the Head, Neck and Spine committee, which consisted only of concussion experts unaffiliated with the NFL.

More importantly, Heinze said, the league changed its ideology and also engaged in advocacy, which enabled it to shape the agenda regarding the concussion issue. It finally acknowledged the long-term effects of concussion. It served as a broker, forming partnerships with academia, government and business. It was instrumental in passing a law in 50 states to protect youth athletes who experience concussion; only four states passed this law prior to NFL involvement.

Heinze said researchers were surprised by how dramatically an organization’s position could shift in a relatively short time.

“I know it took a while, but once they decided to go in that direction, they attacked it from multiple perspectives,” she said.

Whether other large organizations model the NFL and take a leadership role on controversial issues remains to be seen. Heinze said the NFL’s initial response of denial and avoidance is much more typical.

On the afternoon of September 19, 2017 Mexico City was struck by an earthquake of 7.1 magnitude that injured thousands, rendered thousands homeless and killed more than 200 people in and around the city. This earthquake was preceded by one in Chiapas, Mexico, twelve days earlier, that killed 100 people. Ironically the city had in fact commemorated at 11 AM on September 19, 2017 the terrible 8.1 magnitude earthquake of 1985 that also occurred on September 19, and killed 5000 people apart from causing widespread damage to property.

As luck would have it, I was flying towards Mexico City on 19.9.2017 when the earthquake struck. As the Benito Juárez Airport was temporarily shut down, our airplane was diverted to Houston, Texas till it got clearance to land in Mexico City. By that time, about 7 hours had past post the occurrence of the earthquake. My colleague and I had some difficulty finding a hotel as the one we had a booking in had been evacuated. My first night there was disturbed by evacuation drills which the authorities had ordered and there was no air-conditioning. I could hear sirens throughout the night. However, even so, I was amazed at the calm I saw around me. The electricity was up as were the telephone lines and internet.

The next morning, we visited the venue of the conference we had traveled to attend and as expected under the circumstances, we found that it had been cancelled. The Government had declared a national emergency. A tour of the city revealed that while there were relatively few cars and pedestrians to be seen, the city was quietly gearing up for rescue / relief work. I saw many volunteers walking, moving in cars and aggregated in and around the Zocalo or Main Square, where water and other rations were being organised. Even as the television relayed videos of the desperate ongoing efforts to rescue people trapped under collapsed buildings, in general, for a capital that had just been struck by a major earthquake I found that people were calm and there was no sense of panic or chaos, at least in the areas I had visited.

Reportedly,  as per preliminary estimates the cost of the damages may be around USD 2 billion. Its going to be a long haul for Mexico as far as reconstruction and recovery go, but it is well prepared. The government has already started making electronic transfers to the victims. I had in fact studied Mexico’s Disaster Funding as a part of my work at the National Disaster Management Authority of India.   India has statutory funds created for disaster relief and immediate rehabilitation (The National and State Disaster Response Funds (NDRF & SDRFs)), and has a statutory provision for a National Disaster Mitigation Fund (that has not been created), but unlike Mexico, India lacks a dedicated funding mechanism for post disaster asset reconstruction. Thus, in India, reconstruction would invariably come at the expense of forgoing other committed expenditure, including that earmarked for developmental activities. Further, the Indian Government does not tap into risk transfer through insurance of public assets or through reinsurance mechanisms. India is vulnerable to both water and climate related disasters as well as geologically related disasters. As indicated in the below mentioned Discussion Paper, a Lloyds study (2004-11) finds that 85% of disaster related losses are uninsured in India. The overall low penetration on non-life insurance generally implies dependence on government funding /subsidies in the aftermath of disasters and eventually, this translates into a burden on tax payers.

In contrast, Mexico has a comprehensive ex ante mechanism for funding post disaster relief and reconstruction by way of the FONDEN, apart from a funding mechanism for mitigation through FORPDEN.

FONDEN’s operation relies on a clear framework for damage and loss assessments, resource allocation, funding channels and implementation timelines between federal and state government agencies after a disaster. This allows the Government of Mexico to manage emergency response and reconstruction funds with efficiency and transparency, while generating trust and discipline…..[b]y Law, FONDEN and its related funds (FOPREDEN and CADENA, a vehicle for agricultural insurance) must receive no less than 0.4 percent of the annual budget (around US$800 million in 2011), including any uncommitted funds in the Trust from the previous fiscal year. 

As funding requirements can vary, apart from risk retention by way of above mentioned budgetary allocations, FONDEN is also allowed to pay risk premiums towards insurance as a means of risk transfer. The Mexican Government has also issued multi-catastrophe bonds and has an indemnity-based insurance for FONDEN losses. All government infrastructure is compulsorily insured.(source GFDRR)

In India, the post disaster relief expenditure of states is often more than funding available through SDRF and NDRF. Further as stated above, the Government meets reconstruction expenditure from the general budget. In the event of a major disaster this would be supplemented by aid or external borrowing. As suggested in a Discussion Paper on Disaster Relief and Risk Transfer  that I had co-authored while at NDMA, we could allow the states to use a portion of the SDRF to buy insurance  towards relief and rehabilitation (over and above that available through the SDRF scheme) and towards reconstruction of damaged infrastructure. Further, the National Government could buy parametric insurance to safeguard against rarer, high impact disasters by using a dedicated portion of NDRF funds for insurance premium. (For further information, please read my article on the subject Reference: Gulati, Archana G., Financing Disaster Risk Reduction – The Indian Context (November 1, 2013). Presentation to the Expert Group Meeting on Effective Strategies for Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction in Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, 26-28 November 2013. )

This paper had also suggested other funding mechanisms such as compulsory disaster insurance for private homes, government property and revenue generating public utilities and extension of the scope of the existing public liability insurance to include public places such as hotels, cinema halls and other places where people congregate at events. Incentives by way of tax deduction for premiums could be provided. As the quantum of premiums would be linked to risk, compulsory insurance would also provide an incentive for disaster risk reduction or mitigation activities. This would also ensure that relief / reconstruction costs do not get passed on to the government in their entirety and that development related funds are not diverted for reconstruction activities.

Coming back to telecommunications, apart from the fact that in today’s world, telecoms  are the lifeblood of economic and social activity, the government is also investing huge amounts in creation of public assets by way of Digital India and the National Optic Fibre Network. However, as per usual practice these assets are not insured. The Department of Telecommunication’s Crisis Management SOP 2017 and other disaster related documentation too are silent on funding for rehabilitation and reconstruction. Needless to say, disaster resilience of telecoms infrastructure is absolutely critical as disaster alerts, rescue efforts electronic funds transfers etc. all rely proximately on the unhindered continuation of telecoms connectivity. However, given the important role of telecoms and especially broadband in economic activity, we also need to evolve a comprehensive strategy for ex ante funding of damaged assets to avoid the adverse consequences of slow and expensive economic recovery, post disasters. This should invariably include a combination of risk retention (budgetary allotments) and risk transfer through insurance.

A presentation on the above can be viewed here.

*Archana Gulati, is an ICTs Finance & Policy Specialist. This article was published at A Connected World.

By Dr. Courtney Freer

While the political dimensions of the four-month-old Qatar crisis have been analyzed at length – and largely echo those of the Council’s 2014 rift – there has been less scrutiny of the row’s social impact. The social ramifications mirror the ongoing political strife, yet are likely to outlast the crisis, and thus dim the prospects for any resolution.

Furthermore, because this clash is so remarkably public, it has become nearly impossible for nationals not to take sides. During past Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) clashes, the ultimate unity of the Gulf states has been highlighted thanks to family, tribal, religious, and historical ties. Yet amid the current crisis, political intransigence has underscored the social differences, particularly national identities.

Surge of Creative Nationalism

The outpouring of nationalist sentiment in the Gulf certainly predates the current crisis, yet has been highlighted recently because of it. Indeed, in a June 2016 report, Kristin Smith Diwan, a senior resident scholar at the Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington, identified a “new nationalism” in the Gulf, which “reflects the decline of the power of the welfare state to engender gratitude and loyalty” while also demonstrating “the elevated demands by and on citizens.” Certainly with the passage of conscription laws in Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the introduction of greater austerity measures in the form of subsidy reductions, and the institution of VAT in 2018, the ruling bargain in the Gulf is changing. Nonetheless, the sense of national pride has strengthened, an outcome not predicted by rentier state theory. Although this nationalism initially seemed to reflect a sense of military pride and support for the Yemen war, enhanced by state-led efforts to host national events, it has morphed into a more grassroots expression of national commitment. The ongoing crisis and blockade have led to an unprecedented outpouring of nationalist support at the grassroots level.

While in the past, the state has introduced nationalist creative enterprises, for example through National Day celebrations, today they seem to be emerging more organically. GCC nationals are using both traditional and social media, from songs to cartoons, to express their support for their respective national leaders. The most noteworthy, a drawing of Tamim al-Majd by Qatari artist Ahmed bin Majed Almaadheed has gone viral in Qatar. In fact, many are using the drawing as an avatar for social media accounts, demonstrating their support for Emir Tamim. This image has become a springboard for similar political cartoons and drawings elsewhere.

Music has also been used to demonstrate national pride. The locally recorded “One Nation” (an anthem “in solidarity with Qatar”) was released in June and involved both local and international musicians. Its lyrics highlight Qatar’s strength and ends with the following lines: “We stand tall, above it all. Rain will fall, to plant the seeds that feed us all. We stand united, behind our leader with all our might. With you we rise, our nation’s pride.” Not to be outdone, Saudi label Rotana released a “diss track” entitled “Inform Qatar in September”. Songwriter Turki al-Sheikh, an advisor to the Saudi Royal Court, wrote the song, which was performed by seven famous Arab singers, including Saudis Abdul Majeed Abdullah and Mohammed Abdu. Rotana is owned primarily by Prince al-Waleed bin Talal of the ruling family. The song’s lyrics praise Saudi Arabia as “the epitome of might and enshrinement”, while accusing Qatar of “twenty years of scheming, treachery, and conspiracy”.

Traditional nabati poetry of the Arabian Peninsula has also become prominent in the Qatar crisis. In June Dubai ruler Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashed al-Maktoum published a poem entitled “The Clear Path” on his Instagram account. In it, he urges Qatar to return to the fold of its former GCC allies: “Of one origin, people, existence / one flesh and blood, one land and faith […] Yet Qatar turns to the nearby stranger, to the weak.” As Andrew Leber notes, the tone of this latest poem differs greatly from that of Shaykh Mohammed bin Rashed’s 2014 “Promises”, which was published in Qatari and Emirati papers. “And I feel all the Gulf is one country, one land, / One wonderful Gulf, filled with honorable men. Descended from one line, the most noble men, / Nothing shall come between these purest of hearts.” Juxtaposing these two poems illustrates the acrimony that has developed during the second crisis, which apparently has informed citizens’ creative endeavors as well. Indeed, former Million’s Poet contestant Nasser al-Faraana posted a half-hour video on Qatar’s foreign policy, ending with a poem that stated: “By God, with you are the armies of the Christians, / Them and the apostates [Shi’ite] and the Jews are your friends.”

Vitriolic Media Coverage

Although one of the root causes of the crisis was the political nature of al-Jazeera’s broadcasts, the crisis has had the effect of politicizing other media outlets. Because showing sympathy for Qatar has been criminalized in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, the only coverage in these states is necessarily one-sided. General lack of trust has led to a pitting of the two sides against each other, leaving little grey area. Evidence of this is the establishment of the website The Qatar Insider, funded by a Saudi lobbying group and launched in June, which led to the creation of the Qatari-funded Lift the Blockade website in September, largely meant to counter unsubstantiated claims made on the other site.

Allegations in the media about Qatar have become particularly outlandish. Abu Dhabi’s ambassador to Russia claimed that Qatar had given al-Qaeda information about Emirati troop positions in Yemen; a Saudi daily claimed that Qatar conspired with Iran to delay the execution of cleric Nimr al-Nimr in Saudi Arabia by negotiating the release of Qatari hunters in Iraq; the Emirati daily Gulf News openly questioned the level and liquidity of Qatar’s financial reserves; Sky News Arabia, co-owned by an Abu Dhabi company and the UK’s Sky, released a documentary in July claiming to reveal Qatari involvement in the 9/11 attacks; and the Saudi daily Okaz claimed that the Qatar-owned London department store Harrods was collecting the credit card details of shoppers from the quartet countries.

Meanwhile, in Qatar, support for Sheikh Tamim has reached a fever pitch. There are some accusations that stories published by local media are downplaying the actual impact of the blockade while overstating support for Qatar abroad. This lack of nonbiased media in the region, though not an entirely new issue, mirrors ongoing debates in the United States about “fake news” and the responsibility of news outlets to their readership, as well as to the political leadership.

Further complicating the ability to find real news is the involvement of public relations firms in the blockade. The Financial Times announced in September Saudi Arabia’s plans to establish public relations hubs in London, Berlin, Paris, and Moscow this fall, with potential expansion to Beijing, Tokyo, and Mumbai. These hubs would disseminate press releases, published over social media, that invite “social influencers” for publicized visits to the kingdom, all in an effort to “distribute the Saudi perspective on global developments in response to negative/inaccurate publications about the kingdom.” They would also promote Saudi culture.

Attempts to Breed Factionalism in Al Thani Family

Perhaps most shocking have been the outright attempts to present alternative rule to Qatar. The Emirati and Egyptian press first presented Sheikh Saud bin Nasser Al Thani as “Qatar’s leading opposition figure”. The Egyptian press later touted Sheikh Tamim’s uncle Sheikh Abdulaziz bin Khalifa, a former energy minister living in Geneva, as a potential opposition leader. Now, Sheikh Abdullah bin Ali, with the support of London-based Qatari businessman Khalid al-Hail, seems to be the primary voice of the so-called Qatari opposition, with al-Hail helping to organize an opposition conference in London on September 14. Paris-based Sheikh Sultan bin Suhaim Al Thani has also appeared publicly, supporting Sheikh Abdullah’s calls to end the crisis through a Qatari national meeting, and criticizing his country’s position in the crisis and its past foreign policies.

While the Al Thani family has been notoriously fractious in the past – two consecutive coups took place in 1972 and 1995 – it is unprecedented for outside countries to comment on domestic political arrangements, particularly on issues of succession. Moves toward encouraging regime change in Qatar will likely only heighten the nationalistic fervor already afoot and strengthen support for Emir Tamim. Furthermore, by linking the crisis to Qatar’s monarch personally, and even to his father, Sheikh Hamad, the anti-Qatar quartet make compromise and trust with that leader nearly impossible.

Problematic Family/Tribal ties

Another major social component of the blockade is the difficulty for families to cross borders. As elsewhere in the Middle East, tribal ties overlap national borders, meaning that members of the same tribe or even the same family, despite physical proximity, often live in different countries. The livelihoods and educations of those Qataris living in Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, as well as nationals of those countries living in Qatar, are constrained. On June 19, authorities in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE forced Qatari nationals to leave those countries, and since June 5 they have denied Qataris entry into those states.

Aside from the obvious economic cost, the social problems resulting from the policy have led Qatari citizens to feel targeted. Sheikh Saif bin Ahmed Al Thani has accused the quartet of having “allowed politics to disrupt the social fabric of our union.” Qatar’s National Human Rights Committee estimates that more than 13,000 people are affected by the blockade, including at least 6,500 mixed families. The governments of Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE have publicly acknowledged the negative effects of the blockade on mixed families and have established emergency hot lines, yet the scale of the problem makes it difficult to ensure that all can be helped. Of 12 Gulf nationals known by Human Rights Watch to have contacted the line, only two gained permission to travel back and forth, while the other 50 interviewed were scared to call and reveal their identities because they were living in Qatar. There have been no known exceptions regarding medical treatment or education.

Not only have GCC nationals come under such restrictions, Egyptians who remain in Qatar do not have access to an embassy, making it difficult for them to renew their passports and, consequently, their Qatari residency permits. Migrant workers have also felt the impact of the blockade. Saudi Arabia formerly allowed Qataris to bring expatriate workers there for three months for a fee; some of these workers have thus been stranded without proper documentation or salary. The increase in food prices in Qatar due to the blockade has affected migrant workers with low salaries the most.

Claims of Harassment

Vitriol from leaderships of the countries involved in the blockade has possibly led to conflict on the ground. The New Arab reported claims in September from UK-based human rights lawyer Rodney Dixon QC that three Qatari officials were allegedly imprisoned, beaten, and tortured while visiting the UAE. Meanwhile, Gulf News reported that rights groups in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE have condemned the “flagrant violation of human rights” of Qatari Hamad Abdul Hadi al-Merri, who was reportedly assaulted by employees from Qatar’s interior ministry and arrested upon his return from haj.

A Space for Islamists and Islam

Two questions that underlie the issue of Qatar’s support for terrorism are: what exactly defines a terrorist, and what type of Islam is deemed politically acceptable within the Gulf? For instance, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, though associated with the Muslim Brotherhood in the past, has supporters who are not members of that movement. His sermons and his television programs, when they were broadcast, would hardly have converted anyone to the Brotherhood.

The blockading countries’ conflation of Brotherhood figures with violent Islamists has proven dangerous, and has granted these governments a security excuse for crackdown on nonviolent Islamists. This anti-Islamist attitude is not new. As early as 2009, a Wikileaks document revealed that “[b]eing labelled a Muslim Brother is about the worst epithet possible in MBZ’s [Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed] vocabulary.” In countries that have historically supported a conservative interpretation of Islam, restriction on, and inherent suspicion of, Islamists are unsustainable, at least without some degree of opposition to such policies. This was evidenced by the September arrest of some 30 independent figures, including prominent clerics, in Saudi Arabia, as an attempt to consolidate political power and sideline potential rivals. Interestingly, shortly after this crackdown, King Salman issued a royal decree allowing women to drive – an unforeseen major social change that is likely linked to Saudi attempts both to modernize the kingdom and to win the ongoing PR war in the crisis.

Where Now?

All of these social effects make the current crisis increasingly difficult to resolve. While in the past ruling families have primarily ironed out differences behind closed doors, today accusations are traded publicly, and the repercussions of domestic and foreign policies fall on national citizens. The crisis has become not just about élite politics but has affected grassroots sentiments and galvanized national identities in states that are relatively newly independent.

*Dr. Courtney Freer is an advisor at Gulf State Analytics and a Research Officer at the Kuwait Programme at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE). Her work focuses on the domestic politics of the Arab Gulf states, with a particular focus on Islamism and tribalism.

Source: This article was published by Gulf State Analytics

By Irina Slav

While OPEC mulls over further steps to once again support falling oil prices, tech startups are quietly ushering in a new era in oil and gas: the era of the digital oil field.

Much talk has revolved around how software can completely transform the energy industry, but until recently, it was just talk. Now, things are beginning to change, and some observers, such as Cottonwood Venture Partners’ Mark P. Mills, believe we are on the verge of an oil industry transformation of proportions identical to the transformation that Amazon prompted in retail.

According to Mills, the three technological factors that actualized what he calls “the Amazon effect”, which changed the face of retail forever, are evidenced in oil and gas right now. These are cheap computing with industrial-application capabilities; ubiquitous communication networks; and, of course, cloud tech.

The Internet of Things is entering oil and gas, and so are analytics and artificial intelligence. These, Mills believes, will be among the main drivers of a second shale revolution, reinforcing the efficiency push prompted by the latest oil price crisis.

It seems that shale operators have been paying attention to what growing choirs of voices, including Oilprice, have been saying: they are talking more and more about the benefits that software solutions can bring to their business, potentially leveling the playing field for independents, a field that has been tipped in favor of Big Oil for decades.

Long-standing mistrust of technology is now dwindling as the benefits—including streamlining operations, maximizing the success rate of exploration, and optimizing production—make themselves increasingly evident, not least thanks to a trove of tech startups specifically targeting the oil and gas industry.

In a story for Forbes, Mills notes several examples of such startups that are already disrupting the industry with cognitive software for horizontal drilling, an on-demand contractor network, and an AI-driven software platform for well planning, among many others. The common feature among them all is they are narrowly specializing in various segments of the oil industry to deliver solutions that promise to substantially reduce times, labor, and costs, while improving outcomes. What’s not to like?

Tech investments among oil independents are still much below the level already characteristic of other industries such as healthcare or financial services, to mention just a couple. Yet this will also change. In the not-too-distant future we may see a flurry of M&A in oil and gas software development.

The reason for this future consolidation is already evident: there are many oil and gas independents in the shale patch. Technology improvements will soon separate the winners from the losers, so it’s a pretty certain bet that more M&A—a lot more—will likely happen over the next few years.

But independents in the shale patch are already burdened with debts that they took on in order to expand their production, and not all will survive the digital disruption. And they don’t just have Big Oil to contend with; oil and gas independents also have renewable energy solution providers breathing down their necks every time oil prices rise—renewable energy that’s already married to software.

That should be strong enough motivation for shale boomers to make sure they catch up, and catch up fast.

Source: http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/The-Amazon-Effect-Is-Coming-To-Oil-Markets.html