With Australia positioned uniquely in Asia but with its roots in the west, the government’s civil service – the Australian Public Service (APS) – seems uniquely vulnerable to foreign infiltration and the government does remarkably little about it.

The public service has never been identified as threatened and lies primarily unprotected. The Australian Security Intelligence Organization, the country’s counterspy apparatus, has spent massive time and resources on trying vainly to catch agents cultivating targets.

The APS employs more than 243,300 civil servants, with another 1.5 million in the respective state public services. Tens of thousands of outside contractors and consultants serve the government as well, representing more than 16.4 percent of all Australian jobs. Today, more than 22 percent of employees were born in another country and more than 14.5 percent of employees come from non-English speaking backgrounds, notably South Central Asia, East Asia, South-East Asia, and Eastern Europe. The services are much more reflective of Australian society today, but also much more open to potential infiltration.

In addition, much of the work done within the APS is handled by outside contractors, such as the London based VFS Global, which through directorships is related to Booz, Allan & Hamilton, closely involved in the area of predictive intelligence for a number of foreign governments. There have been a number of cases of negligence of confidential client data, security compromise, and data leakage associated with this contractor.

Another major change to the APS is reliance upon regulation rather than legislation. This has strengthened the service, taking power away from the Parliament and Executive, as the majority of government decisions now reside within the bureaucracy. The service now plays a much more directive role today than its administrative role in the past. Consequently, if any person or organization wants information, influence decision making, or future policy, the public service is the institution to target, rather than the Parliament and Executive. In addition, the focus of espionage today appears to be more commercially orientated than politically orientated.

The APS can be infiltrated in many ways, and there is also a long history of it happening. However evidence and details of these infiltrations are difficult to pin down, let alone act upon. Accusations are at best based upon unproven suspicion and speculation. Massive resources have been allocated to protect the APS against some of the newer methods of infiltration such as cyber attacks, but little protection has been developed for some of the more traditional methods of infiltration.

According to a Victorian Government Anti-Corruption Commission Report in 2015, the target of potential infiltrators include “sensitive information or systems, decision-making processes, matrices or criteria, property or goods with a high resale value, (and) knowledge that facilitates criminal activity.” Targets thus include areas and computers where information is stored, work areas, and vulnerable individuals. These individuals would include senior executives and their assistants, help desk staff, system and network administrators, employees with access to sensitive information, employees with remote access, and people who interact with employees.

Cultivating Targeted People

The APS has had a history of foreign infiltration ever since its formation, especially during the Cold War, with some infiltrations becoming public scandals. The recently released history of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization (ASDIO) has documented how deeply Canberra was penetrated by Soviet spies since the 1940s. In addition, Des Ball and David Horner in their book Breaking the Codes elaborated with details from ASIO files of a Soviet spy ring led by a KGB officer Gerontiy Pavlovich Lazovik, who recruited public servants, diplomats, MPs, and journalists to supply him information from many government departments and ministries during the 1970s. This information was sent from the Soviet Embassy in Canberra to both the Soviet KGB and GRU.

The cultivation of David Combe, a former Australian Labour Party National Secretary by then KGB officer Valery Ivanov, led to shock and despair within the Hawke government in the 1980s, with Combe banned from any contact with government officials. More recently, in 2012 a Vietnamese security agent Luong Ngoc Anh cultivated a romantic relationship with Australian Trade Representative Elizabeth Masamune, who at the time had access to classified trade briefings. The next year, South Korean agents were caught cultivating public servants to obtain trade secrets. The Chinese too have been accused of cultivating Australian public servants through providing them with lavish holidays in China.

Australia’s closest ally the United States is no stranger to the game. For many years the US Embassy in Canberra and consulates in Melbourne and Sydney cultivated potential future Australian leaders and assisted them to undertake trips to the US.

Today, public service employees are much more openly prone to persuasion, pressure, and even blackmail by existing friends, family members, and by members of their respective ethnic communities. This was reflected in the case of Yeon Kim being cultivated by Hoo-Young Park of the South Korean National Intelligence Service through regular Sunday afternoon soccer matches in Canberra. A common language, cultural background and social interaction are powerful tools in cultivation and persuasion.

Chen Yonglin, a former Chinese defense attaché who defected to Australia in 2005, has warned that China has in excess of 1200 spies scattered through both the community and government departments, indicating that foreign infiltration into the APS is now in epidemic proportions.

Embedded Agents

We can only speculate about embedded agents within the APS, as none have ever been captured during their careers. Consequently, it may take years before documents, reports, and books put any light onto potential contemporary agents within the service.

Australian National University Professor Des Ball in preparing his book Breaking the Codes came across sources of information that ASIO would not have had at the time. Ball asserts that then secretary of the Department of External Affairs during the 1940s, John Burton was probably a Soviet intelligence agent, who had up to a dozen agents working with him in the department.

The exposure of agents within the Australian Public Service is extremely difficult and most often requires historians to uncover other sources of information and match them with what information was available at the time before speculations can be made. So it will not be until midway through this current century before historians are able to cast educated suspicions upon the service today. As a pointer, it was only last year that ASIO actually admitted that the organization was infiltrated by foreign spies in the 1970s and 1980s.

Consultants and Contractors

The consultant and contracting out of government work in Australia has been growing at almost 4 percent annually with A$687 million paid out to consultants in 2015. Consultants and contractors are being used for temporary work, exhibitions, event management, policy development work, data management and computer programming, etc. This doesn’t include the costs of contractors for security, cleaning, and rubbish removal etc. In addition there are consultants who specialize in lobbying the Australian and state governments, many of them ex-ministers, or ex-public servants.

Many consultants and contractors have access to at least sensitive and private information, if not some classified information, without necessarily undergoing any security screening. Through the Australian Immigration contractor VFS, confidential information found its way into the public domain. Consequently, information that consultants and contractors handle can inadvertently be put into the public domain, or at worst be compromised through a conflict of interest and passed on to foreign parties.

Unfortunately there is very little transparency in the work that consultants undertake for the government. Many are ex-ministers or public service employees, who in need of revenue may also work with foreign organizations, thus creating potential conflicts of interest. For example, former Australian Trade Minister Andrew Robb, an economic consultant, immediately upon leaving government took a ‘well paid’ consultancy job with a Chinese company aligned to the Communist Party of China that operates the Port of Darwin.

Consultants are not subject any code of conduct, unlike ministers and public servants. Many contracts are given out to ex-employees without any public tendering process, or through a pseudo-process where any terms of reference only suit the person a ministry has in mind. The process of hiring outside consultants has been so sensitive that Finance Minister Mathias Cormann has refused to reveal where the federal government has spent funds, although according to Daily Telegraph reports, most of the recipients are former politicians and public servants.

Cyber Espionage

Cyber operations have become the fifth dimension of warfare. Cyber attacks can destroy systems, bring down public infrastructure and be used to collect information from remote systems. Government data networks are under constant daily attacks. It is very difficult to prove, but large volumes of data are being siphoned out of government data systems and processed in some manner in China. According to Four Corners, the Ministries of Defence, Prime Minister, and Foreign Affairs have all been hacked, and information such as emails are continuously collected. In addition the Bureau of Metrology was recently attacked and Austrade is infiltrated. According to Four Corners, even the blueprints to ASIO’s new headquarters in Canberra have been stolen, preventing the organization moving in on building completion, as the inside had to be completely redesigned.

The Australian Cyber Security Commission 2016 Threat Report states that it is “aware of (foreign) state based adversaries attempting cyber espionage against Australian systems to satisfy strategic, operational, and commercial intelligence requirements”.

Sovereignty lost. Australia doesn’t know it.

Besides territory and culture, the heart of Australian sovereignty is the information and decision-making processes inside the institutions which enable the country to operate smoothly with integrity.

Australia’s geopolitical position between China and the United States presents the country with specific issues that other countries in the region don’t face. This is compounded by the fact that the composition of the Australian Public Service is most likely to have a percentage of employees who through dual citizenship have a pledge of loyalty to another country other than Australia. This is a characteristic that other civil services in the region don’t exhibit and are therefore potentially less vulnerable to foreign infiltration than the APS.

ASIO has historically been extremely poor in shifting through the public service for moles, and employees who have been compromised through cultivation by foreign diplomats and intelligence operatives. Given what Chinese defector Yonglin has said, that Chinese agents reside in the general and student populations and have infiltrated the government, makes the job of exposing those who are cultivated or put under duress to provide sensitive information to outsiders even more difficult for ASIO.

In fact the job of uncovering people who have been cultivated may rely purely on tipoffs, as security organizations resources are now heavily focused on the “war on terror” in line with Australia’s loyalty to the US alliance.

Something has to be done to protect the security integrity and sovereignty of the Australian Public Service. This is of paramount importance when Australia has placed so many of its strategic assets and business interests in foreign hands. To ignore the problem will be at Australia’s peril.

This article was originally published in the Asia Sentinel

West Papua became the twenty-sixth province of Indonesia in 1969, after the so-called “Act of Free Choice” sponsored by the UN saw the transfer of official administration of the territory from the Netherlands, to Indonesia.

With the growing number of nations voicing their support for the United Nations to revisit what has now been widely criticized as a flawed plebiscite in 1969, Jakarta should indeed be concerned that they could eventually lose the re- source-rich territory, an event which could drag Australia into conflict with its restive neighbor.

Over the five decades which Indonesia has held official control of West Papua, the indigenous population has endured what has been extensively documented as a repressive system of Javanese-colonial occupation. Based on reports filed by church organizations, missionaries, and the West Papuan diaspora, Indonesian security forces continue to commit what have been labeled as “gross human rights abuses” against the indigenous population, with estimates of civilians killed reaching a half-million since the occupation commenced.

West Papua has Indonesia’s largest Indonesian military and police presence. The Indonesian National Military Forces (TNI: Tentara Nasional Indonesia) reaps great economic rewards from its occupation of West Papua. Institutionally, the police and military remain determined to maintain their presence because their control of the fuel and timber-smuggling trades, as well as the trade in drugs and prostitutes, is so lucrative. Then there are the substantial benefits paid to the military to provide security to the jewel in West Papua’s crown: the iconic Grasberg gold and copper operation which in 2016 produced more than 500,000 tonnes of copper and more than one-million ounces of gold. (Significantly, the Indonesian Government in August 2017 forcibly acquired 51 percent of the shares of the company, PT Freeport Indonesia, from the US owners, Freeport McMoRan, Inc., although reportedly leaving the company to run operations at Grasberg.)

These economic and social repressive activities are hidden from the outside world by the Indonesian Government. The Government routinely prevents most foreign journalists from visiting the territory.

When considering West Papua, Javanese envisage a huge, rich, empty land mass, vulnerable to exploitation and interference from foreign powers. Papuans are defined by Javanese as greedy, corrupt drunkards who need Javanese guardianship. Racism is prevalent and Javanese consider Papuans as stone-age primitives.

The indigenous people of West Papua are of the same ethnic origin as those in the eastern half of the island of New Guinea and are also related ethnically and culturally to other Melanesian peoples of the Pacific. Yet under Jakarta’s Transmigrasi program, the indigenous West Papuans have been reduced to a minority population due to waves of sponsored migrants from Java and Sulawesi.

After decades of Dutch colonial governance until 1963, indigenous Papuans constituted 99 percent of the population. Under Indonesian administration since 1963, that figure has fallen to 47 percent.

West Papua and the Melanesian Spearhead Group

There has always been a deeply-felt sense of kinship and common heritage amongst the Melanesian Spearhead Group of nations towards West Papua. Vanuatu has always been a place of refuge for West Papuan dissidents and independence activists.

Indonesia has been aware of this support within the Vanuatu body politic for many years, and has recently sought to counter it. This open diplomatic confrontation was evidence that Indonesia’s diplomatic offensive over West Papua was well underway.

The Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) came into being on July 17, 1986, as a result of an informal meeting of the heads of government of Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, and a representative of the Kanak Socialist National Liberation Front (FLNKS).

The member states now are Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, and the Kanak and Socialist Liberation Front of New Caledonia.

In 2015, the ULMWP (United Liberation Movement for West Papua), a coalition of West Papuan organizations, was made an observer of the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG).

The ULMWP subsequently applied for full membership, hoping it would give their movement greater political recognition. This is unlikely to succeed as the leaders of the MSG voted to make Indonesia an associate member, paving the way for stronger cooperation between Jakarta and Melanesian countries. Indonesia’s membership of the MSG has given Jakarta a greater influence in Melanesian politics than the ULMWP.

Nonetheless, in January 2017, the Melanesian Spearhead Group began discussions to provide full membership in the United Liberation Movement for West Papua.

It is Indonesia’s view that West Papua already falls under its (the Republic of Indonesia’s) representation in the MSG and strongly opposes this consideration because it regards West Papua as an integral part of its territory.

Although the MSG’s core philosophy supports decolonization and greater independence in Melanesia, the potential inclusion of the ULMWP is problematic because of Indonesia’s associate membership (granted on on the basis of the Mela- nesian identity of five of its provinces).

Currently, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu openly favor the ULMWP’s inclusion, while Fiji and Papua New Guinea remain undecided. Papua New Guinea and Fiji’s hesitancy can be understood, as Fiji continues to share strong trade links with Indonesia and currently receives aid for the MSG’s regional police academy in Fiji.

Papua New Guineans support West Papuan liberation.

However, Port Moresby continues to vacillate on the issue given that PNG has extensive trade and border relations with Indonesia and would wish to maintain these without any diplomatic disturbances.

History was made for West Papua in September 2016 at the United Nations General Assembly when seven Pacific Island nations raised the issue of West Papuan independence. These countries were Nauru, Marshall Islands, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Solo- mon Islands, Tonga, and Palau.

Ireland, Guinea, and the Netherlands have now added their voices to the cause.

In April 2017, a global petition for West Papuan self-determination was launched in Papua New Guinea. This historic petition was originally launched in the British Parliament in Westminster on January 27, 2017.

The petition calls upon the UN Secretary General to “appoint a Special Representative to investigate the human rights situation in West Papua; – put West Papua back on the Decolonization Committee agenda and ensure their right to self-determination — denied to them in 1969 — is respected by holding an Internationally Supervised Vote (in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolutions 1514 and 1541 (XV)).”

Political support in New Zealand for an independent West Papua also continues to grow after 11 members of Parliament from across four political parties signed the Westminster Declaration in May 2017, calling for West Papua’s right to self-determination to be legally recognized through an indigenous Papuan vote.

On October 19, 2011, 5,000 academics, politicians, church leaders, and senior tribal leaders established the Federal Republic of West Papua (FRWP) during the Third Papua Congress. They determined its objectives, and elected a president and a prime minister. The Indonesian government immediately charged the President, Prime Minister and organizers of the Congress, with subversion, and they were all incarcerated.

The FRWP Department of Foreign Affairs, Immigration, and Trade is the only FRWP institution in the diaspora, under the guidance of an executive who doesn’t live in the West Papuan homeland.

The FRWP is yet to receive UN recognition.

ASEAN member states remain reluctant to acknowledge the growing possibility that Indonesia may be challenged with losing yet another of its provinces following former Pres. B. J. Habibie’s misstep which precipitated East Timor’s (Timor Leste/Timor Lorosa’e) gaining independence in 2000 from its Javanese, colonial masters.

Indonesia fears it will lose control over its West Papuan provinces, reminded by the role played by the Australian movement for a free East Timor in ending what was essentially a genocidal Indonesian occupation there at the turn of the millennium.

Indonesia continues to pressure Australia to caution its Pacific Island neighbors against interfering in the West Papua issue and to urges them to withdraw support for West Papuan membership of the Melanesian Spearhead Group. It warns that the issue could pose a “stumbling block” to closer bilateral ties if Canberra fails to adopt a stronger public defense of Indonesia’s position.

Although all Australian governments since 1962 have supported Indonesian sovereignty over West Papua, the growing international support for independence is highly likely to continue to negatively impact upon Australia-Indonesia relations in the future, recalling Australia’s support for East Timor’s independence from Indonesia in 1999. Jakarta believes that Australia will eventually support West Papuan independence or has strategic designs on the province.

Jakarta is unlikely to readily surrender West Papua as it did East Timor. Papua New Guinea could also become victim to any conflict arising from a territorial fight and that would certainly invoke existing arrangements between PNG and Australia, requiring Australian boots on the ground to protect the PNG’s borders.

*Kerry Collison, Foreign Correspondent Jakarta and Melbourne for Washington’s “Defense & Foreign Affairs Strategic Policy” the journal of the International Strategic Studies Association.

This article was originally published in Defense & Foreign Affairs Special Analysis, and reprinted with permission.

The mounting hysteria over secessionist and sovereignty movements — whether in Catalonia, Scotland, Kurdistan, Turkey, West Papua, or Oromia — should cause political leaders to reflect on the causes of national schisms rather than merely to attempt to suppress them.

Catalonia’s overwhelming referendum endorsement on October 1, 2017, of independence1 for itself as a state — and Madrid’s incompetent, legalistic, and incendiary response to the event — exemplified the driver of the current global phenomenon of societal schism. It can be summarized in two words: Inclusion or Exclusion.

The third, unspoken option is seclusion. But that — perhaps a development of unresolved exclusion — is not a path which ensures long-term survival or vibrancy of a society.

The great question of “inclusion or exclusion” is the ancient driver within society; it is at the soul of demography, unrecognized by statisticians who focus primarily on numbers (although these, too, are telling). It is, in fact, the essence of the current great divide between the “urban globalists” and the “nationalists”. But,when reduced to basics,the survival of a society depends on whether it actually evolves as a society which remains unified by common interests.

With changes in demography — numbers of humans within a society, where they move, and how they change in their nature and logic in different environments — so there are changes in national requirements, national unity, national capability. And if unity fractures as a result of these demographic shifts and the resultant changes in identity, then it is logical that the future of nation-states comes into question.

The Catalonian separatist issue, however badly handled on both sides of the argument, is just one current reflection of how urbanization has moved power into the national capitals, which then dictate all policy, all political and social orthodoxy, leaving those outside the power centers feeling robbed of control over their own lives, destinies, and cultures.

Look beyond the headline causes stated by the winners of “domestic” geopolitical disputes and it becomes obvious that the question of “inclusion or exclusion” reflects the motivation for the civil war which the United States of America endured from 1861 to 1865 or the Jacobite rising of 1745-46 in Britain. Or why Libya came together in 1952 in a process of inclusion of the 140 tribes, or why it fell into despotism when one of the tribes, the al-Qadhadhfa, assumed control in 1969.2

The question of “inclusion or exclusion” certainly represented the realities behind the British referendum vote of 2016 to exit the European Union, the US vote of the regions against the cities in the 2016 elections, and the protests of the mainly rural red shirts against the urban political class in Thailand in 2006. But it also reflects the underlying driver which has been behind the seeming defiance of North Korea (the DPRK) against most of the rest of the world, essentially since the middle of the 20th Century.

No two instances are completely alike, but the “inclusion/exclusion” theory still applies to the attempt by Iraqi Kurds to create an independent Kurdistan, with the independence referendum there on September 25, 2017, which overwhelmingly favored the creation of a new state.3

The crowd and social theories of Elias Canetti4, Gustave Le Bon5, and Eric Hoffer6 apply as much to the behavior of entire societies — up to nation-state level, and including international alliance structures — as they do to individuals and localized social formations.

Thus, the behavior of the central Government of Spain, in Madrid, in response to the preparations, conduct, and aftermath of the October 1, 2017, Catalonian referendum further compounded the problem of divisions within the Spanish Kingdom. The comments by King Felipe VI on October 4, 2017, were meant to achieve inclusiveness and unity to the Spanish State, but served merely to reinforce the reality that Catalans, in what was already an autonomous community, no longer felt part of the Kingdom.

The King noted that the Catalan Government’s behavior had “eroded the harmony and co-existence within Catalan society itself, managing, unfortunately, to divide it”. He continued: “These authorities have scorned the attachments and feelings of solidarity that have united and will unite all Spaniards,” he said. “Their irresponsible conduct could even jeopardize the economic and social stability of Catalonia and all of Spain.”

But the pre-referendum panic by the Spanish Government, the attempted interference in the conduct of it by the national Guardia Civil, and the post-referendum attempts to deny and suppress its results all missed the point, and almost certainly inflamed the situation, possibly to the point of physical revolt.

In almost all instances of such separations the questions later asked focus on whether secession could have been prevented, or, in some cases, whether union was voluntary and desirable in the first place. In all instances there is forensic evidence available.

In the case of Catalonia’s involvement in the creation of modern Spain, there seems little doubt that the Catalans went fairly consensually, as a part of the Kingdom of Aragon, into the union with the Kingdom of Castile in 1469, on the proviso that the Catalan language and the rights of the Counts of Barcelona (and the Principality of Catalonia) were respected. But the rights of the Catalans were progressively eroded by Madrid, particularly in the 20th Century.

Ancient promises were forgotten, but only in the capital.7

We see the pattern repeated in different forms elsewhere. We see how the Acts of Union of 1706-07 to create the United Kingdom ultimately transformed as political and economic power increasingly moved to Westminster and London. The rights and identity of sovereign Scotland were ultimately forgotten during the late 20th Century.

English historian Simon Schama had said of the original Acts of Union: “What began as a hostile merger, would end in a full partnership in the most powerful going concern in the world … it was one of the most astonishing transformations in European history.” But it dissipated, largely as London turned toward Europe and forgot about the inclusiveness of Scotland (and other regions) into the United Kingdom, and about the inclusiveness of the former dominions into the Commonwealth.

Can the United Kingdom repair itself? Can Spain?8

The United Kingdom began to address Scottish grievances by the reestablishment of the Scottish Parliament on May 12, 1999, and then by allowing a referendum on Scottish secession from the United Kingdom on September 18, 2014.

Westminster (that is, the United Kingdom Parliament) had responded to Scottish dissatisfaction by allowing freedom of political expression. London — that is the public and the commercial sector — however, has done less to restore the balance between England and Scotland. And that cannot go unredressed, for memories of the time when Glasgow, for example, was “the second city of the Empire”, are within living memory. But barely.

Canada partially redressed the issue of Quebecois dissatisfaction (and the demand for secession) during the 1980-95 period by also allowing referenda, and legislating the use of French as a national language across Canada. That partially addressed the issue, but only at the cost of imposing considerable inefficiency on the broader Canadian economy.

Few things can compensate for the reality that demographic shifts in a national population can erase the rights and promises which arose historically. Even so, unless the culturally or societally dispossessed areas of a nation-state are continually considered within the context of governance, then dissent will simmer, ultimately to emerge.

This is the case now, particularly in countries which have seen the cities grow rich and the countryside, still contributing, become ignored.

These are the unconscious ramifications of demographic shift, particularly urbanization and the absorption of trans-national immigrants. But what of conscious attempts to demographically overwhelm societies? We saw this with the conscious Albanian movement to accelerate a century or more of illegal immigration of Albanians into the heartland of Serbia, known as Kosovo and Metohija. (Metohija, the Western part of the region, meant, originally, “church lands”.) It had absolute historical resonance for Serbian identity. It was the heartland of Serbia’s resurgence to expel occupying Ottoman Turks from the country.

Now it is overwhelmingly Albanian and Muslim. And the US Government forced international recognition of the Albanian entity as a sovereign state. By such reasoning, then, parts of the southern United States should be given the option, by a vote of the occupants, including the illegal occupants, of returning the land to Mexico or declaring independence.

But the conscious injection of external population groups into an area to create a new political reality — especially using “democracy” as a legitimizing tool — is not new. The creation of numerous “modern states”, such as the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and so on was achieved by this method. Similarly, surging US nationals as migrants into Hawaii allowed a “democratic vote” to overthrow the Kingdom of Hawaii and turn it into a US state. (And what is significant is that the Hawaii issue is not as resolved as Washington, and most mainland US citizens, would think.)

Indonesia when it seized the former Dutch colony of West Papua in 1963, began much the same process, injecting mainly Javanese Indonesians into the area to dominate the economics of the mineral-rich area.

What is significant in that instance is that, a half century later, the Javanese still cannot dominate or eradicate the ethnically Melanesian Papuans, nor their desire for dominance over their own affairs. Jakarta has been unwilling to tolerate even the slightest hint of a loosened relationship, thus compounding the drive for separation.

And, indeed, the entire island of Papua New Guinea is geographically and geologically separated from the Indonesian archipelago, as well as occupied by ethnically (and culturally, linguistically, etc.) different people.

The case for “secession” of the Western portion of Papua from Indonesia — or the rejection of Indonesia’s right even to have occupied the area — was made to the United Nations on September 26, 2017. The exiled West Papuan leader, Benny Wenda, presented the petition — banned by the Indonesian government, but smuggled across Papua and endorsed by 70 percent of the contested province’s population: 1.8-million people — to the UN’s decolonization committee, the C24.

The petition had asked the UN to appoint a special representative to investigate human rights abuses in the province and to “put West Papua back on the decolonization commit- tee agenda and ensure their right to self-determination … is respected by holding an internationally supervised vote”.

The UN’s C24 committee9, however, refused to accept the petition. The chair of the C24, Rafael Ramirez, said on September 27, 2017, that no petition on West Papua could be accepted because the committee’s mandate extended only to the 17 states identified by the UN as “non-self-governing territories”.

Benny Wenda had said “We hand over the bones of the people of West Papua to the United Nations and the world”, but to no avail. Ramirez, the Venezuelan representative to the UN, said: “I am the chair of the C24 and the issue of West Papua is not a matter for the C24. We are just working on the counties that are part of the list of non-self-governing territories. That list is issued by the General Assembly [of the UN].”

“One of the principles of our movement is to defend the sovereignty and the full integrity of the territory of our members. We are not going to do anything against Indonesia as a C24.”

West Papua had earlier been on the committee’s agenda — when the former Dutch colony was known as Netherlands New Guinea — but it was removed in 1963 when the province was annexed by Indonesia.10

In the case of the two Indonesian Papuan provinces (called West Papua and Papua provinces, but called, collectively West Papua by the Melanesian population there), the annexation of them by Indonesia in 1963 was clearly not consensual.

But had Indonesia wished to win the inclusion of West Papuans into the Indonesian framework, then it would have needed to have acted differently. It would, indeed, have needed to have created a sense of inclusion in the Indonesian framework, if that was possible.

Similarly, the civil society responses to feelings of exclusion by key geopolitical blocs in the UK, Thailand, the US, Nigeria, Spain, Ukraine, Italy, Germany, and so on, only heighten when the traditional rulers refuse to acknowledge, or address, that sense of rejection.

Sub-sovereign nationalist movements invariably cause either concern or a sense of opportunity in es- tablished national-level governments. But there is often ambiguity. The Government of Cyprus, for example, supports the irredentist claims of Armenians occupying the Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan, while opposing the occupation of the northern 37 percent of the island of Cyprus by Turkish troops, claiming to support the creation of an independent Turkish-Cypriot state which it calls the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.

The United States Government, as noted above, supported — indeed, enabled — the creation of Kosovo, carved out of Serbia, in 2008, as a home for illegally immigrating Albanians (into the historical heartland of Serbia), and yet rejected recognition of sovereignty for Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which seceded from Georgia, also in 2008.

Ambiguities abound, of necessity. Political leaders look to undertake policies which are believed to be in their nation’s interests. As a result, moral hypocrisy may sometimes equate to good strategic policy. But it has its risks, particularly in terms of national credibility. Never, however, should it blind its practitioners to the reality that the paths of “inclusion or exclusion” hold the key to whether a geopolitical entity will be able to attain or retain viability.

When capitals ignore provinces, revolts occur.

When capitals govern provinces by a process of “divide and rule”, risks are taken.

This is at the heart of the present unrest in Ethiopia, for example. Emperor Haile Selassie I, when he assumed the paramount leadership in 1930 of what was then (and, in reality, now still is) the Ethiopian Empire (of more than 60 different ethnic and linguistic groups), he saw it as his function to unite the Empire into a single entity. That did not take away from the traditions and languages of the regions, but he began to create an overarching sense of identity and inclusion.

This was consciously destroyed by the revolutionary Dergue (Committee) which seized power in the putsch of 1974. It destroyed any reference it could find to the three millennia of Ethiopian history, and, essentially, cast the various Ethiopian ethnic groups back into a defensive mode. The post-Dergue Governments which assumed power with the collapse of communism in 1990- 91, sought to create “modern” governance, but failed to rebuild the sense of inclusion in an overarching Ethiopian identity.

The resultant rise of, particularly, the Oromo independence move- ment was fueled not only by foreign weapons and funding, but by what appeared to be further repression of Oromia and its people and languages. The minority Tigrean political leadership, in many instances, retreated further into a defensive mode rather than building the overarching sense of inclusion.

Inclusion and exclusion are only partially physical manifestations of a society. They are predominantly psychological. But, then, very few drivers which determine history are not psychological. Those which origi- nate in the physical natural world — large-scale famine, seismic and atmospheric events — are either mitigated or addressed by the applica- tion of human will. Or they can destroy societies. Similarly, introduced varieties of disease can eliminate societies, as the European incursions into the American isthmus was to prove in the 16th Century.

Addressing human societal imbal- ances with the application of considered strategies to shape inclusion or exclusion seems, by comparison with the historical threats of nature, to be eminently within the grasp of human capabilities.

Why, then, does it seem so difficult for those who hold the high grounds of power?

About the author:
Greg Copley is the editor of Defense & Foreign Affairs Strategic Policy

Source:
This article was originally published in Defense & Foreign Affairs Special Analysis, and reprinted with permission.

Notes:
1. The unilateral Catalonian independence referendum held on October 1, 2017, and organized by the regional Government of Catalonia, and opposed by the national Government, which declared the event illegal, resulted in 91.96 percent of Catalan voters endorsing the referendum question “Do you want Catalonia to become an independent state in the form of a republic?”. The “Yes” side won, with 2,020,144 voting for independence and 176,565 (8.04 percent) voting against, with a voter turnout of 42.58 percent. The law which the Catalan Government passed in June 2017, saying that a simple majority in Parliament would suffice for an independence call was, however, illegal according to the Catalan Statutes of Autonomy which require a two third majority in the Catalan Parliament for any change to Catalonia’s status. The European Commission on October 2, 2017, released an official statement, noting: “Under the Spanish Constitution, yesterday’s vote in Catalonia was not legal”, and that the European Commission “trust[ed] the leadership” of Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy.
2. Significantly, when Libyan coup leader Mu’amar al-Qadhafi was deposed and killed on October 20, 2011, members of the al-Qadhadhfa tribe were excluded from the new government(s) being formed, and most, now “excluded”, threw their support behind radical Islamist jihadist groups, such as DI’ISH (Islamic State), which they had previously fought bitterly against.
3. Voters in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq voted on September 25, 2017, in a region-wide referendum which asked “Do you want the Kurdistan region and the Kurdistani areas outside the region’s administration to become an independent state?”. The results of the referendum were decreed by the Kurdistan Region Parliament to be binding on the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG). The Government of Iraq, however, in advance rejected the legality of the referendum and urged the Regional Government to refrain from holding it. The referendum resulted in 6.71 percent of the votes against independence, and 93.29 percent in favor, out of the 282,017 votes counted.
4. Canetti, Elias: Crowds & Power. New York, 1981: Continuum. Originally published 1960 by Claassen Verlag, Hamburg as Masse und Macht.
5. LeBon, Gustave: The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind. Viking, 1960. Our edition: New York, 1896: The Macmillan Co.
6. Hoffer, Eric: The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements. New York, 1951: Perennial Library, Harper & Row.
7. For a view on the incident which sparked the modern Catalonia “revolt” see, Calamur, Krishnadev: “The Spanish Court Decision That Sparked the Modern Catalan Independence Movement”, dated October 1, 2017, on the website of The Atlantic magazine, https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/10/catalonia-referendum/541611/. As journalist David Frum noted, also on The Atlantic website, on October 2, 2017, “Catalonia, with only 16 percent of the population but 19 percent of the economy, has long chafed at seeing its tax payments redirected to poorer regions.” Ancient rights denied were then spurred by modern grievances.
8. The significant focus by Madrid on the strictly legal (or, rather, illegal) aspects of the October 1, 2017, referendum while ignoring the motivation behind it clearly inflamed Catalan sensibilities, and further reinforced the widespread belief in Catalonia that Madrid was nterested only in the suppression of Catalan rights. King Felipe VI took the unusual step of intervening in the dispute, but he, too, merely reinforced the power of Madrid rather than acting as a unifying figure, attempting to resolve the growing state-regions schism which the Catalan protest vote signified. Thus the King abdicated his rôle of being the voice of the entire nation, and became partisan, not in the sense of supporting a political party, but in supporting one part of the country (Madrid) against a region.
9. The United Nations describes the C24 Committee as: “The Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (also known as the Special Committee on decolonization or C-24), the United Nations entity exclusively devoted to the issue of decolonization, was established in 1961 by the General Assembly with the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960).”
10. See, Collison, Kerry: “The Question of West Papuan Independence”, in Defense & Foreign Affairs Strategic Policy, 9-2017.

While President Donald Trump is very fond of proclaiming that the Iran Nuclear Deal was an “embarrassment” and a “horrible deal” he neglects to remember that the USA was not the only party to this deal, and in fact, was literally forced to the table by the P5+1 nations which included Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, China, and France, in the face of great opposition by the huge money and lobbying powers of Saudi Arabia, Israel and the Neo-Conservatives in the United States.

But the deal makes sense because it diplomatically and without firing a single shot managed to disarm the Iranian government for the foreseeable future of nuclear weaponry while jump-starting diplomatic, defense, and trade relations by and between this formally isolated nation of Iran and all of the aforementioned countries above, in terms of trade and defense ties, all of which lead to global peace, stability and prosperity.

The deal also allowed for unprecedented access for inspection any and all corners of Iran by outside entities to ensure that they were not developing weapons of mass destruction as well.

All too often President Trump and the desperate members of the organized and well funded opposition to the Iran Nuclear Deal forget that Iran is a bona fide enemy of the ISIS terrorist group (or maybe they don’t since they created/funded/armed them), which was funded, trained, armed, and facilitated by the Saudi, Neo-Con, European, and Israeli fringe groups in their intelligence and business circles, who quite frankly are the international super- oligarchs who formerly controlled 99% of the world’s wealth and military power, but whose wealth, money and power are waning daily with the rise of the great consolidated powers of the East.

This small international oligarch group of people care little about the vast population of the globe, almost 8 billion people, and once they eliminate all of their opposition in the world, they would have no use left for any of them, and mass depopulation would most probably ensue.

See Henry Kissinger’s National Security Memo 200 for further guidance on this issue.

The only ones standing in their way of complete and total unbridled power, militarily and financialy, are the very bloc that is forming right before our eyes in the East, and decertifying the Iran nuclear deal would only push all of them closer in terms of defense and trade ties, ie, China, Russia, Iran, Eurasia, Europe, and now, late-comer and former NATO ally, Turkey.

These entities know far too well that it is in their best interests to stick together, and work together, rather than continue to be a client state of the USA, Saudi Arabia, and Israel.

Pulling out or decertifying the Iran Nuclear Deal will also have the unfortunate effect of causing every single nation in the world to never trust U.S. Diplomacy again, and they would never enter into another defense or trade agreement with the U.S. to disarm, because they know that it would never be upheld.

Hence the only way the U.S. and global community would ever get North Korea to disarm and abandon their nuclear program would be through outright war, terrorism, and death (and many tens millions of Americans would die as well, if not completely obliterated).

While the Iran Nuclear Agreement was not perfect by any stetch of the imagination in terms of U.S. and Israeli interests 100%, compromise is always part of a deal.

But at least the U.S., Israel and global community know that Iran will not have nuclear, chemical or biological weapons any time soon, and this could also, if played correctly, by an open door to extremely lucrative and mutually beneficial defense and trade ties, which would make everyone money, and feel secure in their homes, rather than decertifying the deal and placing them on a fast horse towards becoming a full blown nuclear/chemical/biological weapons state that doesn’t do business with either the US, Israel or Saudia Arabia at all, merely forcing them to be in the camp of Eurasia, China, Russia, Turkey, Europe, and beyond.

The periodic temper tantrums of President Donald Trump are now causing a rift in his own national security team, including Defense Secretary James “Mad Dog” Mattis, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, and plenty of others.

The Iran Nuclear Deal is also wholeheartedly supported by a huge swath of patriotic and risk averse career intelligence and defense officials within the State of Israel itself, within its Mossad, Shin Bet, and government (if not already pushed out by Netanyahu).

Only Trump and Netanyahu are screaming all by themselves on their
mountain tops.

The fact remains that the only ones who would benefit from the U.S. decertifying/pulling out of the Iran Nuclear Deal would be the international bankers and corporations, and fly-over wealthy oligarch Americans, Israelis and Saudis, who all owe no loyalty or allegiance to any of their home nations or people, and will make a financial killing in the new and burgeoning oil and gas industries emanating out of the Silk Road of China, surrounded by Russia, Iran, Turkey, Eursia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and ironically enough, Europe.

Meanwhile the people of the USA and Israel will be isolated like no other time in their history, unable to have defense or trade ties with any of these nations, all the while the Saudi petrodollar continues to tank, with their country and nation teetering on the brink of existential abyss, because you simply can not have 3000 family members completely control and oppress 33 million angry, poverty stricken people in the year 2017.

The USA needs to replenish itself in the waters of one of its greatest founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, and remember his statement of “peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.”

At least in theory.

Otherwise the USA and Israel will just go the way of the NAZIs – hated, reviled, isolated, attacked, and ultimately, extinct.

Mikhail Gorbachev said this week there are “many Catalonias” within the Russian Federation (charter97.org/ru/news/2017/10/10/265565/), and Russian commentator Arkady Babchenko said its peoples would be better off in ten countries rather than one (ixtc.org/2017/10/blog-arkadiya-babchenko-dnr-ot-morya-do-morya-kakoy-budet-rossiya/).

This recognition of the power of regionalism and of the power of the narcissism of small differences among peoples that others assume are far more uniform and united is especially significant at a time when the Kremlin is doing what it can to crush the elites of the existing republics and regions.

Indeed, they give new support for an argument the current author made in December 2016 on the AfterEmpire portal, “Regionalism is the nationalism of the next Russian Revolution,” because regions unlike republics, krays and oblasts will be formed from below rather than imposed from above (afterempire.info/2016/12/28/regionalism/).

Consequently, they may constitute a challenge to the Kremlin even at a time when it appears that Vladimir Putin has gelded or worse the leaders of the existing federal subjects, offering the population of various ethnic and religious backgrounds a way forward independent of the hyper-centralized Muscovite empire.

Tracking such trends has been made easier by the editors of the After Empire portal (afterempire.info/) and by those at the Free Ingria organization site (freeingria.org) as well as by regional outlets across the Russian Federation. But these have now been gained an important addition, a site devoted to the idea of a Urals Republic (freeural.org/).

That site, which has just gone live (freeingria.org/2017/10/nachal-informatsionnoe-veshhanie-sajt-svobodnyj-ural/) does three important things: first, it builds on the ideas of Urals regionalism of the 1990s, second, it provides a focus for regionalists in the middle of Russia, and third, it links them with other regionalist groups elsewhere, reinforcing and empowering both.

One of its first posts is entitled “Is Moscow Afraid of the Urals Republic,” an article which argues that the central government clearly is. It put one activist in a psychiatric prison for backing the idea, and in the last year alone, it has closed down 13 VKontakte groups that were promoting the idea (freeural.org/boitsja-li-moskovija-uralskuju-respubliku/).

Moscow is alarmed by the support the idea of a Urals Republic now has, support that is growing as the economic crisis gets worse, Moscow takes more and more from the people of the region and gives back less and less. Recently, it has deployed its propaganda machine against Urals activists on a regular basis. (On that, see ura.ru/news/1052264225).

In particular, the post says, Moscow is afraid that a new generation of leaders will emerge who will be prepared to go even further than Eduard Rossel did in the 1990s and that a movement will emerge calling for “the independence of the Urals” and that the center won’t be able to neutralize.

It ends with a declaration of the ideas behind Urals separatism:

“We People of the Urals are Free Peoples! When we are asked what do you Urals people want, we respond: the separation of the Urals from Russia. We want freedom, independence, and the construction of a just society. We want to decide for ourselves where we will go and what we will do.”

“Our movement,” it continues, “is not yet so numerous … but it is gathering support.”

By Frank Shostak*

President Donald Trump proposed last month a tax plan that would lower the top individual tax rate to 35% from 39.6%. It would also lower the corporate income tax rate to 20% from 35%.

The plan however, says nothing about how spending will be cut to avoid increasing deficits. According to supply-side economics — a relatively new school of economics — a reduction of tax rates and lower revenues for the government does not need to be offset by decreased government spending or increased borrowings.

It is held that the boost in consumer spending and investment in capital goods will set the platform for a stronger economic growth, which in turn will lift government revenues and trim the budget deficit.

Effective tax depends on the size of the government outlays

The problem rests with the fact that the government is not a wealth generating entity as such — the more it spends, the more resources it has to take from wealth generators. What really counts is the amount of wealth diverted to government from wealth generators.

Irrespective of the official lowering of tax rates, as long as government spending is not curtailed, there is not going to be an effective lowering of the government tax.

The government will always find ways to divert real wealth to itself. This could be achieved by means of printing money, increasing borrowings, or by imposing various levies. In the presence of a central bank, a lowering of tax rates — sans spending cuts — merely rearranges the way government diverts weath to itself.

So what then are we to make out of President Trump’s plan of lowering tax rates?

It is quite likely that the initial response of consumers and businesses to the lower tax rates would be to boost their spending.

However, without a real cut in spending, the impression that market participants now have more wealth is illusory.  This results in the misallocation of resources.

Without the lowering in effective tax rates — achieved by lowering both spending and taxation — individuals would not lift their spending without the preceding increase in real wealth. What we have here is that more important market-guided priorities are denied the necessary funding in favor of government-spending activities that continue in spite of “tax cuts.”

This in turn means that the government’s faux lowering of taxes inflicts damage to the wealth generation process and curtails the potential economic growth.

No doubt — in terms of GDP — the lowering of the tax rates will appear to be a temporary success. This supposed success is likely because the increase in the money supply growth rate — which has a direct link to the so-called GDP growth rate — emerges to help the government to divert wealth to itself from wealth producers.

Note that real GDP is the amount of monetary expenditure on final goods and services — including government outlays — deflated by a dubious price deflator. Obviously, the stronger the monetary growth, the stronger the GDP growth rate.

We can conclude that a meaningful lowering of taxes can only emerge once the government has lowered its outlays in absolute terms. Once outlays are curtailed this will result in less wealth being diverted from wealth generators to the government.

Once more real wealth is made available to wealth producers, this strengthens the process of real wealth generation and sets the platform for stronger economic growth.

Contrary to what the followers of supply-side economics claim, it is not possible to strengthen economic growth by lowering the tax rates whilst keeping the size of government outlays intact.

What the followers of this type of economics suggest is that something can be created out of nothing. These followers confuse the GDP growth rate with the growth rate of the pool of real wealth.

About the author:
*Frank Shostak‘s consulting firm, Applied Austrian School Economics, provides in-depth assessments of financial markets and global economies.

Source:
This article was published by the MISES Institute

By Dr. S. Chandrasekharan

On October 3, the three leftist parties, the UML, Maoist Centre led by Dahal and the Naya Shakti led by Baburam Bhattarai agreed to contest the next two tier elections under the same political banner and eventually form a single communist party. This happened despite the fact that Dahal’s Maoist Centre continued to be a coalition partner of the present government led by the Nepali Congress.

A six-point deal that preceded the announcement had agreed among other things Rule of law, Curbing Corruption, provide stability and economic prosperity. Another important point agreed to, was “enhancement of national independence”- a euphemism for alleged hegemony of India.

An eight-member panel has been appointed to expedite the agenda and the seats are to be shared 60-40 between UML and the Maoist Centre. Bhattarai’s party will be accommodated between the two. The unified party will be named communist party of Nepal with Sun as its common symbol for the elections where it is permissible.

This alliance now being called the “Grand Left Alliance” is likely to be a formidable group and is a major development in the political landscape of Nepal. Their hopes are that they would rule Nepal for the next ten years. What triggered the alliance was perhaps the run away success of UML led by Oli in the recent local body elections,who campaigned on a “nationalist platform” ( read anti Indian). The Maoist Centre led by Dahal was a poor distant third and the Naya Sakthi of Baburam Bhattarai who broke away from Dahal had a dismal performance. The only exception to the general result was that in the recently held election to the Terai Province 2, the UML as well as Maoist Centre fared badly.

In the local polls for 753 units, UML won in 294, while the Maoist Centre polled 105 thus forming theoretically a majority of its own. In the last election to the Madhesi majority province No. 2. , the Nepali Congress led with 40 seats followed by the Madhesi groups RJPN of Mahant Thakur and FSFN of Upendra Yadav with 25 and 26 respectively, followed by Maoist centre with 21 and the UML 18.

Both Mahant Thakur and Upendra Yadav have announced that they would fight the next two elections together.

Each leftist group had its own compulsions for forming the alliance. The elections to the provincial and national levels were coming too close on November 26 and December 7 respectively, with no time to take corrective measures.

The Maoist group had to be in a group with leverage to power as other wise that they will be hounded out for their past crimes in the decade old civil war. They had maintained that there cannot be more than one leftist group right from the end of civil war ( Bhattarai had mentioned it ) and soon realised that the UML was better organised group with support from the middle class. The performance of the UML did not come as a surprise and with Oli now in an unenviable position (someone had said “Oli is King”) thanks to India in a way, the Maoists had no alternative left but to join them. Baburam Bhattarai had no choice either considering his party’s performance. One feels sorry for poor Bhattarai who declared after the merger that the alliance is a “massive polarization with a new discourse.”

The Nepali Congress is obviously surprised and shell shocked. In one of the media reports it has been mentioned that 62 percent of the Nepali voters generally vote for the left. It has been the aim of Nepali Congress in the past not to let the leftist parties come together and it had been succeeding from GP’s time. But now the leftist challenge appears to be unstoppable.

Hectic efforts are being made by Deuba and others to unite all the democratic parties together. Gachhadar with his flock has returned and other minor parties are being wooed. The RPP with three factions led by dominant personalities is also being invited. Kamal Thapa one of the leaders of RJP is likely to join the cabinet. He would expect a Dy. Prime Ministers post!

The problems faced by the Nepali Congress are purely internal as there is sufficient goodwill among the electorate for the party. The party is divided vertically into many factions and Deuba has no control over them. While the influence of the “dynasty” has diminished there are no charismatic and popular leaders to lead the party. The youngsters like Gagan Thapa are not being encouraged.

Still, there is now an opportunity for the Nepali Congress to reorganize itself and choose new and competent hands to lead the party. It is a set -back no doubt, but it could be taken as a challenge and an opportunity to “reinvent” itself.

There is also no doubt that a leftist dispensation in Nepal will be unpalatable to India. The Chinese influence may grow. The BRI initiative will sail through. Again it is an opportunity for India to reset its relations on a more solid foundation. One such thing would be that the report of the “eminent persons group” on the relations between the two countries which has just come out would need an urgent and objective consideration.

It is to be said that nuclear weapons are legacy of 20th Century and cyber security is challenge of 21st Century. With the growing digitalization and amalgamation of cyber space in defense and security new threats coming into being.

Developing states like Pakistan are so engulfed in their traditional and conventional threats that emerging issues have failed to capture greater attention. But for how long can these issues with potential to be threat can be ignored and can Pakistan afford this kind of ignorance where threats are increasing by leaps and bounds? Furthermore, threats and security concerns don’t occur in a vacuum, rather they interact in presence of variables like national policies, and international or regional scenarios by interacting with other variables threats either resolved or become more complex. However, one thing is for sure and that is that the state cannot surpass these issues without solving them.

Cyber security is emerging as a new threat and states are yet in the process of making a framework to address this problem. But, as discussed above, cyber security risks are also emerging in the presence of a lot of other factors. One of these significant factors in the case of Pakistan is its nuclear capability and deterrence vis-à-vis India. India-Pakistan are practicing the arduous task of deterrence to reduce their security dilemmas. Deterrence has enabled both states to refrain from going in an all out war because of the unbearable costs. But, clearly it doesn’t mean that all is peaceful between both states. Many conflicts are ongoing and border skirmishes are daily routines between the hostile nuclear neighbors of South Asia. An alarming fact in the case of India-Pakistan is the realization that though the nuclear threshold is not crossable,  there are levels below it and they should be explored. One of the potential levels below nuclear threshold could be of cyber space.

With the recent news of banning of access to social media in public office due to the detection that India plans to launch cyber attacks signifies that India can explore this domain in future. Contributing factors facilitating an Indian attack on the cyber space of Pakistan could be the rapid militarization that is raising stakes to for an actual war.

Secondly, recent doctrinal development-  joint forces doctrine, cold start doctrine – in India indicates a desperation to develop counter measures against threats below the nuclear threshold. Indian joint force military doctrine declares cyber power “is the ability to use cyberspace freely and securely to gain an advantage over the adversary while denying the same to him. Under the light of this definition India’s future ambition is to strengthen its offensive cyber capability to seek more and more of an advantage.

Lastly, the most significant factor that could enable India’s exploitation of Pakistan’s cyber security is a lack of security measures in cyber realm by Pakistan itself.

Cyber security is a hush-hush matter in Pakistan. Public debates never entail this diverse and complex problem as society is rapidly moving towards digitalization.

According to estimates almost 16 million people were using the internet in Pakistan at the end of year 2014-2015 and this number is increasing day by day. Mostly when it comes to securitization of issues, Pakistani policy makers appear to wait until some catastrophe unfolds and then develop solutions to the problem. But, if India is sharpening its tools in the cyber domain Pakistan cannot just sit around. Rather than waiting and developing counter strategies against India’s ambitiousness why not think and prepare ourselves for future Indian plans, this way not only will our deterrence work at larger level, but at lower levels as well.

It is important for Pakistan to securitize its cyber space because otherwise communication system, working critical infrastructure, financial systems and conventional systems can become targets. However, the possibility of a cyber attack on strategic assets could be consequential in terms of the escalation of a cyber conflict into a war. Going to an all out war is the worst case scenario — what is more plausible is cyber skirmishes between India and Pakistan.

At present, due to lack of cyber securitization at societal level Pakistan’s cyber security is penetrable. In cyber attacks most enemies try to steal critical information or disrupt national critical infrastructure to create havoc and panic. It is an ideal tool between two nuclear, heavily armed opponents as it provides anonymity to the attacker with an available option to decline any linkages to the attacker.

At the moment what the Pakistani government is  trying to do with regard to the cyber space is its politicization, which will not serve national interests in face of India’s emerging cyber capabilities. It is a matter of fact that the securitization of cyber space would not be easy due to claims of violations of human rights and democratic norms, but, there is no other option available to Pakistan.

Like many other technological innovations in realm of security, cyber security is also a grey area. States cannot afford to leave this grey area open for an enemy to exploit, disrupt or destruct just because a state as a physical entity is not damaged.

The writer is a research Associate at Islamabad based Think-tank “Strategic Vision Institute”.

On May 19-20, 2017, Baku Slavic University, under the leadership of Hon. Chancellor Nurlana Əliyeva Müzəffər Qizi, hosted an International Scientific Conference focused on “the study and teaching of current issues of Russian language and literature in Azerbaijan: its practice, problems and perspectives in secondary schools and universities.”

The conference addressed the following topics: “The Russian language, literature and culture in the social-cultural life of Azerbaijan”; “Practice of establishing development manuals on the basis of subject curriculums on the Russian language and literature”; “Russian language as a foreign language in the high schools of Azerbaijan: challenges of preparing educational literature”; “The role of computer technologies in the teaching of Russian language as a foreign language in the kindergarten level, high schools and universities”. The Conference also held a major roundtable on “Multicultural values in the Russian and Azerbaijani literatures.”

On May 4, 2017, Chancellor Nurlana Aliyeva (Nurlana Əliyeva Müzəffər Qizi), hosted the VIII International Scientific Conference on current issues of Azerbaijani studies, in the campus of Baku Slavic University. This emblematic conference marked the 94th birthday anniversary of the Azerbaijani national leader Heydar Aliyev. Prior to the conference, its international keynote speakers visited the Lane of Honor to lay a wreath of laurels and flowers at the tomb of national leader, Heydar Aliyev, who is the founding father and architect of modern Azerbaijani state. They also visited the grave of prominent ophthalmologist, Academician Zarifa Aliyeva and honored her memory.

In her opening statement BSU Chancellor Nurlana Aliyeva stated that this conference: ‘aims to study the political and scientific heritage and published works of national leader Heydar Aliyev, as well as the ideology of Azerbaijanism founded by the national leader.’ BSU Chancellor Nurlana Aliyeva emphasized the role of President Ilham Aliyev in promoting Azerbaijan around the world as a country with a powerful army, strong economy and a flexible diplomacy.

On October 19, 2016, Chancellor Nurlana Aliyeva, met with a delegation from Bulgarian higher education institutions, led by Bulgarian Archaeologist and Government Adviser Mr. Nikolay Ovcharov and Editor-in-chief of Standart Daily Newspaper Slavka Buzukova and her deputy Ekaterina Nikolova.

Currently there are excellent scientific cooperation programs and student exchange initiatives that are taking place between Azerbaijan and Bulgaria. Bulgarian Language is one of the languages taught at BSU, according to Chancellor Nurlana Aliyeva: “Azerbaijani students demonstrate a special interest in the history, ethnography, economic and cultural life of Bulgaria.” Furthermore, Chancellor Nurlana Aliyeva praised the First Lady of Azerbaijan and president of the Heydar Aliyev Foundation, Mrs. Mehriban Aliyeva, for her indispensable role to strengthen the relations between Azerbaijan and Bulgaria.

According to Mrs. Slavka Buzukova: “Azerbaijan is a friendly and brotherly country to Bulgaria; the majority of universities in Bulgaria are very interested to cooperate with Azerbaijani institutions, including the Baku Slavic University.” Both sides agreed to strengthen student exchange programs between universities of the two countries and expand joint scientific research projects.

At the Baku Slavic University, the tradition of promoting cultural, literary and scientific conferences begun in 2005; with Academician and chancellor Kamal Abdullayev (2000-2014). Under Chancellor Abdullayev’s tenure BSU hosted a Scientific Conference focused on “the Caucasus; Languages and Cultures.” In this occasion, a number of lectures and scientific papers were presented. The article of Prof. G. Aslankhanova provided detailed information on the “Conjunctions of Lezgian (Lezgin) literary language adopted by Azeri language”; it was one of the first publications in this field. According to Linguistics Professor G. Aslankhanova: “the Lezgian language does not only have conjunctions adopted from Azeri language; it also has word expressions as well as conjunctions.”

Moreover, conjunctional words used in Lezgian language have been influenced by the structural standpoint of Azeri language. According to the author: “Lezgian language had not developed its own early system of conjunctions; in fact it was developed at a later stage, as a result of language development and translation from other Languages.”

Another academic paper was presented on the languages of Dagestan, which have various contrasting verbs based on their transitivity and intransitivity. Transitive Syntax and intransitive verbs in Dagestani languages are quite different. Dagestani languages are equipped with a variety of morphological means for contrasting transitive and intransitive verbs. In this context some items of Kryz language are of special interest; it has distinct morphological criteria for classifying verbal lexemes into transitive and intransitive classes. On the other hand, in Budukh language one of the manners of contrasting transitive and intransitive verbs is consequence “narrow vowel/wide vowel”.

Another exceptional paper was focused on the cartographic contents, geographical denominations (toponymies) of the maps of historical Garabagh, ethnic composition of Garabagli population at the end of the XIX century. There has been centuries’ old connections and bondage between the Azerbaijani nation and the Caucasus; there is a myriad of mysterious fascinations in the word ‘Caucasus’. A particular emphasis is associated to the nature and man. Over time, development of multiculturalism and religious dialogue have made Azerbaijani nation as true Caucasians.

In the region of Nagorno-Karabakh and in other territories of Azerbaijan, the people of Azerbaijan have displayed extraordinary persistence, unique hospitality, legendary courage, equipped with a great soul, and exceptional folkloric costumes. Azerbaijani people are impressively loyal, trustworthy and naïve, although their recent history has been filled by tragedies and bloodshed among its civilian population, due to the cruel invasion of Azerbaijani Sovereign territory by the Armenian Armed Forces for over twenty five years, and Armenian economic blockade against Autonomous Republic of Nakhchivan (since 1991).

For over two decades, Baku Slavic University and its leadership has given a special importance to the study and preservation of Caucasian Languages and multiculturalism wealth in Azerbaijan and the region.

Spanish police engaged in excessive force when confronting demonstrators in Catalonia during a disputed referendum, using batons to hit non-threatening protesters and causing multiple injuries, Human Rights Watch said. Human Rights Watch received many allegations of unjustified police use of force on October 1, 2017, and carried out on-site investigations after the poll to document specific incidents.

Human Rights Watch spoke to victims and witnesses and reviewed video, photographic, and medical evidence from the city of Girona and two villages in Girona and Barcelona provinces. Human Rights Watch found that the Civil Guard (Guardia Civil) or National Police Corps (Cuerpo Nacional de Policia) at times used excessive force in all three locations on October 1 as they sought to execute court orders to prevent the poll.

“Our detailed investigation into three cases found that national police and Civil Guard officers used excessive force on October 1 in Catalonia,” said Kartik Raj, Western Europe Researcher at Human Rights Watch. “The police may well have had the law on their side to enforce a court order but it didn’t give them the right to use violence against peaceful protesters.”

Despite being declared unconstitutional by Spain’s constitutional court, the Catalonia referendum took place on October 1. Across the region, the two police forces sent in by the central government, along with the Mossos d’Esquadra, Catalonia’s police force, sought to execute a court order to stop the referendum that also required them to respect “the coexistence between citizens.” They confronted largely peaceful protestors, although there were incidents in which some responded to the national forces with violence.

Hundreds were left injured, some seriously. Catalonia’s Health Department estimated on October 2 that 893 people had reported injuries to the authorities. Spain’s Ministry of the Interior said on October 1 that 19 national police and 14 Civil Guards had required urgent medical assistance, and that an “innumerable number of others” were injured.

Following the referendum, Human Rights Watch documented excessive use of force against peaceful demonstrators by Civil Guards or national police at a primary school in Girona being used as a polling station, and in the hillside villages of Aiguaviva (Girona province) and Fonollosa (Barcelona province). Human Rights Watch received other allegations and purported evidence of police ill-treatment, which it has not been able to verify or examine in detail, along with instances of assaults on police officers by some demonstrators.

Footage and photos published by the media and uploads to social networks reviewed by Human Rights Watch appear to show many other instances of manifestly disproportionate use of force against people assembled peacefully in and around polling stations, expressing their political opinion, and in some cases using non-violent disobedience to obstruct police.

The Spanish government has insisted that all actions by law enforcement officers “were prudent, appropriate and proportionate to the objective of ensuring compliance with the law and the rights of all citizens,” and further said that the police actions “were not directed against citizens or their ideas.” On October 6, however, the central government’s representative in the region expressed regret and apologized for the police interventions during a television interview.

The Spanish government has an obligation to ensure that an effective investigation is carried out into the allegations of excessive use of force, including the serious incidents documented by Human Rights Watch. Given the current tensions between the central and regional authorities and complex questions of jurisdiction, Spain should consider asking for assistance from an independent international expert body, Human Rights Watch said. As of October 8, 23 different courts in Catalonia were examining allegations of police misconduct, with one investigating complaints made by 36 individuals relating to 17 sites in Barcelona.

In Girona (population 98,255), Human Rights Watch interviewed 37 people who experienced or witnessed police violence, 15 of whom showed evidence of injuries they said were due to police ill-treatment. Witnesses at the Coŀlegi Verd primary school polling station on Carrer Joan Maragall told Human Rights Watch that shortly after 9 a.m. on October 1, national police used batons and shields to charge repeatedly at a cordon of people who had linked arms to stop them entering through the school gate, hitting the protestors on their heads, arms, legs, and torsos. The police did not issue a warning before charging, and fired blanks into the air, frightening young children who were present.

Footage and evidence seen by Human Rights Watch corroborates witness accounts that once inside the school compound, national police officers struck people with batons, bruising them. One parent who reported being hit was an off-duty policeman in the Mossos, and another injured was an off-duty firefighter.

Elsewhere in Girona, at the Sant Narcís polling station, Xevi Gil Rosdevall, a 47-year-old uniformed firefighter, said his arm was broken by a police baton. He showed Human Rights Watch video of the incident that appeared to confirm that he posed no threat to police.

In Aiguaviva (population 763), Human Rights Watch spoke to several residents who experienced, witnessed, or filmed police violence on October 1. At approximately 3:45 p.m., about 50 national police entered the village where a crowd of between 70 and 100 people was assembled with a festive meal and flowers outside a polling station in the village hall.

One villager, Jaume Mas, a 52-year-old technical engineer, said he asked the police for a copy of the judicial order authorizing their entry. He says they responded by hitting the crowd with their batons. Human Rights Watch saw video and still images showing a national police officer using a canister of irritant spray around Mas and others nearby, when they presented no imminent danger.

A 38-year-old man who wished only to be identified as “Ramon” for fear of reprisals, told Human Rights Watch he was struck by police on October 1 as he was filming their seizure of ballot boxes in Aiguaviva. Footage shows a policeman hitting the arm holding the camera twice. Subsequent footage shows police pushing Ramon out of the village hall and him landing 4 or 5 meters across the stone paving of the village square. The incident took place after police had secured the ballot box and voting papers. Ramon said he was left with bruising or swelling on his right torso, neck, left leg, left hand, and throat, and showed Human Rights Watch his medical report and some of his injuries.

In Fonollosa (population 1,401), Human Rights Watch interviewed six residents, including the mayor, three of whom said they were among those injured by police on October 1. The villagers said they had set up hay bales decorated with flowers as a symbolic barrier at the largest of the three polling stations in the area. They explained their shock at the arrival at about 1:30 p.m. of what they estimated to be 70 police officers led by Civil Guards, including plainclothes officers who seized ballots and boxes.

Magdalena Clarena, 70, told Human Rights Watch she was picked up and thrown to the ground by two Civil Guards after refusing to move from her chair, which was blocking the path to the polling station. She then felt someone else land on her, and her wrist broke under the weight. Video footage shows Clarena being thrown on the ground and Jordi Puig de Llivol, a 31-year-old auto-service technician, being thrown on top of her.

A 42-year-old mechanic who asked to be identified only as “Francesc” reported being picked up by four guards, carried across the square, dropped to the ground, forcibly restrained, punched, and kicked in the head, even though he was not blocking their entrance to the hall. Human Rights Watch has seen their injuries and footage from multiple angles and medical reports that corroborate their accounts.

Spain is a party to the European Convention on Human Rights as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which impose specific obligations with respect to the right to peaceful assembly, freedom of expression, and use of force by law enforcement. Spain must ensure that people enjoy the right to peaceful assembly and can express their opinions freely. While the government can impose some restrictions on those rights, measures must be necessary and proportionate for a legitimate aim. Even where people may be acting unlawfully, the state cannot deprive them of their rights, or use excessive force.

Human rights standards on the use of force require police to use alternatives to force wherever possible. Spanish law governing the Civil Guard and the National Police Corps, and the latter’s ethical code, incorporate human rights norms and are clear that where force is considered necessary, police should exercise restraint and act proportionately to the threat posed, and seek to minimize damage and injury. As the political tensions between Catalonia and the Federal government continue, it is essential that any future police deployment adheres strictly to these standards. The institutions of the European Union and EU member states should also publicly make clear to the Spanish authorities that any force used by police has to comply to national and European human rights laws.

“At such divisive times it is especially important that authorities respect human rights, including freedom of speech and assembly, and the rule of law,” Raj said. “Pledges from Madrid and Barcelona to cooperate fully with an independent investigation into the violence on October 1 would be an important step towards restoring confidence and trust.”

US President Donald Trump has signed an executive order allowing the purchase of health insurance across state lines, aimed at creating more choice on the marketplace and reining in the rising insurance premiums.

The new executive order will increase competition, choice and access to healthcare for millions of Americans, while costing the US government “virtually nothing,” Trump said.

Introducing the president, Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) called the executive order “the biggest free-market reform of healthcare in a generation.”

Vice President Mike Pence called it the “critical step to lower the cost of health insurance.”

Allowing people to buy insurance across state lines will create “tremendous competition,” Trump said, adding that “insurance companies will be fighting to get every single person to sign up,” and costs will go down as a result.

He said the new executive order would provide millions of Americans with relief from the Obama-era Affordable Care Act, widely known as Obamacare.

Insurance costs “skyrocketed” under Obamacare, the president argued, saying people in Alaska saw their premiums go up 200 percent. One third of all counties in America have only a single insurer selling insurance on the Obamacare exchange, Trump said, adding that soon many will have none.

Several initiatives to repeal and replace Obamacare failed in the Republican-majority Senate, with several senators, including John McCain (R-Arizona) saying the replacement portion has not been properly thought through.

The executive order will expand access to so-called “association health plans” (AHP) – plans written by trade associations, small businesses and other groups. It wouldn’t allow these plans to base premiums on preexisting conditions, according to Fox News.

Trump also ordered to ease restrictions on short-term insurance policies, which Obamacare regulations limited to three months in duration, but his plan would expand to one year.

While proponents of the move see it as a way to bring down insurance costs, critics argue that ultimately it will raise costs for the sick.

Expanding AHPs and increasing short-term insurance policies could be detrimental to the current insurance market that complies with Obamacare regulations, Cori Uccello from the American Academy of Actuaries told Fox News. Healthy people could leave the market, turning it into a high-risk pool, she said.

“If a goal is to provide protections for people with preexisting conditions, this is a step in the wrong direction,” according to Uccello.

The changes will most likely have no effect on 2018 Obamacare premiums and will still need to go through the rule-making process, which could take several take months.

By Tomas Bayas*

2017 will probably be remembered as a turning point in the history of Ecuador’s Alianza PAIS (AP) party. Founded by Rafael Correa in 2006, the AP embarked on a monumental project known as the Citizen’s Revolution that would eventually come to dominate Ecuador’s political system. The Citizen’s Revolution focused primarily on a social and economic revolution, and has been in power since Correa won his first presidential election in 2007. And yet, despite its previous success, the AP drastically changed its political approach upon the succession of Lenin Moreno in 2017.

After winning re-election in 2014, Correa introduced a reform package and one of the proposals was to lift re-election limits. He faced significant public pressure after the opposition accused him of using these reforms as a way of furthering his own political power, forcing him to announce that the constitutional change would only take effect in 2021, meaning that he would not be able to run for re-election in 2017. [i] Because of this political conflict, he had to choose between anointing Jorge Glas or Lenin Moreno as his successor. Both served as vice-presidents under Correa’s two terms and either one seemed likely to be the next candidate for AP. After months of uncertainty, he ultimately decided to go with Moreno as President and Glas as Vice-president, and the ruling party was confident they would win the upcoming elections and would be able to continue to institute their political project. After a narrow win against right-wing candidate Guillermo Lasso, Moreno took office facing a divided and polarized country. [ii]

While the country was facing a critical economic situation, it was also rocked by two successive corruption scandals involving the state-owned oil company Petroecuador and the Brazilian transnational conglomerate Odebrecht. [iii] Throughout the electoral campaign, Jorge Glas had been mentioned repeatedly as a possible suspect in the growing corruption scandal. It grew more serious as new and more concrete evidence appeared, such as the testimony of former Odebrecht directors and the arrest of Glas’s uncle under corruption allegations. [iv] These developments, combined with a significant change in economic policy, led to a distancing between Correa and Moreno, and a war of words erupted, with both repeatedly calling each other out via social media and during various interviews. [v] On October 2, in what appears to be the latest attempt to break away from correismo and to undermine the former president’s influence, Moreno announced that he would call for a referendum regarding possible amendments to the nation’s 2008 National Constitution (formed during Correa’s administration) with a number of questions that were particularly aimed at some of the major actions implemented by Correa during his time in office. [vi]

Corruption and Crimes

The first question addresses the corruption scandals that have affected the nation and calls for what is known as civil death by corruption. Essentially, the question asks whether or not citizens agree with amending the constitution in order to sanction individuals that are convicted of acts of corruption by preventing them from ever participating in public politics and to also seize all goods owned by the individual in order to repay the state. This question evidently has a personal tone and is aimed at Glas, who was finally imprisoned as a preventive precaution as the National Court of Justice moves forward with the corruption case presented against him by the Attorney General’s office. [vii] As of this moment, two former state ministers and two former managers of Petroecuador are among those being held in connection to the scandal, while a number of other suspects are at large after going into hiding before the National Police emitted warrants for their arrest. [viii] Although there were never any formal charges or credible allegations against the president himself, the Correa administration was constantly under accusations of corruption and the recent emergence of cases will only further taint his already questionable reputation.

On a related note, Moreno is also proposing to amend the constitution so that crimes of sexual abuse against children should have no statute of limitations. There was a major scandal in Ecuador after 42 cases of sexual aggression were reported in a school in Quito after which 340 teachers had cases opened against them. [ix] Some argued that since some cases had occurred several years before that the accusations were no longer valid and charges should not be brought up at this time. This caused consternation amongst citizens and this initiative is seen as part of what has become a global effort to create awareness regarding child abuse. The goal is to provide options that will enable and encourage people to come forward in cases that on many occasions go unprosecuted because of victim’s fear of the repercussions of stepping forward.

Indefinite Re-election and State Authorities

The following question is also, without a doubt, an attack against Correa, as it asks whether citizens agree with rolling back the amendment originally proposed by Correa in order to eliminate indefinite re-election and to restrict public official’s re-election to one time only. Citing alternation as a key pillar of democracy, Moreno has regarded indefinite re-election as a political aberration and claimed that those who propose it are only looking to be re-elected in their next term rather than focusing on the future of the country. [x] Correa has long claimed that he wished to retire from politics after stepping down as president and that he wouldn’t come back to the country as long as it was not necessary for the future of the Citizen’s Revolution. As his war of words escalated with Moreno, Correa has slowly introduced the idea that he would be back for the 2021 elections in order to salvage his movement and after the latest chapter of events, his criticisms towards the current president will only grow stronger and harsher. Correa, and those who support him, have constantly pointed to Germany as they make their case for indefinite re-election. In their eyes, Angela Merkel’s sustained position in Germany is an example of how indefinite re-election can provide economic and political stability, but that is an inadequate comparison, to say the least. [xi] Latin America is unfortunately plagued by institutional weakness, corruption cases, and a propensity of its leaders to abuse power, making it too unstable for such propositions.

Furthermore, the next question analyses the restructuring of the Council of Citizen Participation and Social Control (CPCCS), an autonomous entity which alongside two other entities is in charge of Transparency and Social Control, one of the state’s five functions defined in the 2008 Constitution. Among its responsibilities, CPCCS is in charge of designating various state authorities–among which are the Attorney General, State Comptroller, and the members of the National Electoral Council. Members of the CPCCS are elected through a national contest but Moreno is proposing that they be elected through a universal vote, every four years, to remove any doubts that positions in the council could be granted by the government to individuals who would support its political agenda. This concern appeared after the former State Comptroller, Carlos Polit, got embroiled in the Odebrecht corruption scandal. He remains a fugitive and is currently in the United States, where he went days before charges were brought against him under the pretense of traveling for health reasons. The former Attorney General, Galo Chiriboga, is also used as an example of the failure of the CPCCS; he was elected to his position despite being a close friend of Rafael Correa, and even acted as his personal lawyer in a trial the former president had against one of the nation’s biggest banks. [xii] In response, Moreno is requesting that members of the CPCCS no longer be allowed to have any political affiliations or for them to be presented by any political parties.

Environment

There are also two questions that are directly related to the environment and the current government’s efforts to be a leader in the fight against global warming. The first relates to banning all metal mining efforts that take place in protected areas, intangible areas, and urban centres. Under Correa, the government promoted mining as another means of generating revenue and was projecting for it to contribute up to 4 percent of GDP by 2020 (its current contributions are projected to be 2.3 percent for 2017). In order to achieve this growth, the government established large-scale mining projects, but in doing so they were going against the economic model established in the 2008 Constitution, which aimed to institute a non-extractivist economic model. The mining efforts by the previous government were controversial and led to clashes with various indigenous organizations as they protested the activities. [xiii]

This ties directly to the second question about the environment that relates to the exploitation of the Yasuni National Park. In 2007, Correa proposed to maintain oil found in the Yasuni area untouched and embarked on an international campaign to receive international funding which would allow this to happen. However, in August 2013 the government withdrew its proposal and authorized the exploitation of parts of the area as they failed to secure funding and only managed to raise $333.6 million of the initial $3.6 billion goal. Despite the strong opposition of various environmental groups, operations were effectively underway as of March 2016. [xiv] Moreno’s proposal does not prohibit fossil fuel exploitation in the region, but it does seek to restrict by a third the area where oil extraction occurs. Additionally, the proposal also increases the area of the Yasuni protected zone by 50,000 hectares. Nevertheless, environmental organizations and analysts feel that this amendment does not do enough to protect one of the most biologically diverse locations on Earth. [xv]

Despite those criticisms, these two proposals support the latest government efforts in protecting the environment, such as the Amazon Integral Program, which aims to improve sustainable forest management, better management of natural resources, and an improvement in production of the country’s six Amazon provinces. [xvi] The Socio Bosque Program continues to offer economic incentives to owners of land to guarantee its protection over the medium to long term. Furthermore, at the United Nations National Assembly Moreno recently requested international cooperation to preserve the Amazon with productive initiatives that allow eradicating deforestation or the expansion of the agricultural border. [xvii]

Capital Gains Law

Finally, Moreno is looking to repeal a controversial capital gains law imposed on landowners. It sought to act as a deterrent in order to prevent future speculative bubbles in real estate prices, but the effects have been largely negative. The construction sector has already seen 24 straight months of negative growth, and although the economic recession is definitely a factor, the law has not been particularly helpful. In spring 2017, the construction industry fell by 7.9 percent in comparison to that same period the year before. The real estate sector has also been particularly affected as it has been hit with a loss of 135 direct jobs per day since the implementation of this law. By repealing this law, Moreno is looking to reactivate an important sector of the economy as his government continues to look for ways to stimulate a struggling economy. [xviii]

Conclusion

This set of reforms is the latest and most clear effort by Moreno to distance himself from his predecessor as he seeks to adapt a more friendly and conciliatory approach with all members of society. His proposal has been met with praise, as it addresses controversial issues that lingered from the past administration, but AP’s official reaction remains unclear. Jose Serrano, President of the National Assembly and member of the AP, had already stated publicly that Glas should step down from his position before his imprisonment. This position has created tensions within the party, as one side remains faithful to Correa while the other seems to want to break away from his image. The AP has come out in neither support nor condemnation Glas, but rather has stated that it believes in the judicial system and will leave his fate in the hands of the Department of Justice. Glas still has to stand trial, but as of this moment it would appear that his days as vice-president are numbered, leading to questions of his replacement.

Moreno has already named Maria Fernanda Vicuña, the current Housing Minister, as a temporary replacement but it remains to be seen if she would be named on a permanent basis. Serrano has also been touted as a possible replacement as well as other leading political figures such as Maria Fernanda Espinoza, Ecuador’s chancellor and Maria Paula Romo, member of Izquierda Democratica, another left wing party. Perhaps more important will be Correa’s reaction and whether he takes further actions such as breaking away from AP and creating a new political party as he seeks to oppose the reforms in what appears to be an effort to maintain the possibility of him coming back in 2021. Whatever may be the case, October 2 will be known as a turning point in AP history and perhaps even a turning point in Ecuadorian politics, as Moreno continues his movement away from the shadow of his predecessor and towards creating a path and legacy of his own.

*Tomas Bayas, Research Associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

Additional editorial support provided by John Stolle-McAllister, Senior Research, and Jack Memolo and Gavin Allman, Research Associates at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

[i] Redacción. “Ecuador: Aprueban Enmiendas a La Constitución Que Incluyen La Autorización De La Reelección Indefinida – BBC Mundo.” BBC News. December 03, 2015. Accessed October 10, 2017. http://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias/2015/12/151203_ecuador_asamblea_reeleccion_ep.

[ii] ManettoTwitter, Francesco, and HENRY ROMERO (REUTERS) / VÍDEO: REUTERS-QUALITY. “Moreno Gana Las Elecciones En Ecuador Y El Opositor Lasso Pide Un Recuento.” EL PAÍS. April 04, 2017. Accessed October 06, 2017. https://elpais.com/internacional/2017/04/01/actualidad/1491081329_699004.html.

[iii] Quiroz, Gabriela, and Sara Ortiz. “El Caso Odebrecht Se Relaciona Con La Red De Coimas De Petroecuador.” El Comercio. July 16, 2017. Accessed October 06, 2017. http://www.elcomercio.com/actualidad/odebrecht-relacion-coimas-petroecuador-corrupcion.html.

[iv] Redaccion, El Universo. “Delator De Odebrecht Califica a Ricardo Rivera Y a Jorge Glas Como ‘siameses’.” El Universo. September 28, 2017. Accessed October 02, 2017. http://www.eluniverso.com/noticias/2017/09/28/nota/6404254/delator-odebrecht-califica-rivera-glas-como-siameses.

[v] Telégrafo, El. “Lenín Moreno Tuitea Sobre La “abstinencia De Poder”; Correa Cita a Eloy Alfaro.” El Telégrafo. July 06, 2017. Accessed October 05, 2017. http://www.eltelegrafo.com.ec/noticias/politica/2/lenin-moreno-tuitea-sobre-la-abstinencia-de-poder.

[vi] EFE, Agencia. “Consulta En Ecuador Será Presentada a Corte Constitucional El 2 De Octubre.” El Comercio. September 27, 2017. Accessed October 04, 2017. http://www.elcomercio.com/actualidad/consulta-ecuador-preguntas-corteconstitucional-leninmoreno.html.

[vii] Redaccion, El Universo. “Prisión Preventiva Para Jorge Glas Por Caso Odebrecht.” El Universo. October 02, 2017. Accessed October 10, 2017. http://www.eluniverso.com/noticias/2017/10/02/nota/6412234/prision-preventiva-jorge-glas-caso-odebrecht.

[viii] Redaccion Negocios. “La Iniciativa De Consulta Popular Empieza a Sumar Apoyo Político.” El Comercio. October 4, 2017. Accessed October 5, 2017. http://www.elcomercio.com/actualidad/leninmoreno-consulta-apoyo-guillermolasso-jaimenebot.html.

[ix] Ibid.

[x] InfoBae. “”Una Aberración Política”: Lenín Moreno Quiere Suprimir La Reelección Indefinida En Ecuador.” Infobae. September 28, 2017. Accessed October 10, 2017. https://www.infobae.com/america/america-latina/2017/09/28/una-aberracion-politica-lenin-moreno-quiere-suprimir-la-reeleccion-indefinida-en-ecuador/.

[xi] Teleamazonasecuador. “Entrevista a Ricardo Patiño, Exconsejero Presidencial.” YouTube. August 29, 2017. Accessed October 10, 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dABdfbgpx54.

[xii] Judiciales. “Banco Pichincha Actu.” EcuadorInmediato.com. November 24, 2009. Accessed October 10, 2017. http://www.ecuadorinmediato.com/index.php?module=Noticias&func=news_user_view&id=117253.

[xiii] Redaccion Negocios. “La Iniciativa De Consulta Popular Empieza a Sumar Apoyo Político.” El Comercio. October 4, 2017. Accessed October 5, 2017. http://www.elcomercio.com/actualidad/leninmoreno-consulta-apoyo-guillermolasso-jaimenebot.html.

[xiv] Erazo, Paúl Mena. “¿Por Qué Fracasó El Proyecto Ambiental De Yasuní En Ecuador? – BBC Mundo.” BBC News. August 16, 2013. Accessed October 10, 2017. http://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias/2013/08/130816_ecuador_yasuni_causas_fracaso_lps.

[xv] Blitz, Matt. “This Park in Ecuador Is One of the Most Biodiverse Places on Earth.” Smithsonian.com. May 22, 2015. Accessed October 05, 2017. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/amazonian-rainforest-one-most-biodiverse-places-earth-180955364/.

[xvi] Andes. “Presidente Moreno Presenta Programa Integral Amazónico De Conservación De Bosques Y Producción Sostenible.” Presidente Moreno Presenta Programa Integral Amazónico De Conservación De Bosques Y Producción Sostenible | ANDES. September 07, 2017. Accessed October 10, 2017. http://www.andes.info.ec/es/noticias/presidente-moreno-presenta-programa-integral-amazonico-conservacion-bosques-produccion.

[xvii] Andes. “President Moreno Proposes Amazon Protection with International Support at UN.” President Moreno Proposes Amazon Protection with International Support at UN | ANDES. September 20, 2017. Accessed October 10, 2017. http://www.andes.info.ec/en/news/president-moreno-proposes-amazon-protection-international-support.html.

[xviii] Redaccion Negocios. “La Iniciativa De Consulta Popular Empieza a Sumar Apoyo Político.” El Comercio. October 4, 2017. Accessed October 5, 2017. http://www.elcomercio.com/actualidad/leninmoreno-consulta-apoyo-guillermolasso-jaimenebot.html.

By Jim Garamone

Under assault by an increasingly capable government force in Iraq and a cohesive and deadly coalition-partner force in Syria, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria is getting desperate, chief Pentagon spokesperson Dana W. White said at a news conference Thursday.

Thousands Surrendering

White said thousands of ISIS fighters are surrendering to Iraqi security forces and Syrian Democratic Forces.

“They are getting desperate,” she said. “Civilians are running towards the Iraqi security forces and Syrian Democratic Forces, because they know they are the good guys.”

Coalition forces have supported Iraqi forces as they liberated Hawija and continue to support the SDF as they enter the final phase of the battle for Raqqa – the capital of ISIS’ so-called caliphate. “More than 6.4 million Iraqis and Syrians have been liberated from the grip of ISIS, a territory about the size of California,” White said.

Credit to Local Forces

The coalition will continue to strike ISIS wherever the group raises its head, she added, and coalition service members will track foreign fighters fleeing from the region who hope to foment terror in other parts of the globe.

But the credit belongs to the forces on the ground in Iraq and Syria, she said. “Local forces in Iraq and Syria have fought valiantly to liberate cities from ISIS,” she added. “It is because of their efforts and their tremendous sacrifices that I can say ISIS is on the run.”

These forces are light-years away from the troops that ISIS overran in 2014. Iraqi forces crumbled before the terror group and lost Mosul, the second-largest city in the country. ISIS made it a stronghold, but the reborn Iraqi security forces – with help from coalition fires – were decisively able to liberate the city.

Life is returning to normal in Mosul.

In Syria, the SDF is an army of Kurds and Arabs united against ISIS. That force was born, grew and matured over three years, and it stands now on the gateway of wresting the last large city stronghold from the terror group.

The US Department of State on Thursday notified UNESCO Director-General Irina Bokova of the decision to withdraw from the organization and to seek to establish a permanent observer mission to UNESCO.

Following the US decision, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that he has instructed the Israeli Foreign Ministry to also withdraw from UNESCO.

Netanyahu called the US action, “a brave and moral decision.”

State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert said in a press statement that, “This decision was not taken lightly, and reflects U.S. concerns with mounting arrears at UNESCO, the need for fundamental reform in the organization, and continuing anti-Israel bias at UNESCO.”

According to Nauert, the US indicated to the Director General its desire to remain engaged with UNESCO as a non-member observer state in order to contribute US views, perspectives and expertise on some of the important issues undertaken by the organization, including the protection of world heritage, advocating for press freedoms, and promoting scientific collaboration and education.

Pursuant to Article II(6) of the UNESCO Constitution, U.S. withdrawal will take effect on December 31, 2018. The United States will remain a full member of UNESCO until that time.

In 2012, Caitlan Coleman, an American citizen, and her husband, Joshua Boyle, a Canadian citizen, were taken captive and held hostage by the Haqqani network, a terrorist organization with ties to the Taliban. Ms. Coleman gave birth to the couple’s three children while they were in captivity. Yesterday, the United States government, working in conjunction with the Government of Pakistan, secured the release of the Boyle-Coleman family from captivity in Pakistan.

Today they are free. This is a positive moment for our country’s relationship with Pakistan. The Pakistani government’s cooperation is a sign that it is honoring America’s wishes for it to do more to provide security in the region. We hope to see this type of cooperation and teamwork in helping secure the release of remaining hostages and in our future joint counterterrorism operations.

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi on Thursday extended Egypt’s countrywide state of emergency for an additional three months.

“The state of emergency will be applied across the country, effective as of 1 a.m. Friday, for an additional three months due to ongoing security concerns,” read a presidential decree.

Sisi first declared a three-month state of emergency in April — later extended by another three months — after twin bomb attacks killed 45 people in northern Egypt.

The state of emergency allows the authorities to take exceptional security measures, including the referral of terrorism suspects to state security courts, the imposition of curfews and the confiscation of newspapers.

Original source

By Filip Rudic

Serbian Defence Minister Aleksandar Vulin lashed out at the US ambassador to Belgrade after the diplomat criticised him for his recent public praise for two convicted war criminals.

Serbian Defence Minister Aleksandar Vulin on Wednesday rebuffed criticism from the US ambassador to Belgrade, Kyle Scott, who said that Vulin’s expressions of support for convicted war criminals Vladimir Lazarevic and Nikola Sainovic might undermine efforts to improve Serbia’s image.

“I’m surprised that the ambassador does not see the possibility for undermining images and threats to [international] relations in the fact that [former Croatian general] Ante Gotovina is an advisor to the Croatian government, or in the release of [former Bosniak commander in Srebrenica Naser] Oric,” Vulin said.

Both Gotovina and Oric were acquitted of war crimes against Serbs.

The US ambassador’s criticism of Vulin came after the minister spoke at a gathering of former soldiers of the Third Battalion of the Yugoslav Army last Saturday.

The gathering was attended by convicted war criminals Vladimir Lazarevic, the former chief of staff of the Yugoslav Army’s Pristina Corps, and Nikola Sainovic, former deputy prime minister of Yugoslavia, who have returned to Serbia after serving their sentences.

Vulin said in his speech that Serbia will no longer be ashamed of those who “defended| it, and that time has come to be “quietly proud” instead.

An Associated Press report on the event that was republished by the influential US daily Washington Post said that Vulin’s remarks “illustrate Serbia’s increasing defiance of the West”.

Vulin’s party, the Socialists’ Movement, said in response that the Washington Post is “an American paper which promotes the criminal actions of NATO”.

US ambassador Scott retweeted the Washington Post article, commenting that months of work to improve Serbia’s image in the United States can be “undermined with a single statement”.

Nažalost, meseci rada na poboljšanju imidža Srbije u SAD mogu biti podriveni jednom izjavom https://t.co/JZpwyUIEK7

— Amb. Kyle Scott (@usambserbia) October 11, 2017

Responding to Scott, minister Vulin said that Serbia “did not cause the wars” in the former Yugoslavia and that former general Lazarevic is now a “free man”.

“Am I supposed to praise the [NATO] bombing [of Yugoslavia] and seek justification for Kosovo’s secession? I don’t know any army that would denounce general Lazarevic and be ashamed of him, and I certainly won’t be,” Vulin said.

This is not time that the current Serbian authorities have expressed admiration for war criminals.

Former Yugoslav People’s Army colonel Veselin Sljivancanin, who was convicted by the Hague Tribunal of responsibility for the 1991 Vukovar massacre, has been a speaker at events hosted by Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic’s ruling Progressive Party.

Sljivancanin’s book, entitled ‘In Service to the Fatherland’, is also scheduled to be promoted at an event in Belgrade on Friday, which drew condemnation from the Youth Initiative for Human Rights campaign group.

“In the days when war criminals [Lazarevic and Sainovic] are being celebrated by the state leadership… Serbian and Belgrade city institutions are once again making room for a convicted war criminal,” the Youth Initiative for Human Rights said in a statement.

Vladimir Lazarevic meanwhile was given a hero’s welcome upon returning to Serbia after serving his sentence.

Last week, Senator Bob Corker, the Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, charged in an interview with the New York Times that Trump was treating his office like “a reality show,” with reckless threats toward other countries that could set the nation “on the path to World War III.”

Corker said he was concerned about Trump. “He would have to concern anyone who cares about our nation,” Corker said, adding that “the vast majority of our caucus understands what we’re dealing with here … the volatility that we’re dealing with and the tremendous amount of work that it takes by people around him to keep him in the middle of the road.”

Corker’s interview was followed by a report from Gabriel Sherman of Vanity Fair, who wrote that the situation has gotten so out of control that Trump’s chief of staff, John Kelly, and Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis have discussed ways to stop Trump should he order a nuclear attack. Kelly has tried to keep Trump focused by intercepting outside phone calls to the White House and restricting access to the Oval Office. Many of Trump’s advisors believe he is “unstable” and “unravelling” quickly.

Is Trump really unraveling? Are Republican leaders ready to pull the plug? I phoned an old friend, a Republican former member of Congress who keeps up with what’s going on. I scribbled notes as he talked:

Me: So what’s up? Is Corker alone, or are others also ready to call it quits with Trump? 

He: All I know is they’re simmering over there. 

Me: Flake and McCain have come pretty close. 

He: Yeah. Others are thinking about doing what Bob did. Sounding the alarm. They think Trump’s nuts. Unfit. Dangerous. 

Me: Well, they already knew that, didn’t they? 

He: But now it’s personal. It started with the Sessions stuff. Jeff was as loyal as they come. Trump’s crapping on him was like kicking your puppy. And then, you know, him beating up on Mitch for the Obamacare fiasco. And going after Flake and the others. 

Me: So they’re pissed off?

He: Not just that. I mean, they have thick hides. The personal stuff got them to notice all the other things. The wild stuff, like those threats to North Korea. Tillerson would leave tomorrow if he wasn’t so worried Trump would go nuclear, literally. 

Me: You think Trump is really thinking nuclear war?

He: Who knows what’s in his head? But I can tell you this. He’s not listening to anyone. Not a soul. He’s got the nuclear codes and, well, it scares the hell out of me. It’s starting to scare all of them. That’s really why Bob spoke up. 

Me: So what could they do? I mean, even if the whole Republican leadership was willing to say publicly he’s unfit to serve, what then?

He: Bingo! The emperor has no clothes. It’s a signal to everyone they can bail. Have to bail to save their skins. I mean, Trump could be the end of the whole goddam Republican party. 

Me: If he starts a nuclear war, that could be the end of everything. 

He: Yeah, right. So when they start bailing on him, the stage is set. 

Me: For what?

He: Impeachment. 25th amendment.

Me: You think Republicans would go that far? 

He: Not yet. Here’s the thing. They really want to get this tax bill through. That’s all they have going for them. They don’t want to face voters in ’18 or ’20 without something to show for it. They’re just praying Trump doesn’t do something really, really stupid before the tax bill.

Me: Like a nuclear war?

He: Look, all I can tell you is many of the people I talk with are getting freaked out. It’s not as if there’s any careful strategizing going on. Not like, well, do we balance the tax bill against nuclear war? No, no. They’re worried as hell. They’re also worried about Trump crazies, all the ignoramuses he’s stirred up. I mean, Roy Moore? How many more of them do you need to destroy the party? 

Me: So what’s gonna happen?

He: You got me. I’m just glad I’m not there anymore. Trump’s not just a moron. He’s a despicable human being. And he’s getting crazier. Paranoid. Unhinged. Everyone knows it. I mean, we’re in shit up to our eyeballs with this guy.

Back in the nineteen seventies, there was a best-seller, widely read in the business community, called Winning through Intimidation. Barack Obama should pick up a copy, because that is what Donald Trump may be doing to him. Obama stays mostly silent as the belligerent Trump rolls back or destroys the legacies of Obama’s eight years in office. The mere thought of tangling with the Trumpster’s foul, prevaricatory, sneering tweets offends Obama’s own sense of civil discourse between politicians.

Given the present crises, this revulsion is just another form of self-indulgence by the former, self-described community organizer, Senator and President. There is no other political leader, in our celebrity culture, as well known or so high in the polls. Consequently Obama owes a different attitude and level of engagement to the American people.

In a previous column, I described some of these engagements, none of which involve a twitter fight with Trump. They provide focal points for Americans to rally around agendas and opposition to the politics of anxiety, dread and fear generated by the unstable occupant of the White House. That is, a way to respond to Trump’s raging tantrums, fact-impairment, loss of self-control and ego-centric vanities.

Mr. Obama could, for example, work to strengthen civic groups and help substantially to create new organizations to address urgent needs (such as averting wars); he could back opposition to Trump’s destructive policies that are running America into the ground while shielding Wall Street and the dictatorial corporate supremacists whose toadies Trump has put into high government positions.

Obama is a big draw and can raise hundreds of millions of dollars faster than most. Furthermore, he has the unique ability to fill the void the mass media is desperately looking to fill by serving as a counterweight to Trump. Hillary, hawking her latest book, doesn’t fit the bill here.

Instead, Obama, besides raising funds for his presidential library (about $1 billion), is getting press primarily for being paid $400,000 or more per speech before Wall Street and other big business audiences. Most recently, the New York Times located him in Sao Paulo, Brazil, speaking generalities to businesspeople who were charged from $1,500 to $2,400 to hear him say essentially nothing of note. The speech title was grandly cheerleading: “Change the World? Yes, You Can”—a nod to his unofficial 2008 campaign slogan, “Yes We Can.”

Obama’s spokesman would not say how much Obama gets to keep of the approximate $2 million generated by this event, which was sponsored by the Spanish bank Santander and Brazilian media conglomerates. The paying attendees were attracted to his celebrity status and didn’t care about the sizable tab probably picked up by their companies. One attendee was quoted by the Times as saying, “It was a bit disappointing. I don’t feel like he said anything new.”

There is plenty to be said in the U.S. that is both new and significant by Obama. However, apart from a few words here and there on bigotry and immigration, Obama has preferred to bounce between high-priced lecture gigs and wealthy watering holes where he is a guest of the super-rich, and to work on his book, for which he is receiving over $30 million. Michelle Obama is receiving many millions of dollars for her book and has also been attending celebrity-filled gatherings. When asked at one such event, whom she would most like to be if she had another career, she answered, Beyoncé.

Meanwhile, down at the grassroots level, where people live, work and raise their families, tens of millions are without living wages or health insurance. Underemployment and people dropping out of the labor market in frustration over their rejected skills, mask what is in reality a deceptively low unemployment rate, and yet poverty indicators are everywhere. Under Trump, families will be exposed to more hazards in the workplace, the environment and the marketplace, and they will face rip-offs by companies that have been liberated from regulatory law and order.

The list of protective programs and responsible business laws destroyed by Trump’s wrecking crew of a cabinet grows longer every week.

It isn’t as if Barack Obama doesn’t realize what he is doing and what is happening to him in this self-enriching bubble he has shaped, post Presidency. He can’t seem to help himself, and going to nearly 500 fat-cat political fund-raisers outside Washington, D.C. as President didn’t help to change or expand his chosen circle.

In his best-selling 2006 book, The Audacity of Hope, then Senator Obama admitted: “I found myself spending time with people of means—law firm partners and investment bankers, hedge fund managers and venture capitalists. As a rule, they were smart, interesting people. But they reflected, almost uniformly, the perspectives of their class: the top 1 percent of the income scale.”

Classic Obama: Say the right thing and the people won’t mind so much when your words don’t match your deeds.

Think of your millions of supporters, Mr. Obama. They want you to regularly stand up for them and fight the Trump-led assault on our weakening democracy.

Leader cults have been an integral part of the Russian political system from the time the tsar was overthrown up to today, but they have evolved over that period reflecting the very different situations and personalities of the individual leaders from Aleksandr Kerensky to Joseph Stalin to Vladimir Putin.

Many assume that the Bolsheviks or at least Stalin came up with the cult of personality, Aleksey Miller, an historian at St. Petersburg’s European University says; but that is not the case. In fact, between March and the summer of 1917 with unbelievable energy was formed the cult of personality of [Aleksandr] Kerensky.”

That cult arose and formed a critical element of “the political culture” of Russia after the overthrow of the tsar because “in place of the monarchy, a vacuum arose,” one that could not be filled by any of the usual forms of legitimation Max Weber classically defined (znak.com/2017-10-10/istorik_miller_shans_vyrvatsya_s_periferii_rossiya_utratila_v_1917_godu_i_navsegda).

Miller’s observation made during a speech earlier this month in Tyumen concerning the 100^th anniversary of the Russian revolutions of 1917 thus provide a key to understanding why Kerensky’s successors promoted personality cults. They did so because they lacked alternative legitimating principles for a population used to a single monarch-style leader.

On the occasion of Vladimir Putin’s 65^th birthday, Moscow commentator Igor Yakovenko offers a comparison of the three great leader cults that were promoted by those in office. (He does not address the very different leader cult of Lenin which was pushed not by the Bolshevik leader himself but by his followers for their own reasons.)

In Yezhednevny zhurnal, Yakovenko points out that “the cult of Brezhnev was a remake of the cult of Stalin and like the majority of remakes gave rise to parody.” It was “completely ‘puffed up,’ artificial, and purely an affair of the apparatus,” but even members of the apparat told jokes about the party leader (ej.ru/?a=note&id=31674).

Some Stalinists, he continues, “loved to repeat the words of Sholokhov: ‘Yes, there was a cult, but there was also a personality.” And some joked “even during Brezhnev’s lifetime that he was promoting “’a cult without a personality.’”

The cult of Putin, in contrast, is entirely a creation of the media and show business. That sets it apart from the cult of Stalin which was “the nucleus of propaganda and a central point of a quasi-religious ideology” and that of Brezhnev which was imposed by the regime’s propagandists without any response really expected.

“Putin is a strictly media product,” Yakovenko says; “he came out of the television. His cult was created and supported by [nominally independent] media activity which had exclusively commercial goals and had nothing in common with ideology. But the powers stimulated it with the help of their control of TV” and thus “gave it a green light.”

The first case of this use of popular culture to promote “’a show cult’” in Russia occurred in 1996 when culture figures overwhelmingly supported Boris Yeltsin’s re-election. But that case involved the pursuit of a specific “concrete” goal: his re-election. And because that is so, no cult of Yeltsin aroses

Putin, however, “decided to restore the empire, to reverse ‘the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20^th century, and his power became a life-long case. Without a cult, such tasks are not solved, and thus arose the show cult of Putin. A cult without personality, a cult without ideology, simply a cult alone standing in the midst of a cleansed political field.”