US President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump were greeted to a warm welcome during their state visit to China.

Coming off a fresh start from the 19th National Congress, President Xi has embraced confidence in his leadership or the next five years. After the warm ceremonies of friendship and symbolism came the face-to-face negotiations, and both presidents have been tested to see if the world’s two superpowers, China a rising power and the United States a dominant power can work together on enhancing bilateral trade and maximizing pressure on the DPRK’s nuclear program.

On the campaign trail, Trump criticized the trade deficit with China to be unfair and unstable, but when it came to face-to-face dialogue with Chinese officials, he took back what he said; “I don’t blame China. Who can blame a country that is able to take advantage of another country for the benefit of its citizens? I give China great credit.”

President Xi acknowledged the $347 billion trade deficit between China and the United States calling on Washington “to further expand trade and investment cooperation, strengthen macroeconomic policy coordination, pursue healthy, stable, and dynamically balanced economic and trade relations.”

China remains an incredibly important market for the 29 CEO’s that came to China, and they managed to sign 15 agreements of up to $250 billion on fields like natural gas, auto parts, and aircraft. However, the DPRK remains a significant challenge for Beijing and Washington.

President Xi reiterated that the two sides will continue to cooperate as much as they can through dialogue and negotiations for a stable, peaceful Korean Peninsula, and China will continue to abide by UN Security Council Resolutions. Both presidents headed to Vietnam for the 2017 APEC Summit where they will be sharing their ideas for economic cooperation in the Asia-Pacific.

There were a lot of expectations for China and the United States going into this trip by President Trump. On the whole, this was a successful visit because there was a mutual respect for each other, and they both recognize the problems that are important for both countries. Through Trump’s visit to China, the two sides need to recognize that they need to work together to resolve differences on geopolitical/strategic issues, and further cooperation on economics and trade in a cautious, peaceful way.

The success of the visit came from the two presidents to set a positive tone for bilateral relations for the next five years, and this is more important for future cooperation. This visit was significant from the Chinese side because President Trump’s visit marks the first time that President Xi has hosted an incoming US president. Trump’s state visit was a landmark for US-China relations, and for the first time, President Trump publicly congratulated a Chinese leader after a National Congress, which has never been done in the past.

Another takeaway from Trump’s visit was his respect for China as a world power, he respected Xi Jingping, and not only did Trump put emphasis on the US-China bilateral relationship, but he also furthered the personal relationship as well.

In order to further bilateral trade relations, there must be a mutual understanding between the US and China, but at the same time, it is also important to understand the reasons behind the trade imbalance between Beijing and Washington. First, China does not have a policy to chase trade surpluses with the US or any country in the world, and it wants balanced trade relations with the global community.

Second, China wants to further trade with other countries through WTO rules and international norms, and thirdly, China and the United States need to understand that the mutual bilateral relationship benefits both countries through win-win compromise, and not by zero-sum standards. At the 19th National Congress, China made a decision to diversify the economy and create an openness with the outside world, while at the same time, continue to reform the economic structures of the Chinese economy. This will provide China with an opportunity to not only develop its own economy, but allow it to integrate the economy with the rest of the world that allows for both the U.S and China to explore areas of opportunity on issues like trade that can benefit both countries for future cooperation.

Before President Trump left for his Asia tour, there was some chatter about an Indo-Pacific alliance which included the United States, India, Australia, and Japan to contain Chinese influence in the South China Sea, but China does not see any problem with the United States cooperating with other players in the region so long as these relationships contribute to peace and stability in the region, and across the world.

In this regard, China has improved its relations with regional players like South Korea on the DPRK issue, the Philippines and Vietnam on the South China Sea issue, a slow improvement with Japan where there are still major trust issues between the two countries, and continuing to maintain a stable relationship with the United States.

The Asia-Pacific region is a community of countries that share cultural bonds, geopolitical interests, and trade with each other. In fact, most of the world’s trade goes through this region, and most of the world’s natural resources are found in the Asia-Pacific as well which is vital for not only the regional Asian nations, but for U.S interests like freedom of navigation, allowing for Asian countries to settle their own differences by themselves, creating a balance for regional order between the US and China, and maintaining the rule of law.

Nine months into the Trump presidency, North Korea remains high on the totem pole for this administration. Before his visit to Asia, Trump called out China as the key to maximizing pressure and engaging with the DPRK. But this is not just China’s problem, this Washington’s problem, Seoul’s problem, Moscow’s problem, and Tokyo’s problem too.

China alone cannot resolve the DPRK issue, although, a solution like a double freeze could run through Beijing. So far, China has succeeded on putting maximum pressure on Pyongyang by cutting coal exports to North Korea, abiding by UN Security Council resolutions, and agreeing to place more sanctions on the DPRK.

The US and China, along with Russia have also succeeded by working together on implementing the sanctions while at the same time maximizing pressure on the North Koreans to come to the negotiating table. If the Northeast Asian countries along with the United States can maximize pressure and engagement on the DPRK together, it will be a success. Unfortunately for the Clinton Administration, their time ran out on the North Korea negotiations, and when the second Bush came to the presidency, the progress with the DPRK came to an abrupt halt.

In order for the Trump Administration to avoid past mistakes, there needs to be a will from his cabinet members to support a direct negotiation with the DPRK and the other parties to resolve Korean peninsula tensions once and for all. Neither China or the U.S want to see instability as it threatens their national interests.

A broader issue in current US -China relations have been President Xi’s use of Socialism with Chinese characteristics and Trump’s motto of America First. Both leaders face different political situations where Xi Jingping is widely popular in China, and President Trump is not so widely popular with very low approval ratings. However, China does not see a vacuum being left over from US leadership, and it does not want to take advantage of US leadership. But instead, China sees an opportunity for more globalization, multilateralism, and engagement with the major economies of the world because China and the world face similar global challenges where there are opportunities for engagement on issues like counterterrorism, the environment, UN peacekeeping, and greater integration.

China is in the process of revitalizing the Chinese nation while the US, at least amongst Trump supporters, is embracing America first. Both Xi and Trump have focused on domestic agendas on rejuvenating their economies, and they want to create a better life for their peoples going forward. Hopefully, the friendly gestures between the two leaders can lead to further cooperation to achieve an ever-lasting peace on US-China relations.

RUDN University professor brought together disparate information about metal membrane suspended roofs, that allow designing buildings with large spans. These structures are used in the construction of sports complexes, airports and some other buildings. An op-ed article was published in Thin-Walled Structures.

“Metal membranes are used much less often than other types of suspended roofs (among which one can distinguish awning or mesh metal structures, sheaths of glued wood). It is interesting that Russia has an unconditional priority in this type of constructions: they were first used abroad only 35 years later in the US, when they were developed by architect Vladimir Shukhov for 4 pavilions at the All-Russia industrial and art exhibition in Nizhny Novgorod”, Head of the Department of Strength of Materials and Structures of RUDN University Sergey Krivoshapko said.

Metal membrane suspended roofs are spatial constructions of thin metal sheet, which is only a few millimeters thick, and rigid support contour. They can be compared with a soap pellicle formed after immersion of a wire ring into a diluted dishwashing liquid. Just like a bubble, which is blown out of the contour, a metal membrane can have different curvatures.

In fact, the shape of the design, more precisely, of its middle part, is determined by the geometry of the frame to which it is mounted and by the presence of weighting agents. Thanks to them, it is possible to create a membrane in the form of a paraboloid, cone or sphere. Spans with metal membrane roofing can reach hundreds of square meters. For example, the universal stadium at Mira Avenue measuring 224×183 m, which was the largest building of the 1980 Olympics, is roofed by a 5 mm thick sagging membrane.

The structure only seems to be fragile: the technology involves complex engineering calculations that take into account the climate, metal used for the construction, as well as load created both by the weight of the membrane itself and by falling snow. From a technical point of view, the advantage of metal membranes is that they allow to significantly reduce the weight of the structure, its cost (up to 60%) and material consumption (for steel up to 70%). Moreover, the structure itself implies combination of bearing and enclosing functions in one material.

“Design features of metal membrane suspended roofs determine their cost-effectiveness. Although nowadays almost all the problematic issues concerning the design, manufacturing, installation and operation of metal membranes are theoretically solved, few design bureaus and organizations are ready to take up work. The study of the preconditions for the appearance of functional solutions in construction, the history of development and the improvement of construction technologies will allow us to summarize the experiences accumulated over decades and issue a fundamentally new solution. Otherwise, architects and engineers will have to replicate what has already been achieved in construction and architecture”, Sergey Krivoshapko said.

The Festival Mediterranean Cities Art this year will be held for the second time in five cities (Mersin, Antakya, Adana, Antalya and Tarsus) in the Republic of Turkey for which the Chairman of the ASO Executive Committee (Mediterranean Art Creations) Ahmet Eroğlu stated at a recent press conference held in Mersin that the slogan of this year’s Festival is: “A different world is always possible”.

All activities in Mersin will be held in three locations: İçel Art Club, Cultural Center and Yenişehir Municipal Solemn Hall. With domestic poets and writers such as Sabahattin Yalkin, Ali. F. Bilir and others, almost up to forty authors from all around Turkey, the guests are poets and writers from Cyprus – Androulla Shati, Greece – Christos Koukis, as well as a Bosnian-Herzegovinian writer and professor from Sarajevo, Sabahudin Hadžialic, a distinguished poet and writer.

Together with the presentation of poetry published in Turkey a few years ago, and also of the English translation of the poetry within his latest poetry book, published in the United States on March 2017. in the book “Devil’s playground“, (Publisher Transcedent Zero Press, Editor Dustin Pickering), Sabahudin Hadžialic will also host the art-panel “The World as Global Sin: The Art for Communication”.

Assoc. Prof. Dr Sabahudin Hadžialić is a member of the Association of Writers of BiH, the Society of Croatian Writers of Herceg-Bosna, the Association of Serbian Writers and the Association of Montenegrin Writers, as well as the Association of Independent Intellectuals “Circle 99” and he is the only living author of the of the former Yugoslavia as the member of those associations, and not as a reflection of national identity, but merely as a writer who unifies the differences (advocating the multi-identity of these areas).

Hadžialić is one of the signatories of the Joint Language Declaration of 2017 within the area of former Yugoslavia on the territory of former Yugoslavia. He is the lecturer at the Faculty of Media and Communications at the International University of Travnik (I, II and III cycle), at the Faculty of Communication Sciences of the UNINETTUNO University (II cycle) in Rome, Italy and at the Kaunas Faculty, Vilnius University (II cycle) from Lithuania.

Source: DIOGEN pro Kultura Magazine

As President Trump is visiting Southeast Asia, another Republican is making the headlines in the US news media. He is Roy S. Moore, a 70-year old former Alabama state judge best known for being twice elected to and twice removed from the Alabama Supreme Court.

In 1992, he became a circuit court judge and hung his wooden Ten Commandments plaque in his courtroom. In 2000, he was elected chief justice of Alabama’s Supreme Court, and he soon installed a 5,280-pound granite Ten Commandments monument in the judicial building.

In 2003, he was dismissed from the bench for ignoring a federal court order to remove the monument, and became known nationally as “The Ten Commandments Judge.” Moore was again elected chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court in 2012, and was again dismissed for ignoring a judicial order, this time for instructing probate judges not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Moore is also the founder and president of the Foundation for Moral Law who as the Republican Senate nominee in Alabama is now trying to fill the senate seat Attorney General Jeff Sessions held until this year.

In recent days, Moore has been accused of sexual misconduct by Leigh Corfman who said that she was 14 years old when an older man approached her outside a courtroom in Etowah County, Ala. She was sitting on a wooden bench with her mother, they both recall, when the man introduced himself as Roy Moore. It was early 1979. He struck up a conversation, Corfman and her mother said to the ‘Washington Post’, and offered to watch the girl while her mother went inside for a child custody hearing.

Days later, Moore picked Leigh up around the corner from her house in Gadsden, drove her about 30 minutes to his home in the woods, told her how pretty she was and kissed her. On a second visit, he molested her. Aside from Ms. Corfman, three other women interviewed by The ‘Washington Post’ in recent weeks say Moore pursued them when they were between the ages of 16 and 18 and he was in his early 30s, episodes they say they found flattering at the time, but troubling as they got older. None of the three women say that Moore forced them into any sort of relationship or sexual contact. Gloria Thacker Deason said she was an 18-year-old cheerleader when Moore began taking her on dates that included bottles of Mateus Rosé wine. The legal drinking age in Alabama was 19.

Of the four women, the youngest at the time was Corfman, who is the only one who says she had sexual contact (but no intercourse) with Moore that went beyond kissing.

In a written statement, Moore denied the allegations. This Saturday, he tried to discredit the women who had accused him of sexual misconduct. “People have waited until four weeks prior to the general election to bring their complaints,” Mr. Moore, 70, said during a Veterans Day event in Vestavia Hills, Ala., near Birmingham. “That’s not a coincidence — it’s an intentional act to stop a campaign.”

Many of his party’s most powerful figures have been asking him to end a campaign that they worried would undermine their candidates nationwide.

Gov. Kay Ivey of Alabama, however, rebuffed calls that she postpones next month’s election, which could leave Republicans with a narrower majority in Washington. Moore also assured everyone that he is not quitting.

Last Thursday, Alabama State Auditor Jim Zeigler dismissed the ‘Washington Post’ report on the GOP Senate candidate Roy Moore saying there was an age gap between the biblical Joseph and Mary. “Take Joseph and Mary. Mary was a teenager and Joseph was an adult carpenter. They became parents of Jesus,” Alabama State Auditor Jim Zeigler told ‘The Washington Examiner’. “There’s just nothing immoral or illegal here. Maybe just a little bit unusual.”

In the Bible, Mary is the mother of Jesus, and Joseph became her husband. Beliefs about the specific story of Joseph and Mary and Jesus’s birth vary widely in Christian history and across traditions. Mary is referred to in scripture as a virgin, but there is disagreement about what that means. Generally, however, Christians believe that

Mary was a virgin when he was born. Joseph is usually referred to as Jesus’ “father” or a father figure.

The topic is addressed in the Gospel of Luke (1:26-38): “In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. And he came to her and said, ‘Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.’ But she was much perplexed by his words and pondered what sort of greeting this might be. The angel said to her, ‘Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David. He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.’ Mary said to the angel, ‘How can this be, since I am a virgin?’ The angel said to her, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore, the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God.’” [Note: the gospel writer Luke never met Jesus. He was a physician and companion of Paul of Tarsus, who did not meet Jesus during his earthly days, but later claimed to have seen him in vision on his way to Damascus.]

How old was Mary when she was betrothed to Joseph?

The Bible does not state Mary and Joseph’s specific ages, but she is usually understood to be either 12- or 13-years old girl when she married Joseph who was a very old man, probably in his late 80s or early 90s. (Editor’s Note: This is more of the Eastern view, which argues that Joseph was an elderly widower, however there are plenty of other sources that argue that Joseph was much younger, including of around the same age to that of around 30 to 40 years of age.)

De Robigne Mortimer Bennett says that the apocrypha books ‘History of Joseph the Carpenter’ (Historia Josephi Fabri Lignari) and ‘Infancy Gospel of James’ which were believed to be genuine by Early Evangelical Church, confirm that Mary was only 12 years old when betrothed to Joseph, the carpenter. Not just that, he also mentions when Joseph married Mary he was 90 years old. Bernard L. Fontana also mentions that Mary was 12 years old and Joseph 90 years old when married:

The very advanced age of Joseph, marrying Mary, was true and accepted by most early Church Fathers. Reverend Jeremiah Jones writes about 2 to 3 pages long that Infancy Protevangelion of James was accepted by Early Church Fathers as truthful account of Mary and Joseph’s marriage. If one reads the Infancy Gospel of James (Protevangelion of James), in Chapter 8 it says that Mary was married to Joseph when she was 12 years old.

Most early church fathers believed Mary was married off when she was 12 years old and Joseph the carpenter was a very old man. Here is the list of fathers who believed that Joseph was fourscore years old when he married 12-year-old Mary:

1. Epiphanius (310 – 403AD)

2. Hilary (Hilarius) of Poitiers (300 – 368AD)

3. John Chrysostom (Born between 344 and 349 – Died 407 AD)

4. Cyril of Alexandria (376 – 444 AD)

5. Saint Euthymius the Great (377 – 473 AD)

6. Theophylact of Ohrid (also known as Theophylact of Bulgaria) (1055 – 1107 AD)

7. Cecumenius

8. Eusebius (263 – 339 AD)

Now getting back to Judge Moore: Moore was 30 and single when he joined the district attorney’s office, his first government job after attending the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, serving in Vietnam, graduating from law school and working briefly as a lawyer in private practice in Gadsden, the county seat. By his account, chronicled in his book “So Help Me God,” Moore spent his time as a prosecutor convicting “murderers, rapists, thieves and drug pushers.” He writes that it was “around this time that I fashioned a plaque of The Ten Commandments on two redwood tablets.”

“I believed that many of the young criminals whom I had to prosecute would not have committed criminal acts if they had been taught these rules as children,” Moore writes.

In an email to supporters on Thursday, Moore told his supporters: “The forces of evil are on the march in our country. We are in the midst of a spiritual battle with those who want to silence our message.” He wrote in his email to supporters. “That’s why I must be able to count on the help of God-fearing conservatives like you to stand with me at this critical moment.”

On Friday, Moore’s brother Jerry was quoted by CNN correspondent Martin Savidge comparing the accused judge to Jesus. “When I asked what does he believe the motivation is with these women coming forward making the accusations they have, again, Jerry Moore says it’s money and the Democratic Party, implying that they are doing this because they’re being paid in some way, and it is for the purpose of derailing or interrupting this campaign,” Savidge said. Jerry Moore added “that his brother is being persecuted, in his own words, like Jesus Christ was.”

“Their goal is to frustrate and slow down our campaign’s progress to help the Obama-Clinton Machine silence our conservative message.”

It is worth mentioning here that Alabama is one of the most solidly evangelical states in the country. According to the Pew Research Center, 86 percent of Alabama residents identify as Christian, and 49 percent are evangelical. White evangelicals have become much more likely to say a person who commits an “immoral” act can behave ethically in a public role. In 2011, 30 percent of these evangelicals said this, but that shot up to 72 percent, according to a survey published last year by the Public Religion Research Institute.

Earlier this year, Judge Moore received high-profile endorsements from conservative leaders such as psychologist and radio host James Dobson, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins and National Organization for Marriage president Brian Brown.

Multiple evangelical leaders have slammed Alabama State Auditor Ziegler for comparing Judge Moore with Joseph the carpenter.

“Bringing Joseph and Mary into a modern-day molestation accusation, where a 32-year-old prosecutor is accused of molesting a 14-year-old girl, is simultaneously ridiculous and blasphemous,” said Ed Stetzer, a pastor and church consultant who holds the Billy Graham Chair of Church, Mission and Evangelism at Wheaton College. “Even those who followed ancient marriage customs, which we would not follow today, knew the difference between molesting and marriage.”

“Women were chattel back then, they were traded — of course they married men who were much older and had multiple wives,” said the Rev. Amy Butler, senior minister of the Riverside Church, a historical and prominent interdenominational church in New York City. “It’s completely ludicrous to equate the sex assault of a minor with an ancient culture. It’s ludicrous.?.?. It makes me want to rip the church back from these people.”

As I have maintained elsewhere viewing things of the distant past with today’s lens and social norms is very problematic, and often wrong. In pre-modern days (and for that we need not turn our clock back to the first century of C.E., even the early 20th century is sufficient), it was quite normal for females to get married quite early, soon after their first menstrual cycle. So, when Mary, the mother of Jesus, was betrothed to Joseph at that tender age of 12, it was kosher per both the norms of the period and the Jewish law.

On the other hand, what Judge Moore did, if the allegations against him are true, are simply immoral. It is called fornication outside marriage, a charge which cannot be lobbed against Joseph the carpenter. What he did, if the allegations are true, are also illegal by the laws of his own state since the legal age of consent in Alabama, then and now, is 16. Under Alabama law in 1979, and today, a person who is at least 19 years old who has sexual contact with someone older than 12 and younger than 15 has committed sexual abuse in the second degree. Sexual contact is defined as touching of sexual or intimate parts. The crime is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail.

The law then and now also includes a section on enticing a child younger than 16 to enter a home with the purpose of proposing sexual intercourse or fondling of sexual and genital parts. That is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

As I see it, what Ziegler tried to do in support of Moore is a false equivalence. He is wrong trying to equate the case of Moore with that of Joseph. And so is Jerry when he tries to equate his brother’s troubles with those of Jesus. They ain’t the same!

It would, however, be wrong to single out Judge Moore for seemingly using his authority or power to make sexual advances on others. The current list is too long with such sex offenders who believe that they have the right to use their status to molest others. We truly have a pervasive culture of sexual misconduct and harassment. And the sad story is we live in a time when such abuses have become the new normal and are brushed off as unimportant things by our voters in the USA. The American voters chose Donald Trump, and Alabamans may do the same for Moore, unless he decides to withdraw from the senatorial election voluntarily. This voter apathy speaks volumes about the moral bankruptcy of America!

Can a nation lead others when it has lost its own moral compass?

Hezbollah’s domination of Lebanon at the behest of Iran is the cause of the country’s political crisis and his own resignation as prime minister, Saad Hariri said in a dramatic and emotional TV interview on Sunday night.

“I am not against Hezbollah as a political party but it should not be the cause of the destruction of Lebanon,” Hariri said.

He also said he would return to Lebanon “very soon,” and may even withdraw his resignation if Hezbollah respected Lebanon’s policy of staying out of regional conflicts.

Hariri quit on Nov. 4 in Riyadh, because of Iran’s influence in Lebanon, and said he feared for his life. In his interview with Future TV, he said the decision was his alone, and that the aim was to cause “a positive shock” that would draw Lebanon’s attention to the dangers it was facing.

King Salman of Saudi Arabia treated him as his own son, Hariri said, and he had the greatest respect for Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. In the TV interview, broadcast from Riyadh, he said the stability of Lebanon was important for both the king and the crown prince. Saudi Arabia more than any other country had helped Lebanon after the 2006 war with Israel, he said.

“Lebanon is a small country and it needs to be nonaligned, and Saudi Arabia always demands the best for Lebanon and stresses the importance of distancing itself. What would happen to 400,000 Lebanese in the Gulf if we join an axis?” he said.

“Iran must stop meddling in the affairs of Arab countries and we refuse to be taken by Iran to an axis against Arab countries. I will not be drawn to building relations with the Syrian regime, which does not want me. Things have to be straightened out to keep Lebanon away from regional conflicts.”

Hariri admitted that he had lost popularity with the Lebanese people when he agreed to a political settlement for a consensus government with Hezbollah ministers, “but the others did not live up to their commitment. I can’t be the only one making concessions while the others do whatever they want.”

Hariri said he had visited the UAE last week to explain to Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al-Nahyan, crown prince of Abu Dhabi, his position and the need to protect Lebanon.

He described their meeting as “brotherly and positive.’’

He also denied that he had any connection with the anti-corruption investigation launched in Saudi Arabia last week.

“I wish we could fight corruption in Lebanon like Saudi Arabia is doing, but fighting corruption in Saudi Arabia is an internal affair that we have nothing to do with. I have not been subjected to any questioning in the context of the campaign in Saudi Arabia.”
Hariri said his fears of being assassinated, as his father Rafiq Hariri was, were genuine, but that he was still free to return to Lebanon. “I am free to travel tomorrow if I want to. I will be back in Lebanon in a few days.

“I don’t care about my life — what matters to me is that Lebanon stays safe.”

By Anthony Harris*

It is a source of wry amusement to me when European friends say with a straight face that if Britain voted to leave the EU, then there must be good reasons. The argument goes that the British have traditionally been such a practical, rational, level-headed people that they would certainly not take such a step without knowing exactly what they were doing. Maybe my European friends are now beginning to wonder what is going on.

I have also heard Europeans say: “Imagine! The British voted in June last year to leave the largest and most successful free-trade area in the world, which, with a $2 trillion economy, is twice the size of China, which speaks English more or less all over and plays the game according to the rules that the British Conservative government laid down in the mid-1980s, and yet they want to quit in the name of free trade and in order to be great players on the global stage,” to quote the British foreign secretary. There has to be a really good reason for this Conservative government to want to do that, even if we cannot see it just at this moment!

Last Friday marked the end of the sixth round of talks between Britain and the EU about the Brexit divorce, or how Britain will leave the EU, and what comes next. Little progress was made, and the Europeans, who have a number of other matters to worry them, are becoming increasingly frustrated and puzzled. What do the British actually want from these talks? Why are the talks dragging on with so little progress being made? Europe has plenty of issues on its plate, many of them more important than Brexit, although the British, obsessed as they are with this topic, seem not to realize this.

The failure of the two sides to agree on the basic principles of the divorce is beginning to get serious. We are more than half-way through the exit process. The referendum in which the British people voted to leave was in June 2016, and the British government triggered the exit negotiations, which under European law have a two-year duration, this March. The government has introduced a law in Parliament which states that Britain will leave the EU at 11pm on March 29, 2019. This must now be debated.

The EU side pointed out, as the latest round of talks failed to reach any conclusions, that there will have to be agreement on three key issues within two weeks. The British side spoke of the need to “move together to seek solutions,” and this after nearly nine months of talks. The three issues how much Britain must pay if it is to break all institutional links with the EU — the so-called divorce bill; the rights of EU citizens currently living in Britain and British citizens in the EU; and the Irish border question.

The last point is one of huge sensitivity, since an open border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, which will remain in the EU, was a key part of the Good Friday Peace Agreement. Yet a key reason for the Brexit vote was a desire to “take back control of our borders,” and not have an open border with another EU member. This point alone is of such complexity that it could cause the whole negotiations between Britain and the EU to collapse.

The reason some solutions have to be found within two weeks is that the next European Council Summit takes place on Dec. 14-15, and any agreements would have to be presented to the 27 EU member governments by then, so that the council can approve them and agree that the talks move to discussing the future relationship between the UK and the EU. Once we enter 2018, little more than a year remains before Britain leaves.

There is, however, another practical deadline looming, more important in a way than the progress of the talks. Most major companies in the UK, and particularly the international ones based in London, have been telling the government that if they are not told by the end of this year what the future will hold, in terms of the free-trade area and the application of EU rules to British trade (which most of them want to maintain), they will make plans to establish bases in Europe and cut recruitment of staff in the UK.

The Confederation of British Industry, which represents 190,000 member companies, reports that over 60 percent of their members are making contingency plans to move part of their operations to Europe if there is no clarity over Britain’s future trade relations with Europe. In short, they are saying that a point of no return will be reached early next year if clear transitional arrangements have not been agreed. The future of London as the financial capital of Europe hangs in the balance.

Clearly, British businesses will be voting with their feet and moving offices to Europe, as some already have done, since they will not be able to work in the atmosphere of uncertainty that Brexit is now causing. Many major banks have announced that they are planning to move staff to Europe, with Frankfurt the leading candidate; 13,000 jobs have already moved across the English Channel. These are tense days, and this will not be a joyous Christmas in the City of London.

• Anthony Harris is former British ambassador to the UAE and career diplomat in the Middle East. He can be reached at harrisaddubai@gmail.com

(RFE/RL) — A devastating earthquake near the Iran-Iraq border has killed at least 100 people and injured hundreds of others, Iranian media report, with the temblor being felt as far away as Turkey and Kuwait.

Casualty figures vary for the 7.3-magnitude quake that hit late on November 12. Officials have confirmed 61 peple dead and 300 injured, but major Iranian state media outlets say at least 100 have been killed and 1,000 injured.

The U.S. Geological Survey said the quake was centered 19 miles (32 kilometers) southwest of the city of Halabja in northeastern Iraq at a depth of 33.9 kilometers (21 miles).

Tehran University’s seismological center said the temblor hit at 9:48 p.m. local time (1818 GMT).

Iran’s official IRNA news agency quoted officials as saying at least 61 people had been killed and 300 injured, but they warned that the casualty toll was expected to rise.

It was not immediately clear if the casualty numbers reported by Iranian sources included figures from the Iraqi side of the border as well. News agencies reported several dead and dozens injured in Iraq, mostly in Kurdistan, although no official figures have been released.

Officials said the Iranian border town of Ghasre Shirin was heavily damaged, with rescue workers reporting that their efforts were being made difficult because of power outages.

The regional governor’s office said helicopters and sniffer dogs were in place but could only start operations at first light on November 13.

Mojtaba Nikkerdar, the provincial deputy governor in Iran’s western Kermanshah Province, told state television there were deaths in at least 30 separate villages, but he said it would take hours before exact casualty numbers could be determined.

The semiofficial Iranian ILNA news agency reported that at least 14 provinces had been affected by the earthquake.

“The quake was felt in several Iranian provinces bordering Iraq…Eight villages were damaged…Electricity has been cut in some villages and rescue teams have been dispatched to those areas,” state TV reported.

IRNA said water and electricity had been cut in some parts of Kermanshah Province.

News agency reported that Iranian President Hassan Rohani called on the Interior Ministry to make a maximum effort to aid victims.

Iraqi news agencies showed photos of crumbled buildings in around the city of Sulaimaniya in Kurdistan, saying at least 50 people had been injured in Darbandikhan town.

The quake was also felt in the Iranian capital of Tehran and in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad.

Residents of southwest Turkey, Israel, and Kuwait also said they had felt the temblor.

Iran is on many major fault lines and is often hit by damaging earthquakes. In 2003, a 6.6-magnitude quake destroyed the historic city of Bam, killing 26,000 people.

Cambodia’s Prime Minister Hun Sen on Friday dismissed threats of sanctions by U.S. Senator Ted Cruz over the jailing of opposition leader Kem Sokha on charges of treason, saying American laws cannot be applied to his country and rejecting the need for international recognition of elections set for 2018.

In a letter to Cambodia’s Ambassador to the U.S. Chum Bun Rong dated Oct. 23, Cruz had expressed “deep concern” regarding the Sept. 3 arrest of opposition Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP) President Kem Sokha for allegedly collaborating with Washington to overthrow the ruling Cambodian People’s Party (CPP), calling it an “attempt to undermine the Cambodian people’s faith in their democratic process.”

Cruz said at the time that if Hun Sen did not release Kem Sokha by Nov. 9—the voter registration deadline for Cambodia’s July 2018 general elections—it would be “impossible for any impartial observer or nation to certify that elections in your country have been free and fair” and he would push for sanctions banning Cambodian government officials from travelling to the U.S.

On Friday, Hun Sen dismissed the Texas lawmaker’s threats as interference in Cambodia’s sovereign affairs, saying “there is no such thing as international standards when it comes to politics” and that there is no need for “outsiders” to legitimize the outcome of elections in his country.

“Each country must resort to its own version of standards based on the reality on the ground,” he said, speaking to a group of Cambodian and Japanese exchange students during his meeting with delegates of the 2017 Ship for Southeast Asian and Japanese Youth Program at the Peace Palace in Cambodia’s capital Phnom Penh.

“We cannot copy a foreign standard to apply in a Cambodian context. Cambodia is a constitutional monarchy with an elected parliamentary form of government.”

Hun Sen echoed an earlier statement by Chum Bun Rong in response to Cruz’s letter, saying Kem Sokha had been arrested in accordance with Cambodia’s Criminal Code and suggesting his actions would evoke a similar response under U.S. law, pointing to the example of Paul Manafort—the former campaign manager of U.S. President Donald Trump who was indicted last month on conspiracy charges related to money laundering.

“An arrest has just been made in the U.S. for a person who is accused of treason—he was the campaign manager of U.S. President Donald Trump,” he said.

“We can also do that, because we need to apply our own laws too.”

The evidence presented against Kem Sokha so far is a video recorded in 2013 in which he discusses a strategy to win power at the ballot box with the help of U.S. experts, though the U.S. embassy has rejected any suggestion that Washington is interfering in Cambodian politics. Cambodia’s Supreme Court plans to rule on whether to dissolve the CNRP for its alleged involvement in the “conspiracy” on Nov. 16.

Hun Sen’s government has faced widespread condemnation in recent months over its actions against the opposition party, as well as for orchestrating the closure of independent media outlets and cracking down on nongovernmental organizations.

But the prime minister said his country is “still committed” to a policy of “liberal, multi-party democracy,” and vowed that next year’s elections would go on, with or without international backing.

“You have threatened us that you will not recognize the next national election, but it isn’t important if that election is or is not recognized by an outsider,” he said.

“Most importantly, it is enough for the legitimacy of the government as long as the election is recognized by our Cambodian people. It has never been necessary to beg foreign countries to recognize any of our elections. We don’t need such support.”

US support

On Friday, Kem Sokha’s daughter Kem Monovithya told RFA’s Khmer Service during an interview in Washington that she had received significant support from U.S. lawmakers for her campaign to bring pressure on Hun Sen to release her father, end his persecution of the opposition, and lift restrictions on the media and NGOs.

“As a result, a draft bill from the Senate Financial Committee is in the pipeline and slated to be adopted by the end of the year … [that] includes visa bans on specific government officials who are involved in the violation of human rights and democracy in Cambodia [to prevent them] from traveling to the US,” she said.

U.S. Senators John McCain and Dick Durbin have also drafted a resolution in support of the bill urging the U.S. State Department and Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) under the Treasury Department to consider placing all senior Cambodian officials on a list of Specially Designated Nationals (SDN), she said, blocking their assets and preventing U.S. nationals from doing business with them.

“These sanctions are significant to impact the top brass of the ruling elites—they will frustrate them from their travel and business transactions with the U.S. and allies,” Kem Monovithya said.

“To sum up, the bill and resolution, which I believe will be passed 100 percent, have one thing in common: a demand for free and fair elections.”

While Hun Sen is “pretending he isn’t under pressure,” Kem Monovithya expressed confidence the measures would force him to reconsider his strategy.

“The government officials who are listed in the SDN will be affected—they will be concerned,” she said.

“[Additionally] Cambodia cannot stand alone without international assistance. Cambodia’s economic growth is contributed to foreign support.”

She noted that Hun Sen has expressed hope that Cambodia can become a member of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), whose heads of government—including those from the U.S., China, Japan, Russia, Canada, Australia, and Mexico—are currently meeting in Da Nang, Vietnam.

“That shows his reliance on international recognition and status,” she said of the prime minister, who traveled to Vietnam later on Friday to attend an informal dialogue between APEC leaders and heads of state from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)—of which Cambodia is a member.

She said she had also enlisted the support of officials from the United Nations and European Union, who agreed to bring up Cambodia’s political situation during the ASEAN summit.

Call to defect

In the meantime, Kem Monovithya said, Hun Sen is “buying time” and attempting to “cajole and buy CNRP members to defect” to the CPP ahead of next year’s elections, threatening them with the loss of their jobs in the event that their own party is dissolved.

“[But] very few CNRP members have taken his bait,” she said, because “the CNRP is still strong.”

“Our supporters and members who serve the national interest do not sell their wisdom … Simply put, Hun Sen’s attempts to fool CNRP members into defecting to the ruling party have failed.”

Last week, Hun Sen called for members of the CNRP to leave and join the CPP in a video clip posted on his Facebook page, and opposition officials told RFA they had been invited to attend a viewing by local authorities, but refused.

“Hun Sen does not want a free and fair election—he is certain that if such an election is held he will lose it,” Kem Monovithya said.

“Shamelessly he has resorted to all means of political repression … to weaken and if possible dissolve the CNRP,” she added.

“He is buying time so that he can continue to demoralize the opposition party members, who he hopes will buy what he is selling, but time is running out for him because our members and supporters are strong and determined.”

Reported by RFA’s Khmer Service. Translated by Nareth Muong. Written in English by Joshua Lipes.

Risk of blood clots increases with the amount of time spent watching television, even if people get the recommended amount of physical activity, according to preliminary research presented at the American Heart Association’s Scientific Sessions 2017, a premier global exchange of the latest advances in cardiovascular science for researchers and clinicians.

“Watching TV itself isn’t likely bad, but we tend to snack and sit still for prolonged periods while watching,” said Mary Cushman, M.D., M.Sc., co-author of the study and professor of medicine at the Larner College of Medicine at the University of Vermont in Burlington.

Prolonged TV viewing has already been associated with heart disease involving blocked arteries, but this is the first study in a western population to look at blood clots in veins of the legs, arms, pelvis and lungs known as venous thromboembolism or VTE.

Among 15,158 middle-aged (45-64 years) participants in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study, researchers found that the risk of developing a venous thromboembolism for the first time was:

• 1.7 times higher in those who reported they watch TV “very often” compared with those who watch TV “never or seldom”;
• 1.8 times higher in participants who met recommended guidelines for physical activity and reported watching TV “very often”, compared with those who reported watching TV “never or seldom”;
• Increased with more TV viewing both for life-threatening clots in the extremities and those in the lungs; and while obesity was more common in people who watched more TV, in the study only about 25 percent of the increased risk could be explained by the presence of obesity.

“Think about how you can make the best use of your time to live a fuller and healthier life. You could put a treadmill or stationary bike in front of your TV and move while watching. Or you can delay watching TV by 30 minutes while you take a walk. If you must see your favorite show, tape it while you are out walking so you can watch it later, skipping the ads,” said Cushman, who is also the director of the Thrombosis and Hemostasis Program at the University of Vermont Medical Center.

Each year, it is estimated that between 300,000 to 600,000 people in the U.S. develop venous thromboembolism, making it the most common vascular diagnosis after a heart attack or stroke. Although venous thromboembolism is more common in people 60 and older, it can occur at any age.

Besides avoiding prolonged TV watching, you can lower your risk of venous thromboembolism by maintaining a healthy weight and staying physically active.

“Health professionals should take the time to ask patients about their fitness and sedentary time, such as prolonged sitting watching TV or at a computer,” Cushman said. “If you are at heightened risk of venous thromboembolism due to a recent operation, pregnancy or recent delivery, cancer or a previous clot, your doctor may prescribe blood-thinning medication or advise you to wear compression stockings.”

Until recently, it was assumed that the ink used for writing was primarily carbon-based at least until the fourth and fifth centuries AD. But in a new University of Copenhagen study, analyses of 2,000-year-old papyri fragments with X-ray microscopy show that black ink used by Egyptian scribes also contained copper – an element previously not identified in ancient ink.

In a study published today in Scientific Reports, a cross-disciplinary team of researchers show that Egyptians used carbon inks that contained copper, which has not been identified in ancient ink before. Although the analysed papyri fragments were written over a period of 300 years and from different geographical regions, the results did not vary significantly:

“The composition of the copper-containing carbon inks showed no significant differences that could be related to time periods or geographical locations, which suggests that the ancient Egyptians used the same technology for ink production throughout Egypt from roughly 200 BC to 100 AD,” says Egyptologist and first author of the study Thomas Christiansen from the University of Copenhagen.

The papyri fragments were investigated with advanced synchrotron radiation based X-ray microscopy equipment at the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility in Grenoble as part of the cross-disciplinary CoNext project, and the particles found in the inks indicate that they were by-products of the extraction of copper from sulphurous ores.

No unique ink signature

The studied papyri fragments all form part of larger manuscripts belonging to the Papyrus Carlsberg Collection at the University of Copenhagen, more specifically from two primary sources: the private papers of an Egyptian soldier named Horus, who was stationed at a military camp in Pathyris, and from the Tebtunis temple library, which is the only surviving large-scale institutional library from ancient Egypt.

“None of the four inks studied here was completely identical, and there can even be variations within a single papyrus fragment, suggesting that the composition of ink produced at the same location could vary a great deal. This makes it impossible to produce maps of ink signatures that otherwise could have been used to date and place papyri fragments of uncertain provenance,” explains Thomas Christiansen but adds:

“However, as many papyri have been handed down to us as fragments, the observation that ink used on individual manuscripts can differ from other manuscripts from the same source is good news insofar as it might facilitate the identification of fragments belonging to specific manuscripts or sections thereof.”

According to the researchers, their results will also be useful for conservation purposes as detailed knowledge of the material’s composition could help museums and collections make the right decisions regarding conservation and storage of papyri, thus ensuring their preservation and longevity.

Researchers from the University of Granada (UGR), in collaboration with the School for Special Education San Rafael (Hospitaller Order of Saint John of God, Granada, Spain) have proven, by means of an objective evaluation using electrophysiological measurements, that blue lighting accelerates the relaxation process after acute psychosocial stress in comparison with conventional white lighting.

Said stress is a kind of short-term stress (acute stress) that occurs during social or interpersonal relationships, for example while arguing with a friend or when someone pressures you to finish a certain task as soon as possible.

The researchers, which belong to the BCI Lab (Brain-Computer Interface Lab) at the University of Granada, note that psychosocial stress produces some physiological responses that can be measured by means of bio-signals. That stress is very common and negatively affects people’s health and quality of life.

For their work, whose results have been published in the PlosOne journal, the researchers made twelve volunteers to be stressed and then perform a relaxation session within the multisensory stimulation room at the School for Special Education San Rafael.

In said room the participants lied down with no stimulus but a blue (group 1) or white (group 2) lighting. Diverse bio-signals, such as heart rate and brain activity, were measured throughout the whole session (by means of an electrocardiogram and an electroencephalogram, respectively).

The results showed that blue lighting accelerates the relaxation process, in comparison with conventional white lighting.

By Song Jieja*

In recent years, the Chinese communist government has not only been suppressing religions, but has also increasing manipulation of them to serve its political aim of “Unity of Religion and State.”

Of course, its purpose is not to show how open its religious policy is, but to hijack religions to serve a political agenda of legitimatizing, embellishing and varnishing its regime. In other words, the Chinese government wants religions to become their accomplices.

In Tibet, there has been a trend to turn monasteries and Buddhist academies into “Party schools.” Some researchers believe the situation will become more severe after last month’s 19th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party of China.

After an enforced demolition and eviction, the Serthar Buddhist Institute was divided into Serthar Wuming Buddhist College and Larong Monastery. Students were evicted from the world’s largest Tibetan Buddhist school. The committee organization department of Ganzi County also issued a public notice on Aug. 20 regarding the appointment of key officials. They were Serthar Wuming Buddhist College’s party secretary, principal, deputy party secretary, deputy principal as well as Larong Monastery Managing Committee’s party secretary, director and deputy director.

All are members of the Chinese Communist Party.

The Chinese government is currently applying the same policy to the Asian Youth Buddhist Academy, located not far from Serthar Buddist Institute, by demolishing its premises and evicting its students.

Many Tibetans believe the Chinese government will use the Sethar Institute “model” on the Asian Youth Buddhist Academy as well. They also worry the policy will be implemented at all monasteries and Buddhist academies across Tibet.

In recent years, the Chinese government has been expanding its party organizations to control all fields, including Tibetan monasteries, Buddhist academies and even foreign companies in China.

The activities of the Communist Party as well as the daily life of monasteries and Buddhist academies are two entirely different things.

According to the Chinese government, the Party committee in an agency has the highest authority. Therefore, the Party committee established in a monastery or a Buddhist academy would mean it takes full control of the monastery.

Monks and students would not be allowed to share control, even if it relates to the education system and daily religious activities. This would have a serious impact on the learning, study and spiritual practice of Tibetan Buddhism.

No other religion would accept a communist organization being established in their convents, mosques or seminaries. It would be the greatest act of disrespect and tarnish their faith.

This is especially so, given that many religious leaders, clergy and followers from different faiths were murdered by the Chinese Communist Party in the past.

Such historical trauma has not been healed, and now the Chinese government is once again rubbing salt into the wounds of believers. It is a situation that is absolutely unacceptable to Tibetan Buddhists and all religious believers.

Now the Chinese government has announced the newly-amended “Regulations on Religious Affairs” which will be implemented on Feb. 1 next year. It marks the further hijacking of religions by the Chinese government after the Party’s 19th Congress.

The clergy and religious academics have strongly voiced their criticism about the regulations, but the harsh religious policy has already been implemented in Tibet for a long time.

In addition to the “Regulations on the Administration of Sites for Religious Activities” released by the State Council on Jan. 31, 1994 and “Regulations on Religious Affairs” implemented on Mar. 1, 2005, the Chinese government also issued specific regulations for Tibetan Buddhism.

For example, so-called “Rules Governing the Reincarnation of Tibetan Living Buddhas” were implemented on Sept. 1, 2007 and “Measures for the Administration of Tibetan Buddhism Temples” were implemented on Nov. 1, 2010.

These regulations strictly control clerics and the temples of Tibetan Buddhists.

Simultaneously, the government set up public security stations and management committees for monasteries. Government officials are stationed at monasteries to restrict cleric’s freedom of movement, preaching, practices and the study of Buddhism.

Therefore, implementation of the new regulations will worsen the situation for Tibetan Buddhists.

Tibetans believe, the integration of these so-called core values of socialism into religion reveals the Chinese Communist Party’s attempts to legitimize its rule and control people and organizations at all levels of society.

But is religion still religion if it is under the Communist Party’s total control?

“No matter what kind of religion you believe in, there is only one norm: they must obey the command of the Party and acknowledge the Communist Party’s superior position over all churches,” one Chinese blogger recently wrote.

“If you believe Christianity, the Communist Party is the God of your God; if you believe in Buddhism, the Communist Party is Buddha of your Buddha; for Muslims, the communist party is Allah of your Allah; for the living Buddha, only the Communist Party can approve who will be the living Buddha,” the blogger continued.

“The Party wants you to say what she wants you to say; do what she wants you to do. Believers of different religions should uphold their faith to follow the Party’s will. If you are not doing so, you will be suppressed by the dictatorship.”

*Song Jieja is a Tibetan writer, commentator and former Chinese spokesman of the exiled Tibetan government. He is currently studying in Spain.

By Nosratollah Tajik

As things increasingly heat up in the Middle East in post-ISIL era, it appears the anti-Iran and anti-Shia alliance of convenience between the Saudis and Israelis appears to have placed Lebanon in the cross hairs of yet another looming proxy or Israeli-Hezbollah war. And the war in Yemen will also continue to escalate – perhaps now with increasingly overt Israeli political support.

Barak Ravid, senior diplomatic correspondent for Israeli Channel 10 News published a leaked diplomatic cable and also twitted yesterday which had been sent to all Israeli ambassadors throughout the world concerning the chaotic events that unfolded over the weekend in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia, which began with Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri’s unexpected resignation after he was summoned to Riyadh by his Saudi-backers, and led to the Saudis announcing that Lebanon had “declared war” against the kingdom.

The classified embassy cable, written in Hebrew, constitutes the first formal evidence proving that the Saudis and Israelis are deliberately coordinating to escalate the situation in the Middle East and reveals, on Sunday, just after Lebanese PM Hariri’s shocking resignation, Israel sent a cable to all of its embassies with the request that its diplomats “do everything possible to ramp up diplomatic pressure against Hezbollah and Iran”.

It also stressed that “Iran was engaged in “regional subversion” urged support for Saudi Arabia’s war against Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen” and Israeli diplomats were urged to appeal to the “highest officials” within their host countries to attempt to expel Hezbollah from Lebanese government and politics. They were also in a very rare move, instructed to demarche their host governments over the domestic political situation in Lebanon and instructed them “You need to stress that the Hariri resignation shows how dangerous Iran and Hezbollah are for Lebanon’s security.”

Although surprising resignation of Al-Hariri is still in vague position, but cable asked Hariri resignation and his comments on the reasons that led him to resign “illustrate once again the destructive nature of Iran and Hezbollah and their danger to the stability of Lebanon and the countries of the region. Al-Hariri’s resignation proves that the international argument that Hezbollah’s inclusion in the government is a recipe for stability is basically wrong.

This artificial unity creates paralysis and the inability of local sovereign powers to make decisions that serve their national interest. It effectively turns them into hostages under physical threat and are forced to promote the interests of a foreign power – Iran – even if this may endanger the security of their country. The events in Lebanon and the launching of a ballistic missile by the signatories to the Riyadh agreement require increased pressure on Iran and Hezbollah on a range of issues from the production of ballistic missiles to regional subversion.”

While Hariri’s resignation in Saudi reflects the extent of interference of Saudi Arabia in domestic situation of Lebanon and destiny of regional countries. It is really very clear that as one of the U.S. allies in the region, over the past six years, Saudi Arabia has been striving to save itself from Arab Spring breeze by providing necessary conditions for waging proxy war in Syria and Iraq and fomenting extremist and development of violence in the region. Although it did not succeed in this way, but proves and confirms Saudi’s direct involvement in disrupting the region by ISIS.

*These views represent those of the author and are not necessarily Iran Review’s viewpoints.

By Ayo Awokoya

It is a humanitarian crisis that the world forgot. The UN peacekeeping force (MINUSCA) stationed in the Central African Republic has been botched.  Renewed violence between warring local militias has swept across the landlocked country and peacekeepers have failed to protect those they swore to defend. Reports have emerged detailing UN peacekeepers’ inability to protect civilians, repel attacks instigated by local militant groups, and help maintain the ceasefire that was established in June. The perceived failures of the UN-backed mission are heightened further amid 31 allegations of sexual abuse and exploitation against UN civilian staff and peacekeepers. As with the Democratic Republic of Congo, the UN’s inability to respond to acts of militant violence and due negligence has helped fuel the devastation wrought upon Central Africans. The scale and ferocity of the attacks have escalated to such an extent that monitors have warned that the country is on the brink of genocide.

Newly appointed UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres has attempted to respond to criticism levelled at the UN’s perceived incompetence by visiting the war-torn nation in the hopes of garnering support from the international community. Unfortunately it’ll take more than a state visit to enlist the aid of the outside world. The MINUSCA mission is up for renewal on Nov. 15 and with the Trump’s administration bid to cut peacekeeping budgets, the country’s citizens may find themselves bereft of any protection, even when they needed protection from some of the peacekeepers themselves.   

The Genesis of the Crisis in CAR  

The Central African Republic, a nation that has never seen a long period of stability since its independence from France, has been mired in new outburst of religious and political violence since 2013. The conflict began when former Christian president Francois Bozize was ousted by a group of Muslim militants known as the Seleka, who claimed that the Bozize regime had marginalized the northern region of the country and violated previous peace agreements established in 2007 and 2011. Michel Djotodia was installed as president and in the aftermath the Seleka wrought havoc. Villages were burned down and thousands of Christians slaughtered. In response, a localized Christian militia, the anti-balaka, was formed but soon the movement moved beyond acts of self-defense and began targeting Muslim communities.  These events plunged the country into civil war and in the ensuing chaos a 12,000-strong UN peacekeeping force was deployed in 2014.

Though many have characterized the crisis as a religious conflict, it is primarily political. In 2003, Francois Bozize came to power through a violent coup and had the backing of neighboring Chad and former colonial power France. After Bozize’s power was legitimized through an electoral process, dissention in the northern region of CAR began to fester, initiating a long power struggle between Bozize, who had a monopoly over the capital Bangui, and armed groups stationed around the country. The political battle eventually gave birth to the existence of the Seleka.

Since the civil war, CAR has seen the removal and appointment of three heads of state, with the latest being president Faustin-Archange Touadera, who was elected in the country’s first national elections in March 2016. Though the election result was received with warm optimism, the renewed violence and increase of hostilities have now dimmed such hopes.  Deemed to be the world’s poorest country despite its abundance of copper, gold, diamond and possibly oil, the continued unrest has destroyed the country’s infrastructure and crippled the state apparatus. Reports have documented that attacks are escalating against civilian and humanitarian workers.  In addition, more than 14 militant groups control the territory outside of the capital and their rivalries have intensified over the control of the country’s natural resources.

Conditions Fueling the Violence

The situation on the ground will most likely continue to deteriorate given recent events. The growing distrust Central Africans hold towards UN peacekeepers may lead militias to believe they can enjoy impunity as previous instances have seen UN peacekeepers slowly respond to calls for military assistance. In June, peacekeepers arrived a day after a call for help was signaled by civilians in the city of Alindao, where at least 130 were killed. The proliferation of small arms will continue to circulate across the country, increasing the flow of violence as civilians utilize weaponry for protection. As a consequence, an increasing exodus of refugees will attempt to flee to neighboring countries, destabilizing the region. This is where neighboring powers such as Chad and Sudan will come in. Fearing the risk that a huge exodus of refugees will bring, Chad will most likely limit the number of Central Africans fleeing into the country and may try to help the interim government contain the violence by providing military assistance.

The MUNISC missions is widely expected to be renewed; however, recent allegations of sexual abuse and U.S reluctance to continually fund peacekeeping missions will hamper efforts to  request more UN troops on the ground. Mr Guterres, who probably kept these factors in mind, requested the Security Council add an additional 900 security personnel to the peacekeeping force, but even then the request falls short of what is required to quell the level of unrest. The most intense fighting is taking place in localized areas, far removed from where UN peacekeeping troops are stationed, and there is a danger of stretching forces too thin to accommodate the scale of the violence. Furthermore, additional troops won’t account or rectify the conduct of peacekeepers who continue to exploit Central Africans for money or sexual favors and enjoy impunity. These recent incidents have instilled a sense of deep mistrust amongst Central Africans who look to peacekeepers for protection. Should certain steps to address the behavior of UN personnel not be taken, the UN will only be engendering more instances of violence as more civilians will attempt to seek refuge elsewhere and will probably be caught up in the clashes.

Intervening foreign powers also need to consider that the crisis in CAR is not solely contained within the country itself as the borders are porous. The Central African region has experienced a flux of rebel movements, with Islamic militants from Mali traversing to northern Darfur and sightings of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) in CAR, South Sudan, and the DRC. The lack of border controls will be highly problematic given the UN’s limited mobility, most likely security and policing will be lax, allowing non-state actors to infiltrate CAR and access the country’s resources to fund their own militant exploits. The allure of the country’s resources will not be the only factor as the possibility of creating new alliances with local groups will be an appealing prospect. Thus, the conflict will probably experience an increase in the number of militant groups operating in the country. This may also lead to instances of greater rivalry over the finite resources that exist in CAR.

Looking to the Future

In an attempt to create calm, France and the UN will try to mediate between the provisional government and armed groups, calling for a cessation of hostilities on both sides. However, such a declaration will prove fruitless as in previous years; negotiations are likely to break down unless the conflict’s underlying causes are resolved.

This article was published at Geopolitical Monitor.com

Long-standing Saudi efforts to dominate the pan-Arab media landscape appear to have moved into high gear with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s purge that targeted members of the ruling Al Saud family as well as prominent businessmen, including at least two media moguls. The purge could also signal an escalation of the Saudi-Qatari media war.

Among those detained was Waleed al-Ibrahim, a founder of Middle East Broadcasting Company (MBC) that operates the Al Arabiya television network, established to counter Qatar’s state-owned Al Jazeera, and Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, whose Rotana Group has partnered with media baron Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp.

Saudi Arabia’s quest for media dominance dates back to the founding of MBC in 1991 as well as two pan-Arab newspapers, As Sharq Al Awsat and Al Hayat. Qatar not only challenged Saudi dominance with the creation of Al Jazeera in 1996, but also revolutionized the region’s media landscape with its freewheeling, often highly opinionated reporting and programming.

Al Jazeera’s success was one reason why a UAE-Saudi alliance that in June declared a diplomatic and economic boycott of the Gulf state included the shuttering of the network among its core demands. Al Jazeera English that in contrast to Al Jazeera Arabic largely adheres to standards of independent reporting, stands out in a tightly state-controlled media landscape in which many outlets have lost a degree of credibility by projecting themselves as partisans in a media war rather than purveyors of the truth.

The detentions of Mr. Al-Ibrahim, a brother-in-law of late King Fahd, and Prince Alwaleed, a nephew of King Salman, have sparked speculation that Prince Mohammed wants control of all the kingdom’s major media assets even though those that were held by individuals rather than the state toed the government line in their news broadcasting.

“The prospect of bringing the giants of Saudi and Arab media under unified government control is worrying. It raises concern that the diversity of opinion and coverage will be further curtailed. Mohammed bin Salman is clearly intent on controlling the message as he conducts a dramatic restructuring of the Saudi state and economy,” Kristin Diwan, senior resident scholar at the Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington, told the Financial Times.

Mr. Al-Ibrahim and Prince Alwaleed’s media outlets could well change hands as part of Prince Mohammed’s intention to confiscate assets worth $800 billion under the mum of his anti-corruption campaign. With a large portion of the assets of those detained in the purge difficult to access because they are parked outside of the kingdom, media assets take on added significance.

An anti-corruption commission established hours before the purge was empowered by decree with “returning funds to the state’s public treasury (and) registering the assets and funds as state property.”

The fact that the two moguls’ major media assets are based in Dubai may make a possible takeover easier. Regulators in the United Arab Emirates have asked UAE banks for information about those detained in Prince Mohammed’s purge in what bankers said was a likely prelude to freezing their accounts.

Eurasia Group, a political risk consultancy, noted that Prince Mohammed “needs cash to fund the government’s investment plans” formulated in Vision 2030 and designed to diversify and rationalize the Saudi economy. “It was becoming increasingly clear that additional revenue is needed to improve the economy’s performance. The government will also strike deals with businessmen and royals to avoid arrest, but only as part of a greater commitment to the local economy,” Eurasia said in a note to clients.

The apparent move to tighten state control of media strokes with the crown prince’s crackdown on any form of criticism and/or dissent that manifested itself with an earlier wave of arrests of Islamic scholars, judges, intellectuals and activists as well as his quest to centralize power. The crackdown and potential takeover of media assets comes at a time of unprecedented, more freewheeling public debate on social media about Prince Mohammed’s reforms and policy changes as well as the kingdom’s foreign policy and national security challenges.

Prince Alwaleed, in what appeared to be a naïve attempt to establish a pan-Arab television station that would to some degree divert from official government policy, launched Al Arab in 2015 in Bahrain, another Gulf state in which media censorship is pervasive. In a statement by Kingdom Holding, Prince Alwaleed promised that “Al Arab will break the mould of news presentation, becoming a platform for transparent presentation and discussion of the region’s most intractable issues.”

Al Arab was headed by Jamal Khashoggi, a prominent and at times controversial Saudi journalist, who since going into exile in the United States earlier this year has become more vocal in his criticism of the government. It was taken off the air by Bahraini authorities a day after it went live for broadcasting an interview with Bahraini opposition leader Khalil al-Marzooq.

In the interview, Mr. Al-Marzooq, who resigned his seat in parliament in 2011 in protest against the government’s brutal crackdown on protesters, took issue with the regime’s revocation of the citizenship of 72 Bahrainis, including Turki al-Binali, one of the leading ideologues of the Islamic State, Shiite and human rights activists, journalists, and medical personnel.

It was not clear whether Al Arab was suspended because of differences within Bahrain’s ruling family or in response to pressure from Saudi Arabia whose troops helped Bahrain squash the 2011 popular revolt.

Prince Alwaleed announced earlier this year that he was closing the station, which had not returned to the air since its suspension two years earlier, but had last year decided to move operations to Qatar.

Had Al Arab relaunched in Qatar, it would have put Prince Alwaleed in an awkward position with the eruption in June of the Gulf crisis. With or without Al Arab, Prince Mohammed’s probable media grab will, however, likely escalate what is already a media war that often has little to do with journalism.

Introduction

We are well over 600,000 new Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh, all of whom have arrived since late August. They fled a campaign of genocide organized by the country’s military dictatorship, and with ideological support from racist Buddhist monks and Aung San Suu Kyi. They joined Rohingya who were already in the country, having fled earlier purges, most recently last autumn and in 2012. The International Organization for Migration estimates that there are now over 1,000,000 Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh.

The genocide since late August has shocked the world. The stories of the refugees are so terrible that there is no question that it is genocide, although major parties such as the U.S. and the E.U. still refuse to describe it as such, since this would convey upon them a responsibility to act. Nonetheless, the International Community does recognize that one million refugees is untenable and that they have to be allowed to go home. There is great pressure being imposed on Burma’s leaders to permit this, and which will continue when the U.S. Secretary of State visits the country on November 15th.

All elements of the anti-Rohingya racist alliance – the Tatmadaw, Suu Kyi and the monks – want to prevent repatriation, but they will probably fail. With this many refugees just across the border, the pressure will never go away.

Right now, they are negotiating for partial and only grudging admission. First, they are using absolute denial of repatriation as a threat. When the Security Council released its latest “statement” (not a “resolution,” which China prevented), they reacted to even this watered-down condemnation by saying that it would “seriously harm” repatriation. At the same time, they are systematically seizing and rezoning Rohingya land, as they have already stolen their crops and livestock. The Rohingya may someday be able to return, but if the dictatorship has its way this will only be to new concentration camps.

Indeed, recognizing the inevitability of repatriation, they are organizing a plan with many different hurdles, to reduce as far as possible the number who actually return.

They have said that the refugees must present what for many if not most will be non-existent documentation. (Children are the largest group – they do not have any papers.) Next, anyone they do let in will be issued the despised NVC identification, which explicitly states that they are not citizens of Burma. (Repatriation therefore must be accompanied by the granting of citizenship.) And finally, the dictatorship will of course resist the demand to provide a safe environment for the returnees, meaning protection from additional attacks by regime soldiers, police, and Rakhine racists. (To have a guarantee of safety, there must be international peacekeepers.)

In summary, repatriation will happen, but we are a long way from the dictatorship yielding such that everyone is accepted back, with citizenship, and to an environment free of repression.

Repatriation for whom?

However, even with all of these bad signs, the process of refugee repatriation does raise one distinct opportunity. This concerns the question: Repatriation for whom? It is not enough to allow only the most recent Rohingya refugees the right to return. This should be extended to the entire Rohingya exodus population. Moreover, the issue should be expanded to include other ethnic nationality refugee populations, such as the Karen, Shan and Kachin. If the world is going to address the problem of refugees from Burma – how can a country that is a “democracy” even have them – it should broaden the discussion, and action, to everyone.

A process needs to be established to enable the free and peaceful return of any Rohingya refugee who wants to go home to Burma, no matter how long ago he or she was forced to flee, and the free and peaceful return of refugees from all the other ethnic nationalities as well. International activists and media should keep pressure on the generals and Suu Kyi until this is achieved.

In fact, this is why their efforts to deny repatriation are so strong. They understand that once they start letting non-Burmans come back, they will have to open the door to everyone.

Conditions inside Burma

The best way to understand a refugee crisis is to get a feel for it from the victims’ perspective – what they have experienced. Vulnerable groups understand that they are at risk and recognize when things are turning against them. They see and hear the hate propaganda. This of course causes them to be afraid, and also to make plans for if things get worse, if they are actually attacked. This in turn varies from changing how and where one works and travels, to avoid danger; having key belongings packed in a Go Bag, so they can flee at a moment’s notice; sending copies of documents to safe locations, if possible to friends and relatives abroad, so essential ID and papers aren’t lost forever; harvesting crops as earlier as possible and also moving livestock; preparing shelters in nearby hills, with food, clothing and other essential supplies; and creating village warning systems with guards and dogs.

Then, if and when the attacks come, they are ready to flee. Typically, entire villages flee. If their homes are not destroyed and the village is not mined with explosives, they may return when the soldiers, police and rampaging mob leaves. During this period away from their homes, they are “internally displaced persons.” If they are not able to return home, if it has been burned or mined or is in some other way still too dangerous, they may continue living in the hills as IDPs, move to established IDP camps in safe areas (these are typically guarded by ethnic nationality armies), or – if all else fails – flee over the nearest border at which point they formally become “refugees.”

In these types of situations, and as we have seen with the Rohingya, the refugee camps can grow extremely quickly and to a monumental scale. At this point the international humanitarian aid community typically intervenes (unless it is blocked) to provide the refugees with basic shelter, food, sanitation, health care, and education for children.
Some refugee crises are short-lived, but others are very long-term. For the latter, the refugees can get trapped in their camps, if the host country refuses them travel and work privileges. Ultimately, they can get desperate, as new generations are born and begin to spend their entire lives in the camp. In some cases this becomes so bad that the number of refugee suicides skyrockets. Criminal problems may develop in the camps as well.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees together with the International Organization for Migration and other agencies and groups have a process whereby refugees may be resettled to other countries. This involves first being registered as a refugee and getting a refugee document; waiting, often for years; applying for resettlement; and then waiting again for a long time before finding out if any country is willing to accept you. Given the huge number of refugees around the world today, from Burma and other countries with widespread and severe civil conflict, the ability of other nations to take them in is being overwhelmed.

In these cases refugees often take matters into their own hands. They try to organize transportation to other countries where they can have more freedom. This may be with people they know and trust from their community, who for a fee will arrange the transportation, to using groups with which they have no connection, who also will arrange transportation for money but who cannot be trusted. These are the human trafficking gangs. With the Rohingya, many refugees have found their circumstances so desperate that they have used human traffickers to try to get to Malaysia, which for some led to their drowning at sea or to imprisonment and death in jungle camps in Southern Thailand. We can see a similar level of desperation in all of the Rohingya who have drowned while trying to cross the Naf River to Bangladesh. When a refugee is escaping genocide, he or she will take any risk, no matter how great it might be, to escape.

Refugee locations and numbers

Because the Rohingya have suffered many major attacks over the last forty years, there have been numerous mass departures from their homes in Burma. At this point the population of the group has been dispersed roughly as follows (Source: Al Jazeera and agencies):

Bangladesh – 1,000,000 plus Pakistan – 350,000
Saudi Arabia – 200,000 Malaysia – 150,000
India – 40,000
UAE – 10,000
Thailand – 5,000
Indonesia – 1,000

Remaining in Burma – probably less than 500,000, of which some 100,000 are in internment – concentration – camps, and with almost no rights.

At this point, there has been limited resettlement of Rohingya refugees to Western countries, including Europe, the U.S., Canada, and also Australia and New Zealand.

This makes a total population estimate for the group of roughly 2.2 million, with less than a quarter remaining in their native Burma homeland.

The conditions for the refugees vary widely. In Bangladesh, Indonesia and also Thailand, they are effectively illegal and are greatly restricted. Rohingya who have made it to Malaysia, Pakistan, India and the Middle East have a better situation and more freedom, including to form communities and to have jobs, although there is also a propaganda campaign against them in India. The few refugees who have been able to make it to the West in some ways have the best situation of all, since they are legal and receive state assistance to get established in the societies.

But, as mentioned above, the Rohingya are not the only ethnic group under duress in Burma. There has been massive state repression against the ethnic nationalities of Eastern and Northern Burma as well, for the last fifty-five years.

The Internally Displaced Monitoring Center estimates that excluding the Rohingya there are over 500,000 IDPs inside Burma, with the largest groups being the Karen, Kachin and Shan. There are a further 100,000 verified refugees in a series of camps on the Thai side of the border, comprising mainly Karen and also Karenni. The actual number though is higher, since registration has ended and new arrivals are not included in the count. On the plus side, many refugees from these groups have been resettled to the West over the last ten years. For the United States alone, it is well over 100,000.

Rohingya in Indonesia

The situation for the Rohingya, and for all the refugees from Burma, can also be understood more clearly by looking at the population in Indonesia. There are 800 to 1,000 Rohingya refugees in Indonesia, most of whom initially fled Burma following the attacks in 2012. This purge resulted in almost 170,000 people fleeing to Bangladesh, and where most of them remain.

Many of the Rohingya in Indonesia experienced the following. They were registered by UNHCR, after which in 2013 they were taken by IOM to Jakarta. There, they spent a year in another refugee camp, really an immigration detention center – an open jail.

Following this they were moved in smaller groups to other areas around the country, where they have been ever since. But, while they now have a little more freedom, they are not allowed to work or to go to school.

The Rohingya refugees in Indonesia are desperate. They can see no end to their plight. They are also frustrated because other groups of refugees in the country, such as from Afghanistan and Somalia, are being resettled to the West, and where they are given rights. It is a very curious question, why Afghani and Somali refugees would be accepted but not Rohingya. To me, the core factor underlying this must be that the Western countries, and which have already taken so many other Burma refugees, don’t want to anger Aung San Suu Kyi. She has told the world to not even say the name “Rohingya.” I have no doubt that she doesn’t want anyone in the West accepting them, either, and which signal diplomats clearly understand and are following.

The Rohingya refugees in Indonesia are like all refugees everywhere. They have the same goals. What they would like most is to be able to go home, to Burma. Until this is possible, they want the government of Indonesia to grant them rights. If the U.S., Canada and Europe can embrace refugees, why not Indonesia (and Thailand!)? Finally, if they can’t get this, they would like to be resettled to the West.

I encourage all journalists, starting with journalists in Indonesia and with pan-Southeast Asia media outlets, to investigate this situation. Please get in touch. I can connect you to Rohingya in Indonesia who can tell you their stories.

Conclusion

Burma, once again, is a mess. It is absolutely a failed state. When you have a genocide of a vulnerable group that is perpetrated by one arm of the government and openly backed by the other, this is the highest level of failure. Even though things may be peaceful in Rangoon and Mandalay (no public protests or free press, though), elsewhere the country is no different from Yemen or Somalia. There is perpetual conflict, never-ending oppression and exploitation, and for the Rohingya the most severe of the crimes against humanity.

The Rohingya must be allowed to return home, meaning any and all Rohingya who have fled over the last forty years. Indeed, all the IDPs and refugees in and from Burma must be allowed to go home. The greatest task of the government, after providing potable water, food and medical care, is enabling – helping – these people to come home. Everything else, including commercial and resource development, is by comparison meaningless.

This is another aspect of Burma as a failed state – that no one, certainly not the Suu Kyi government, has prioritized the problem of helping people return, and not only the IDPs and refugees but also the millions of economic migrants who fled the country. The core objective is simple: Bring everyone home who wants to come back, and then have them get to work rebuilding Burma and in a well-designed and sustainable way.

The barrier of course is obvious. All of the above would require ending the power and privilege of the military dictatorship and its cronies. Until this is accomplished, Burma is simply a mafia gang, a massive criminal enterprise, and which Suu Kyi has joined. It is a country in name only.

This article was published at Dictator Watch.org

By William Chislett*

The crisis in Catalonia, sparked by the regional government’s illegal proclamation of an independent state last month, is already exacting a toll on the Catalan economy, and threatens to seriously weaken the wider Spanish economy if the situation is prolonged.

The region plays a key role in the economy. Its GDP is slightly larger than Portugal’s and it generates one quarter of Spain’s exports.

The most notable impact since the Catalan parliament declared independence on 27 October, in a disputed vote declared illegal by Spain’s Constitutional Court, has been the exodus of companies from Catalonia, which quickly turned into a stampede. More than 2,200 companies have located their legal headquarters in other parts of Spain. Tourism (Catalonia received 18 million of Spain’s 75.3 million tourists last year) and consumption have also taken a hit.

The Bank of Spain warned earlier this month that the economy could lose between 0.3 and 2.5 points of GDP in two years (2018-19), depending on how long the crisis lasts and its impact on consumption, investment, employment and financing.

Under its benign scenario, the worst of the uncertainty would end after the snap election on 21 December, called by the central government under its activation of direct rule of Catalonia following the independence declaration. The accumulated cost to the economy would be 0.3 points of GDP or around €3 billion.

The Bank of Spain does not say this, but this scenario assumes that the anti-secessionist parties –the conservative Popular Party, which governs Spain, the Socialists and the centrist Ciudadanos– could win more seats than the pro-independence parties, an unholy alliance of conservative nationalists (PDeCAT), the more rabidly secessionist Republic Left of Catalonia and the anti-capitalist far-left CUP.

In the worst-case scenario, following a victory by the pro-independence bloc and a continued stand-off with Madrid, up to 60% of the projected growth for 2018 and 2019 could evaporate. A lot is riding on this election.

The pro-independence parties won 72 of the 135 seats in the 2015 election on 47.8% of the vote. Recent polls show these parties narrowly gaining control of the parliament again, but Madrid is hoping that the anti-secessionist parties will galvanise the increasingly vociferous ‘silent majority’ against independence into voting on a larger scale than previously.

The Bank of Spain is currently holding to its GDP growth forecasts of 3.1% this year, 2.5% in 2018 and 2.2% in 2019. Luis de Guindos, the Economy Minister, has already lowered growth from 2.7% to 2.3% next year.

‘A potential heightening, or prolongation, of the political situation might adversely impact the economic outlook and financial stability in Spain’, says the Bank of Spain’s report. ‘Greater uncertainty might dent economic agents’ confidence and thereby affect their spending and investment decisions, subsequently exerting a negative impact on economic activity and employment’. The report also underscores ‘the political tension in Catalonia and its potential repercussions for funding conditions on the capital markets and for the Spanish economy as a whole’.

The Bank of Spain is careful to emphasise that its scenarios are hypothetical and depend on a set of assumptions, and should not be construed as economic growth forecasts. ‘They serve to evidence the significant economic risks and costs of the situation caused by the independence initiatives in Catalonia’.

The companies that have voted with their feet include CaixaBank, Spain’s third-largest bank, the bank Sabadell and Codorníu, the cava producer. CaixaBank, the main financial institution in Catalonia, has played a major role in the region’s economy and as a sponsor of cultural and social programmes through its foundation. It has close to 40% of the total deposits in Catalonia and Sabadell 15%. Both banks have also moved their tax residence.

These two banks, in particular, moved their legal, though not corporate, headquarters in order to protect the interests of depositors and shore up confidence. The banks need to remain within the euro zone to maintain regulatory continuity and in order to continue to access the European Central Bank’s liquidity mechanism –which would not be the case if Catalonia ever became an independent country–. It would have to re-apply for membership and would only need one EU country to veto it (such as Spain, obviously) and membership would be scuttled.

The banks’ move, followed by branch managers taking to the phone to reassure customers that their investments were safe, had the desired effect and reversed to some extent a run on deposits. The big banks Santander and BBVA were not affected (they benefited from the run) as their legal domiciles are not in Catalonia.

Similarly, the shares of both banks took a knock on 4 October, three days after the illegal referendum on Catalan independence, when 90% of the 2.3 million that voted were in favour of secession. Sabadell’s share price fell 5.69% and CaixaBank’s 4.96%. The Ibex-35, the benchmark index of the Madrid Stock Exchange, fell 2.85%, the largest one-day fall since the UK decision in June 2016 to leave the EU, to below 10,000 for the first time in some six months and far from this year’s peak of 11,250 reached in May. By 7 November the index had recovered to 10,230.

Six of the companies that have relocated form part of the Ibex-35. Multinationals such as Volkswagen, which owns the Seat plant near Barcelona making 2,000 cars a day, are keeping a close watch on the situation.

In what could be a pointer for the future, until the uncertainty ends, Catalonia was the region whose number of registered unemployed increased the most in October (+14,698), its largest rise since the same month of 2008. Its month-on-month growth in the unemployed of 3.67% was twice the rate for the whole of Spain.

Spain has gone through a lot since the 2008 crisis to restore and consolidate growth, and it would be a tragedy if this evaporated because of the actions of hotheads.

About the author:
*William Chislett, Associate Analyst, Elcano Royal Institute | @WilliamChislet3

Source:
This article was published by Elcano Royal Institute

By N. Sathiya Moorthy

With the three-day Constitutional Assembly session recently ending without any breakthrough, Sri Lanka seems heading for yet another era of ‘ethnic chill’ leading to a possible frost. The ‘long-ago exit’ of the LTTE may be a saving grace as the much-delayed, nation-wide local government (LG) polls, set for January, can challenge the pyrrhic stability at the Centre, carefully managed over near-three years of the Sirisena-Ranil government’s five-year term, ending 2020.

At the Constitutional Assembly session and outside, political stake-holders and their civil society backers have been reiterating their decades-old positions with boring repetition and practised ease. Even the timing of each move, starting with the promise of a new Constitution ahead of the historic presidential polls of January 2015, was well choreographed, as if by a hidden hand, as the various players were daggers drawn, both on the large stage for public-viewing and the small green-rooms where they respectively belonged.

The crescendo was again reached when the majority Sinhala-Buddhists’ Maha Sangha declared that the nation had to prioritise corruption, price rise and larger economic issues over a new Constitution. It was all well known that the prelates and other Buddhists monks held the key to any major decision on power-sharing with the minority Tamils, and that they would hit when, and only when, the iron was hot.

Confidence from the past that they could count on the latter to hit and halt any progress made on the ethnic front that seemed to have encouraged to commit themselves to a new constitutional formulation that was not to be, almost from the start.

Shadow-boxing

For the long years he has been in politics, observers of the Sri Lankan scene have known Sirisena only as a ‘silent torpedo’ ready to burst at the right time. Like on other issues en route to becoming President and afterwards, he has been waiting for the (Sinhala) public mood to set in, before striking back.

Even while going along with majority-partner UNP in the Government of which he is the head, President Sirisena has been having his last laugh on all matters administration after the Ranil camp had pushed itself to a corner. The ‘Central Bank bond scam’ and the ‘Hambantota equity-swap’ are only two of the more prominent ones.

On the very eve of the Constitutional Assembly session, called to discuss and debate draft proposals of the steering committee, Sirisena talked about setting up an all-party committee to go into the issues and concerns flagged, especially by the Maha Sangha. PM Ranil’s on-floor commitment to talk to the prelates and the rest before finalising the draft Constitution could not restore credibility and seriousness to the debate, which anyway was absent even without Sirisena’s declaration.

Through the past years since coming to share power, the Sirisena faction of the SLFP and the unified UNP have been indulging in a great game of shadow-boxing, trying to outsmart the other at every turn, even as they proclaim unity against the strong common enemy in the name of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa. The two are declared to contesting the LG polls on their own, with the UNP hoping to show the Sirisena faction its place in the nation’s electoral scheme, and re-negotiate the unsettled political terms of the past from a position of proven strength.

Without being able to delay it beyond now, the Government side has handed over to Rajapaksa, the Constitution issue, where he excels for reasons of contemporary history and traditional imagery.

During his post-war term as President, Rajapaksa delineated contested issues like primacy of Buddism, ‘Unitary State’ and ‘Executive Presidency’ and directed political negotiations with the Tamil groups, exclusively on attainable goals on the ethnic front. By promising a new Constitution even before coming to power, the present leadership bit more than the nation could chew, and deliberately so, with the result, the ethnic issue has also been allowed to be lost in the melee.

Tamil predicament?

Western sympathisers of the post-war Tamil community and political leadership may not have understood the in-built scenario-building already on in the majority Sinhala arena, all along. They also did not provide for the vertical split in the TNA leadership post-LTTE, though it was/is an elementary rule in politics that a strong leadership has to find its opposition only from within.

On the one hand thus, the TNA leadership in Parliament, where R Sampanthan is the Leader of the Opposition, is battling for the Tamil rights, both within the Constitutional Assembly and outside. Inside the party and the community, they are busier, trying to stave off the hard-liner challenge spearheaded Northern Province Chief Minister, C V Wigneswaran, identified and promoted by the Sampanthan leadership.

At issue was the demand for the immediate release of around 200 Tamil prisoners, retained from among the 12,000 ‘LTTE cadres’ taken into custody when ‘Eelam War IV’ concluded in May 2009. Truth be acknowledged, through the post-war years, the hard-liners, operating mostly as legitimate citizens in the West, have carefully repositioned themselves as the extra-constitutional authority back home, by adding on more recipes to their political fare to the international community.

It had started with the launch of the ‘trans-national government of Tamil Eelam’ (TGTE) only weeks after the conclusion of the war, sending jitters down the spine of the Sri Lankan State and Sinhala polity, and confusing the moderate TNA leadership even more after the exit of the LTTE. When the TNA and the Rajapaksa leadership began shedding mutual suspicions and were focussing on substantial issues in their negotiations, came the demand for ‘war-crimes probe’.

More recently, the Tamil concerns were focussed on ‘missing persons’, about which the present Government promised much to the international community but did precious little (as was only to have been gauged, given the complexities involved). The international community that backed the present team when in the Opposition, blaming the Rajapaksa regime for ‘shifting the goal-posts’ constantly either has not understood the present happenings or does not want to acknowledge it, as yet.

‘Nimitz’ parallel

The options before the international community are even more limited. It would look as if the Ranil leadership has got the West where he wanted, rather than the other way round. Should the dual-leadership experiment fail the nation ultimately, none of the stake-holders involved would have a place to go. Besides the international community, this includes the moderate TNA leadership, whose campaign for the Tamil vote against Rajapaksa alone got the present leadership to power.

If nothing else, citing economy and foreign debt as the reason, the Ranil leadership agreed to China’s debt-for-equity swap on Hambantota Port. Sirisena could project himself as the ‘saviour of the Sri Lankan cause’ in public but could not deny the Chinese their due, he having been part of the Team Rajapaksa that had entertained them in the first place.

Understanding the Government’s predicament and the internal divisions even more, sections within the JO have drawn a parallel to the Indian concerns over the Rajapaksa regime offering berthing facilities for Chinese nuclear submarines and the neighbour’s purported silence over the recent port-call by US nuclear-powered aircraft-carrier group under ‘USS Nimitz’. Some defence experts have also chipped in their views, which can have consequences in political, electoral and strategic terms, all over again.

LG polls and after

For now, the nation is tuning for the LG polls, with the Constitution-making taking a deliberate back-seat all over again, though it cannot be avoided as an electoral issue. The Ranil camp seems wanting it this way, as if to reverse the current drift in governance and head a coalition on their terms or fashion another one in its place. They hope that the continued SLFP-split will put them on the top in the LG polls and that which follow.

The Rajapaksa camp has set down conditions for working with the Sirisena SLFP, the long and short of it being snapping ties with the UNP, after blaming the latter for larger corruption than under their regime, state of the economy and even law and order situation. The Sirisena camp continues to be confused, hoping for yet another miracle to save the day.

The Rajapaksa camp also seems going by the numbers from the twin polls of 2015, when they got 47 per cent for the presidency and 45 for Parliament. They calculate that even with the Muslim votes but without the overwhelming Tamil backing, the rivals cannot win back the presidency.

Within the Tamil community, the hard-liners met with unprecedented post-war success on their call for boycotting Sirisena during his Northern sojourn. This has since been followed by the mercurial Jaffna University students returning to their old ways, this time over the ‘Tamil prisoners issue’, leading to an indefinite shut-down that has since been lifted.

In all these, the Constitution-making and power-sharing were never ever the issue. Instead, Catalonia-like referendum in the future in the Tamil areas could well assume the centre-stage, both in the Tamil and Sinhala communities, with the Muslims left in the lurch and hardening their own stand on the re-merger of the North and the East, all over again.

In between, horse-trading for power at the Centre could take the centre-stage, post-LG polls, with no one still talking about the need for an anti-defection law, a la the Indian neighbour. Leave aside the international community’s ‘growing concerns’ about the ethnic issue, and past promises of this Government on the war-crimes probe and the like, they may not even know whom to talk, and make sense out of it all.

The leaders of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) are scheduled to meet in Manila and Clark, the Philippines, for the 31st ASEAN Summit and related meetings this week (Nov. 13-15).

They are expected to discuss the South China Sea (SCS) conundrum. ASEAN member states are deeply divided over the SCS and even there there has been no common policy among the ASEAN’s claimant states.

With the lack of leadership from the world’s sole superpower– the United States—on the issue of the SCS, China, the new power of the world and the biggest claimant in the SCS, is confidently threatening or bullying its small Southeast Asian neighbors.

The latest victim is the Philippines, the host of the ASEAN Summit. China sent warships to the Philippine-occupied island of Pag-asa (Thitu Island) last week when Manila wanted to build some structures on a sandbar nearly 4 kilometers off the island.

Thitu is the second-largest island in the South China Sea’s Spratly Islands group. Though it has been occupied by the Philippines since 1970, the island is also claimed by China, Taiwan and Vietnam. The Chinese call it Tie Zhi.

Bowing to Beijing’s intimidation, the helpless Philippines withdrew its troops and stopped the construction work.

A couple of months ago, China lodged a protest against Indonesia when the latter renamed a certain portion of its maritime area in the South China Sea northeast of resource-rich Natuna Islands as the North Natuna Sea. But Indonesia, a G20 member and the de facto leader of ASEAN, ignored Beijing’s protest.
ASEAN member states like Vietnam, the second biggest claimant after China,, the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei have overlapping claims with China and Taiwan to certain parts of the SCS, which has a maritime area of 3.5 million square kilometers.
But China claims almost the entire area of the resource-rich SCS, based on so-called “historical grounds” as well as a controversial cow-tongue-shaped “nine-dash” demarcation line.
Beijing’s behaviour in the SCS, especially its reclamation activities of building artificial islands and deploying deadly weapons on those islands, poses the sin¬gle big¬gest threat to ASEAN unity, peace and sta¬bil¬ity.

But China denied recently that it was militarizing the SCS.
Yao Wen, deputy director general for policy planning of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ Asian department told Asian journalists who were covering the 19th Chinese Communist Party’s National Congress recently in Beijing that China had no intention of militarization.

“China will never seek militarization of the South China Sea,” Yao said, adding that China had indeed built some structures such as lighthouses and hospitals on reclaimed reefs and islands.

Chinese actions in the SCS are raising concerns all over the world. Both claimant and non-claimant countries, including the US, India, the United Kingdom and Japan, believe that many of Beijing’s unilateral actions pose a serious threat to regional peace, security, freedom of navigation, overflight and legal fishing.
Given the potential dangers in the situation, ASEAN leaders must unite politically and adopt a common position on the issue of the SCS. They must work hard to maintain ASEAN’s centrality in all regional issues and security mechanisms and prevent war at any cost.
They should also demand that all SCS disputes must be resolved through peaceful means based on international law. They must ask China to honor the ruling of the Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) on the issue of the SCS.

The Philippines took China to international arbitration in 2013 over the latter’s blockade of the Scarborough Shoal, which is located within the Philippines’ Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).
In July 2016, in a landmark decision, the PCA clearly ruled that China had no historic title over the waters of the SCS because China had signed the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and ratified it.

A majority of countries have asked China to implement the PCA’s ruling as it is legally binding, but Beijing, which boycotted the court hearings, has rejected the PCA ruling.

“China continues with impunity to defy the 2016 judgment of a duly convened international court that China is violating the terms of UNCLOS in the South China Sea. Manila, the ‘plaintiff’, which won the judgment against Beijing, chose not to press for its implementation. Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte instead came close to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, swayed as he was by the prospect of Chinese funding, the fear of Chinese anger, and the chanciness of US deterrence,” said Donald K. Emmerson from Stanford University in a commentary in a recent Centre for Strategic and International Studies’ newsletter.

The PCA ruling was a major blow to Beijing’s international standing.

After the major loss in The Hague, China is now putting forward the “Four Sha” island zones claim in place of the controversial nine-dash line. The Four Sha refer to four island groups, namely the Paracels, Spratlys, Macclesfield Bank and Pratas. These four island groups are called in Chinese Dongsha, Xisha, Nansha and Zongsha.
The Four Shas (“sha” means sand in Chinese) claim is based on the straight baselines around the four island groups. Though it is a clever legal strategy in comparison to the weaker nine-dash line, still the Four Shas claim clearly violates Articles 46 and 47 of the UNCLOS.
ASEAN leaders must achieve a consensus in Manila and Clark on the issue of a legally binding code of conduct (CoC) and negotiate with China. A common ASEAN position would ease the negotiations.

In a rare positive gesture, recently, China agreed to a framework agreement on a CoC with ASEAN.

But the CoC negotiations should not take a long time. The delay in the conclusion of a CoC will only benefit China. Many scholars predict that China will try to delay as much as possible the conclusion of the CoC.

Some people may question whether ASEAN can unite on the CoC, given the deep divisions and some member countries’ close links with China.

Countries like Indonesia, Vietnam, Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand must work behind the scenes to convince other ASEAN member states to stay united and stick to ASEAN’s six-point principles on the SCS.

The six-point principles are: 1. The full implementation of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea 2002 (DOC); 2. The guidelines for the implementation of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (2011); 3. The early conclusion of a Regional Code of Conduct in the South China Sea; 4. Full respect for the universally recognized principles of international law, including the UNCLOS; 5. The continued exercise of self-restraint and non-use of force by all parties; and 6. The peaceful resolution of disputes, in accordance with universally recognized principles of international law, including the UNCLOS.

ASEAN leaders must call for the effective implementation of the DOC and an early conclusion of a legally-binding and effective CoC in the SCS.

The leaders of ASEAN, especially Indonesian President Joko Widodo, must take a lead in garnering support from major powers like the US, Japan, India, Canada, the UK, France, Germany and Australia for freedom of navigation and overflight in the SCS. To put pressure on Beijing and avoid war over the issue of the SCS, ASEAN badly needs the global support and the Manila Summit, especially the East Asia Summit, will be the right platform to get that support and maintain ASEAN’s centrality.

Over the past 16 years, Afghanistan has been a victim of state-sponsorship of terrorism. As a proxy of a regional state, the Taliban have daily killed and maimed innocent Afghans, while destroying the infrastructure that should help connect and integrate Afghanistan with its surrounding resourceful regions in the North and South for increased trade, business, and investment.

State-sponsored terrorism has allowed some 20 other terrorist networks with global and regional reach to operate out of Afghanistan. At the same time, this imposed insecurity has enabled a permissive environment for mass drug cultivation and production in Afghanistan, which now provides more than 90% of regional and global demand for drugs. In turn, revenues from drug trade finance terrorism and fuel dysfunctional corruption that undermines governance and rule of law, which together destabilize drug producing and transit countries alike.

Because of the interconnectedness of these imposed security challenges, Afghanistan is facing a complex humanitarian crisis with diminishing human security. Hence, this makes the country a major source of refugees and asylum seekers, who are often ferried by human smugglers to Europe, Australia and elsewhere. As we see, what is imposed on and happens in Afghanistan directly affect regional stability and international peace.

This dangerous situation necessitates that states in Afghanistan’s wider region no longer pause but join hands, pool their resources, and share intelligence to pursue and implement a common counter-terrorism strategy, which doesn’t make any distinction between terrorist networks. Alongside this effort, they must work together to free their nations off poverty, knowing that a lack of human security allows terrorists, extremists, and state-sponsors of terrorism to recruit among the jobless, destitute youth to radicalize, brainwash, and exploit them in conflicts of their choice.

Indeed, the best way to fight poverty that feeds terrorism is to foster political and security confidence-building through regional economic cooperation. The latter can serve as an important enabler in deepening connectivity, enhancing competitiveness and productivity, lowering transaction costs, and expanding markets in any region. How can this be done? In fact, Afghanistan has already put forth a strategic solution for adoption and implementation by its near and far neighbors: The Heart of Asia–Istanbul Process (HOA-IP) and The Regional Economic Cooperation Conference on Afghanistan (RECCA).

These Afghanistan-led processes were established to help secure regional cooperation for the country’s stabilization and sustainable development, thereby ensuring stability and prosperity throughout its surrounding regions. Even though they remain underutilized so far, it is in the best short- and long-term interests of the countries that participate in the two processes to double and triple their efforts to achieve the shared goals of the two platforms. Of course, every tangible step they take to utilize these interconnected processes will help minimize these and other nations’ security and socio-economic vulnerabilities against the terrorist-extremist predators and their state-sponsors. That is why time is of essence and they must reaffirm their often-pledged commitments to the implementation of the projects and programs, proposed under the two processes.

On 14-15 of this month, the 7th Meeting of RECCA will take place in Ashgabat-Turkmenistan. The meeting focuses on “Deepening Connectivity and Expanding Trade through Investment Infrastructure and Improving Synergy.” This will be a timely opportunity for Afghanistan’s near and far neighbors to take stock of the progress made since RECCA VI in Kabul. The meeting with many side events will allow the country-participants to discuss the challenges and bottlenecks, as well as financing and investment needs with respect to the priority projects in the key areas of energy; transport networks; trade and transit facilitation; communications; and business to business and labor support.

Moreover, in early December, the 7th Ministerial Conference of HOA-IP with its political, security, and economic confidence building measures (CBMs) implementation mechanism will take place in Baku, Azerbaijan. Afghanistan aims at deepening synergies and complementarities among the interconnected projects of the RECCA and HOA-IP, maximizing their impact on sustainable development not only in Afghanistan but also throughout its surrounding regions. This should encourage the country-participants to assess their shared security and development needs and to bolster their engagement with Afghanistan accordingly, in order to initiate the implementation of the proposed projects with win-win benefits.

Considering these major opportunities for regional security and development cooperation, Afghanistan welcomes the new South Asia strategy of the United States, which helps address the challenge of state sponsorship of terrorism facing Afghanistan.

This entails the complete closure of all safe sanctuaries in Pakistan where the Taliban get indoctrinated, trained, equipped, and deployed from to terrorize Afghanistan and destabilize the rest of the Heart of Asia region. The Afghan government strongly believes that the full execution of this new US strategy, in partnership with like-minded regional states that share Afghanistan’s security and development interests, will not only help stabilize the country but also ensure security as a precondition for sustainable development across its surrounding regions.

*M. Ashraf Haidari is the Director-General of Policy & Strategy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Afghanistan, and formerly served as the country’s Deputy Chief of Mission to India. Prior to this, he was Afghanistan’s Deputy Assistant National Security Advisor, as well as Afghan Chargé d’Affaires to the United States. He tweets @MAshrafHaidari.