By Filip Rudic

Four men were given suspended sentences for setting fire to the US embassy in Belgrade at a protest that broke out in 2008 after Kosovo declared independence from Serbia.

The Higher Court in Belgrade on Tuesday found four men guilty of torching the US embassy during the ‘Kosovo is Serbia’ protest in February 2008, and gave them suspended prison sentences.

Three convicted men – Dejan Vuckovic, Dragan Marinkov and Marko Novitovic – received six-month suspended sentences, while Milan Tomas received a five-month suspended sentence.

They will only serve prison time if they commit a crime in the next two years.
Three more people – Djordje Tomin, Nikola Kosanovic and Filip Backovic – were acquitted due to lack of evidence.

At the first trial in 2015, nine men received suspended sentences ranging from five to ten months, but the court of appeals threw out the verdict saying it was “contradictory”.

The embassies of the US, Germany and Croatia were attacked on February 21, 2008, in the riots that broke out after Serbia’s former province of Kosovo declared independence, sparking anger from nationalists.

After converging on the embassy of the US, Kosovo’s main ally, enraged crowds tried to storm the building, throwing various lighted objects and smashing doors and windows. One man, Zoran Vujovic, aged 20 from Novi Sad, died in the blaze.

The US and German governments have also called on Serbia to prosecute those who allowed the attack to happen despite a heavy police presence.

Both governments said that finding the perpetrators was one of the top priorities for the Serbian government, while Berlin warned Belgrade on several occasions that its EU integration progress depended on the investigation results.

A Serbian interior ministry working group investigated claims of official negligence over the attacks and identified several police generals as suspects.

The working group’s report was completed in 2014, and several police generals were questioned in 2015 about its findings. No further action has been announced.

Other suspects are believed to be senior state officials connected to the office of the prime minister at the time of the unrest, Vojislav Kostunica.

Pioneers recall that when India’s Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) started the design and construction of its first research reactor Apsara in 1955, there was no formal safety analysis report. Designers of various systems of the reactor on their own ensured the safety of the design. I hasten to add that it was the case all over the world. A robust regulatory system in which many specialists from different disciplines participated evolved soon. (One can read the history of the regulatory activities in the field of nuclear energy and its applications from here, here, here and here)

The promulgation of Atomic Energy Act 1962 and the Radiation Protection Rules, 1971 gave the initial legal framework to safety.

With the setting up of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board on November 15, 1983, the enforcement of safety regulations in the DAE and non-DAE installations became more formal. The notification succinctly spelt out the Board’s regulatory role. While celebrating AERB’s “birth day” let us look back to AERB’s activities and look forward to the challenges facing it.

At the very outset, I have to declare a conflict of interest. I was one among the first handful of officers who joined the Board from Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) and was the Secretary of the Board from August 1987 to January 2004. I strongly defend the turf. I also try to give references to authentic documents to buttress my views. (One can get a bird’s eye view of the regulatory activities of AERB during its formative years here)

From a fledgling organization with a handful of members occupying two rooms at the Old Yacht Club, opposite Gate way India, Mumbai, AERB grew into a strong regulatory agency with a total staff strength of 346, over 250 of them Group A officers. Of them, 21 have Ph.D. degrees. All of them had special training in one or more of the subjects such as nuclear engineering, radiation safety, medical physics etc. All of them are graduates or postgraduates; many of them have M.Tech degrees from IITs. Five or six of them secured law degrees and they reinforce the legal cell of AERB.

The Board’s safety review covered unusual incidents at Rajasthan Atomic Power Station (1980-84), Quality Control and Quality Assurance at NPPs 1985, Radiation exposures in power plants 1988, Operational safety at Taraput Atomic Power Station (TAPS) 1985 and Rajasthan Atomic Power Station (RAPS) and Madras Atomic Power Station (MAPS) 1989, the Narora Fire Incident 1993 and the Failure of containment dome in Kaiga 1994,. This reference contains details of various reviews.

AERB appointed special committees to review safety features of Indian nuclear power plants in light of accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima. AERB secretariat diligently followed up the recommendations of these committees.

The setting up of procedures for speedy and effective safety review and licensing of the standardized Indian version of pressurized heavy water (PHWR) from Narora onwards is not a mean achievement. One of the criticisms AERB faced initially was about the lack of experts from outside the DAE family in its committees. AERB faced these challenges and inducted many specialists wherever available from outside the DAE family into its committees.

Over the years , Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) introduced newer projects, such as Pressurized Heavy Water reactors (PHWRs) of 540 MWe at Tarapur and 700 MWe at several sites , Kudankulam plant (VVER type Russian nuclear power reactors of 1000 MWe), Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor of 500 MWe etc. Safety reviews of foreign nuclear power reactors of higher capacity also started. These offer future challenges.

Some Past Regulatory Actions

Has AERB exercised its powers? AERB’s Annual report contains the regulatory actions taken by the Board. I recall that the first question a journalist asked me was whether AERB has any teeth! AERB was just born then. If an infant has teeth when born, it will be a freak I joked. Actually, the question inspired us to review the Atomic Energy Act 1962. When the Controller and Auditor General of India made an incorrect interpretation of certain provisions in the Atomic Energy Act we could easily identify it. (Please see here)

In 1993, someone stole three radioactive sources from the premises of a foreign company based in India, and engaged by Oil & Natural Gas Commission (ONGC) for oil well-logging operations. AERB ordered suspension of all its well logging operations using radioactive sources in India. Eventually based on the inputs from police, AERB’s team recovered the sources from Coovum River within the Chennai city limits. AERB permitted the use of sources after ONGC reinforced more measures to ensure security of the sources. The disgruntled workers involved got jail terms

AERB ordered the withdrawal of radium sources from hospitals as many of them were leaky or prone to develop leakage and were hazardous. A repeat message followed.

Removal of radium led to the introduction of safer substitutes in cancer treatment, improved dosimetry, and better radiation protection.

On April 6, 1995, AERB barred a cancer hospital in Delhi from treating new patients because of safety violations. The Board lifted the ban when the hospital fulfilled the safety requirements.

In 1987, AERB prescribed permissible limits for radionuclides in foodstuffs when there was a possibility of the import of contaminated foodstuffs after the Chernobyl accident. One can get related details here.

The Mayapuri radiation accident, which led to the death of one person and radiation injury to many, offered a wakeup call. AERB implemented stricter measures immediately.

In 2012, the Controller and Auditor General of India (CAG) gave a critical report on AERB. Some reports criticized the CAG report (please see here, here and here). While noting in a lighter mood, that Accountants are seldom pleasant, we must admit that the appraisal of CAG offered an invaluable wake up call to AERB. The Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee endorsed CAG recommendations.

As directed by CAG, AERB prepared a policy document. Through e-LORA, it implemented an on line program for all its licensing activities. It issued over 160 safety documents. Anyone can download them freely from AERB web site. CAG’s proposal to make AERB’ legal framework stronger is pending with the Ministry which hopefully may accord priority to it. Closer perusal of AERB’s Annual report shows that AERB strengthened all regulatory activities as directed by CAG.

The International Atomic Energy Agency carried out Integrated Regulatory Review Service (IRRS) mission during March 16-27, 2015. India is among the few countries, which published the report.

AERB’s Annual report, which summarizes AERB activities during 2015-2016, is here.

Violation Of Factories Act

We cannot defend even a single fatality at work place due to any reason. Unfortunately, they do occur and every Annual report describes a few. Conventional reviews and regulatory restrictions ordering temporary stoppage of work appear to be not effective. AERB must implement some out of the box methods to prevent fatalities totally.

Radiation Dose To Workers, Public

AERB publishes safety-related details such as radiation dose to workers and radiation dose to members of the public etc. Data are available for many years for every nuclear power station show that these doses are insignificant compared to the limits prescribed by AERB. They are low and are indistinguishable from background radiation present any where even in the absence of the plant

Safety Research Institute

Another notable development is the setting up of AERB’s Safety Research Institute at Kalpakkam. This writer recalls that the idea to set up the institute came up in a routine discussion. A series of positive developments, which included the arrival of the right type of individuals at the right time, accelerated the process.

SRI carries out studies related to Nuclear safety; Probabilistic safety assessment; Remote sensing and Geographic Information System (GIS); Engineering safety and Environment safety & fuel chemistry . SRI has very comprehensive safety research projects and programs.

During 2000-2014, SRI scientists published 50 papers in peer reviewed international journals, presented 93 papers in National and International Conferences and wrote 164 internal reports
AERB/SRI has set up a Compartment Fire Test Facility (CFTF) to carry out a comprehensive research program on fire safety. SRI scientists use this facility to carry out basic research in enclosure fires, to investigate mitigation methodologies & techniques, and to provide inputs for regulatory activities in the area of fire safety.

Regulatory Control Of Medical X-Ray Equipment And Installation

Effective regulatory control of medical x-ray units in India is a daunting task, as medical x-ray use grew in an unbridled way nationwide for many decades.

AERB’s efforts to decentralize regulatory control by authorizing State Governments to enforce radiation safety were only partly successful. While Kerala and Mizoram set up their agencies, other MOUs with 13 states did not see much progress

There is some light at the end of the tunnel, as AERB developed and deployed its e-governance initiative for e- Licensing of Radiation Applications ‘e-LORA’ under which over 35,000 X-ray units got recorded in the system and 23,500 Units got registered as on March 31, 2017. AERB extended e-LORA successfully to other areas as well. AERB received the “SKOCH Smart Governance Award -2015” for e-LORA.

AERB inspected medical diagnostic facilities at Mumbai, Navi-Mumbai, Jaipur, Nagpur, Raipur, Pune, Chennai, Bengaluru, Hyderabad, New Delhi, Kolkata, Patna, Ranchi, Gaya, Goa, and Ahmadabad and initiated appropriate actions against defaulting institutions. AERB is now following the DRS route as well as the e-LORA way to bring all medical x-ray units under strict regulatory regime. AERB published notices on medical x-ray licensing

AERB issued an advisory to medical/dental x-ray owners and the general public against indiscriminate use of dental x-ray examinations solely for the purpose of non-diagnostic applications such as age determination or birth registration.

AERB’s website (www.aerb.gov.in) contains information for everyone. AERB is looking forward to future challenges with renewed vigour, commitment and enthusiasm. The mood is upbeat in AERB.

*Dr. K S Parthasarathy is former Secretary, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board and a former Raja Ramanna Fellow in the Strategic Planning Group, Department of Atomic Energy, Mumbai. Dr. K S Parthasarathy may be contacted at ksparth@yahoo.co.uk

For the second year in a row, the total number of global deaths from terrorism has declined. There have been 22% fewer deaths from terrorism since the peak of terror activity in 2014, according to the Global Terrorism Index 2017 released by Vision of Humanity.

According to the report, there were significant declines in terrorism in four of the five countries most impacted by terrorism – Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Nigeria. Collectively these four countries recorded 33 percent fewer deaths.

The report noted, however, that while the intensity of global terrorism has decreased it nevertheless continues to spread to an increasing number of countries.

There were 77 countries that experienced at least one death from terrorism in 2016. This is more than at any time in the past 17 years with two out of every three countries experiencing at least one attack, the report noted.

The report, which was officially launched at the Royal United Services Institute in London today, is a comprehensive summary of the key global trends and patterns in terrorism over the last 17 years.

Measuring 163 countries and covering 99.7% of the world’s population, one of the principle aims of the Global Terrorism Index is to help us to understand the global, regional and local impact of terrorism. With this understanding we can inform a positive practical debate about the future of terrorism and importantly, how we respond.

The sainthood cause for Lakota medicine man and Catholic catechist Nicholas Black Elk took another step forward today, as the U.S. bishops unanimously approved his canonical consultation.

The Nov. 14 voice vote of the bishops took place at their annual fall assembly in Baltimore, and is the latest in a series of steps on the path to sainthood.

The motion to vote on the cause was brought forward by Bishop Robert D. Gruss of Rapid City, South Dakota, the home diocese of Black Elk where his cause was officially opened earlier this year.

Even before his conversion to Catholicism, Black Elk was a prominent medicine man “widely known as a holy man and a mystic,” Bishop Gruss told the assembly of bishops.

After his conversion, Black Elk “fully embraced a Catholic life” and became an “ardent Catechist” who would go on to convert more than 400 Native Americans to the faith, Gruss noted.

Black Elk became “an icon who reveals what God calls all of us to be – people of faith and hope, and a source of hope for others,” he added.

Black Elk was born sometime between 1858 and 1866 and, like many of his ancestors, served as a medicine man, which combined the roles of medical doctor, spiritual adviser and counselor.

He was present for the Battle of Little Bighorn in 1876, and the following year, he joined Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show, which toured Europe, including a performance before Queen Victoria.

In 1892, after touring with the show for several years, he married Katie War Bonnet. They had three children. After she converted to Catholicism, all three children were baptized.

The year after she died, Black Elk converted to Catholicism and was baptized on Dec. 6, 1904, the Feast of St. Nicholas. He took Nicholas as his baptismal name because he admired the saint’s generosity.

In 1905, he married again to Anna Brings White, a widow with two children. They had three children together and she passed away in 1941.

During Black Elk’s lifetime, the practice in the Diocese of Rapid City was for Jesuit priests to select Lakota Catholic men to teach the faith to other members of their tribe as catechists. They evangelized, prayed and prepared converts in the Lakota language, traveling by foot or by horseback until automobiles became available.

Black Elk became a catechist in 1907, chosen for his enthusiasm and his excellent memory for learning Scripture and Church teaching. He was also one of the signatories of the cause of canonization for St. Kateri Tekakwitha, another Native American saint. He passed away Aug. 19, 1950 at Pine Ridge.

Last year, a petition with over 1,600 signatures to open his cause for canonization was presented to Bishop Gruss by the Nicholas Black Elk family. An October Mass officially opened his cause in the diocese this year.

Gruss said that Black Elk’s witness is an inspiration for both Native and non-native Americans, because he “lived the Gospel in everyday life.”

The next step in Black Elk’s cause will be for a tribunal to investigate and document examples of heroic virtue in his life.

Recent events in Saudi Arabia are sending shockwaves throughout the Middle East. It is locked into a collision course with Iran after a missile was fired against Riyadh. The Yemen based Houthi rebels claimed responsibility for the attack. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman has blamed Tehran for supplying the rockets to the Houthis, a charge that Iran denied, and in the midst of all of this, MBS has launched an anti-corruption campaign targeting the Kingdom’s business and political elite.

Many top officials within Saudi Arabia have been arrested, but some critics say that the Crown Prince is getting rid of adversaries to the throne. From the Saudi government’s point of view, around a hundred billion dollars was embezzled with bribes and money laundering, and over two hundred Emirs, businessmen, and ministers have been detained. Many of the names that have been detained are from the old guard. There is also a power shake up going on within the royal family, and this consolidates the new Crown Prince’s power whether it is for anti-corruption or other reasons.

Hours before the arrests were made, the Saudis intercepted a ballistic missile over Riyadh that was launched from Yemen. The Saudis accused Iran for being behind the launch, but the Houthis don’t have the capabilities for owning, using, or developing a ballistic missile. Throughout the past couple of years, the Houthis have been sending missiles in Saudi Arabia, but these missiles have very little capacity, and limited capabilities compared to the weapons the Saudi-led coalition has used in the Yemen conflict. Riyadh has said that Iran was behind the missile launch, but Iran denies these allegations. As a result, Saudi Arabia continues to increase the airstrikes in Yemen, and has put a $330-million-dollar bounty on Houthi leader Abdul-Malik Badreddin al-Houthi, as well as killing other Houthi leaders within the past few days, and this has led to escalation on all fronts between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Another major development was the resignation of Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri in Riyadh, and the Saudis have advised its citizens not to travel to Lebanon, and for those who are there, to leave as soon as possible. The Saudis are working on all fronts, and on all of these fronts whether it is on Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Qatar, Yemen, and Bahrain, it is accusing Iran of being behind all of this which sounds strange given the fact that the Saudis export a form of Islam that is puritanical compared to something you would not see in modern society, and this ideology is called Wahhabism.

For example, Iran supports Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Saudis do not want to see Hezbollah participate in Lebanese politics. Hezbollah also came out with a statement that accused Riyadh of detaining Prime Minister Hariri against his will and it also accused Saudi Arabia of declaring an act of war by taking Hariri to Riyadh to resign as Prime Minister of Lebanon. So basically, there is a grasp for power between Iran and Saudi Arabia being played inside countries like Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and now Lebanon.

Prime Minister Saad Hariri went to Saudi Arabia and resigned from his post on Al Arabiya, but he hasn’t returned home. Lebanon is currently in a bizarre state of affairs. Last Saturday when Hariri was summoned to Riyadh and announced his resignation on Saudi state TV, the Lebanese people faced a very weird situation where the official position from Beirut has been for the return of Hariri to Lebanon. All of the Lebanese political parties including Hezbollah have held a consistent position on this.

In addition, the Lebanese government wants Hariri back to submit his full resignation in Lebanon so then the public, President Aoun, the speaker, and the political parties can hear directly from him about what is taking place and why there has been little communication between the Prime Minister and the Lebanese people. So far, Lebanese Security Forces have found no evidence of a threat to Hariri’s life, and the ridiculous accusations being made by the Saudis could have reflected Hariri’s father’s assassination as well.

The reality on the ground is that the Saudis have funded DAESH ever since the Syrian conflict began in 2011, as we know from the Wikileaks documents, Hillary Clinton’s e-mails, and the Defense Intelligence Agency document of 2012 that the Saudis supported the extremists in order to overthrow the Assad Government. However, Hezbollah was one of the most effective forces in the fight against DAESH, and we are close to seeing the end of a caliphate in Iraq and Syria.

If there was a driver for instability in the Middle East, it should be made very clear to many Middle East analysts that it is clearly the Saudis. What is being done to the Lebanese Prime Minister is quite unprecedented given the fact that he resigned in Saudi Arabia on Saudi state TV without the Lebanese people even aware of what was going on, and Hariri holds dual citizenship as a Saudi and a Lebanese just like his father Rafic Hariri.

The only country with whom Lebanon can geographically have a war with is Israel, and there have always been a multitude of tensions between the two sides for decades. Nobody can disagree that there is a competition between Riyadh and Tehran for dominance in the Middle East, but it is by no means a footnote to have a Prime Minister of a country resign in a different country whose whereabouts are unknown. This has resulted as a front against Lebanese sovereignty, but the big picture cannot be complete if we don’t say that the interference is not just from Saudi Arabia, but from Iran and other regional players in the Middle East as well.

The Lebanese public is very concerned about escalation, but there is also a national unity within the government and the Lebanese people that because Lebanon is so small and has had a long track record of foreign interference, there needs to be a national unity where escalation is unnecessary and there is no appetite for yet another civil war. The political parties in Lebanon do not want to turn against each other and the only way forward is national unity.

Lebanon could become the next victim of the Iranian-Saudi powerplay in the Middle East. We have already witnessed the destruction in Yemen, Iraq, as well as Syria that the divisions in the region are far more complex and broad than we make it out to be. Even though a direct war between Iran and Saudi Arabia is unlikely, there is a psychological war of words between the two powerhouses.

The Saudi rhetoric of declaring war against Lebanon is not helpful to diffusing tensions, and now that Hariri has resigned, Saudi Arabia has declared a war on Hezbollah, but a war against Hezbollah is also a war against the Lebanese people because Hezbollah has had a long history of combatting foreign aggression, they have also been an effective fighting force in fighting against DAESH. Hezbollah has also cooperated with the Lebanese Army to protect the Lebanese people from foreign aggression.

At this point, Hariri is still Prime Minister because President Aoun has not accepted the resignation, and the Future Movement has said repeatedly to order Hariri back to Lebanon. At this point, the Lebanese people and the government are united, nobody has declared a war on Saudi Arabia, and there is a psychological war of words that could lead to further escalation between Lebanon, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

By Heritiana Randrianantoandro*

The tour visit of US President Donald Trump in Asia has monopolized the world news followers’ attention, both academician and simple citizens, during these last days. As important as each and every visit he took, we single out his symbolic journey in Beijing.

The conclusion of commercial partnerships was the main part of the visit, no wonder if these contracts display a bargaining strategy to have Beijing’s side on the denuclearization of Pyongyang.

Nevertheless, the controversy on North Korean nuclear weapon program had the commanding influence during the meetings between the two protagonists, respectively US and China presidents.

In fact, Washington asks Beijing to economically squeeze Pyongyang. As reminder, Beijing has voted the latest United Nations sanctions against North Korea and assured to implement them.

How Does China Position Itself With Regard To The North Korean Nuclear Weapon Dilemma?

The desired peace has long been advocated by China and is part of its principles. Sun Tzu in the Art of War said “The Lowest form of war is to attack Cities”.

China is playing a key card as an important actor about this particular and unending issue of international concern: the nuclear program of North Korea.

Undoubtedly, a military alliance ties the two countries (the Sino-North Korean friendship treaty of 1961 includes a defense clause in case of invasion), but the main concern of Beijing is to avoid anything that might affect regional stability, guaranteeing its continued economic expansion. The collapse of the Pyongyang regime would entail a considerable risk to Beijing: arrivals of refugees and instability mainly in the border area where there are two million Chinese of Korean descent.

Looking back to some topical facts, we can see that China’s policy on this issue has evolved. In 2003, they opted on American compression. Besides, however by regional opportunism to a new and more exposed strategy, Beijing chose to be the builders of the dialogue between Pyongyang and Washington and to promote the framework of meetings. China’s involvement in such negotiations is intended as a pledge of its international responsibility.

Beijing, with its special relationship with the regime of Pyongyang, had played a preeminent role as a mediator in the settlement efforts on the North Korean nuclear crisis, as evidenced by the visit of President Hu Jintao in North Korea in October 2005 and the visit of the North Korean President Kim Jong-Il in China in January 2006.

The joint statement of the Six party talks [1] of September,19th 2005 had formed a diplomatic achievement for China: North Korea undertook to abandon to his weapons and existing nuclear programs and join the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Conditions IAEA guarantee. This text also contained security assurances from the US authorities and the prospects of cooperation in the economic and energy field. Thus, China’s diplomacy, the origin of the text of the Joint Declaration, was able to be given therein the “red lines” of the United States like North Korea.

China, a permanent member of the Security Council, closer to Pyongyang, unequivocally condemned the nuclear test on October, 9th 2006 and Resolution 1718 of the Council of October, 14th 2006. Pyongyang has imposed an embargo on equipment related to nuclear technology or missiles, as well as weapons and related materials. At the end of October 2006, North Korea finally proposed to resume the six-party talks, reflecting the still strong influence of China.

Nowadays, however, Pyongyang’s nuclear tests and ongoing nuclear weapon threats have again raised concerns and troubled the international conciliation, posited itself as the world enemy. This has complicated its connection with Beijing. Indeed, relations between Beijing and Pyongyang are complex and cannot be reduced to the role of China as a mediator in the international crisis over North Korea’s nuclear weapon program. As said above, China has conceded and agreed to harsher penalties against North Korea.

Recently, Representatives in Beijing and Washington had specified that China has taken some significant actions on North Korea. As the North Korean accelerated nuclear tests and intercontinental ballistic missile launches, China acknowledged harder penalties at the United Nations towards Pyongyang. It has approved to undo banking bonds, limit the export of diesel fuel, terminate joint-venture businesses with North Korea.

Yet, lately, as a banned coal imports has been decided, the Beijing’s coal imports in August 2017 has raised doubt in the readiness of China to abide to the new U.N. sanctions. Though, it has been argued that Beijing only sought to resolve the remaining issue of the surplus coal from February by letting it enter the country in August, without any attempt to violate U.N sanctions.

This shows the uncomfortable position of China as even though it is willing to stabilize his relation with Korea and seek for peace in Asia, North Korea’s nuclear program is becoming gradually challenging for China’s yearning to preserve regional stability.

[1] the Fourth Round of the Six-Party Talks was held in Beijing among the People’s Republic of China, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, and the United States of America

About the author:
*Heritiana Randrianantoandro, PhD Candidate in International relations at the School of International and Public Affairs, Jilin University China. Currently conducting research on international sanctions, power politics, international law, foreign policy and bargaining strategy. Holder of a MPhil in Public law &Political Science and a Master degree in Business and international law, my focus has been writing and conducting research on international political economy, international investments, interregionalism / regionalism, democracy.

Source:
This article was published by Modern Diplomacy

Saudi’s crown prince claims to be a reformer – hasty military moves and corruption crackdown may be attempts to mask failures.

By Dilip Hiro*

In 2013, a 28-year-old Saudi prince described himself simply as “lawyer” to a visiting BBC journalist. On 23 January 2015 he was appointed Saudi Arabia’s defense minister, overseeing the third highest defense budget after the United States and China. At the end of that month, he was named head of the Council for Economic and Development Affairs and, two months later, became chairman of the Public Investment Fund after its transfer from the Finance Ministry. On 15 April 2017 he was promoted to deputy crown prince and two weeks later appointed head of the Supreme Council of the Saudi Arabian Oil Company, the globe’s largest petroleum corporation. To cap it all, on 21 June, he was elevated to crown prince at the expense of his 56-year-old cousin.

Meet Prince Muhammad bin Salman – overambitious and cunning, a heartbeat away from succeeding his 81-year-old father King Salman bin Abdul Aziz, reportedly suffering from dementia – leading his own Game of Thrones in the Desert Kingdom.

A young, inexperienced heir to the Arab world’s most powerful throne, Bin Salman is consolidating his power by crushing potential centers of power outside the Royal Court. The need is urgent after his string of failures, including initiatives in Yemen and Qatar, and all-consuming, counterproductive hatred of Shia-majority Islamic Republic of Iran.

He is the first of six sons born to King Salman’s third and last wife, Fahda bint Falah bin Sultan, nearly 20 years junior to her husband who ascended the throne on 23 January 2015. According to Bin Salman, his father made him read a book every week, and his mother ordered staff to arrange extracurricular courses and fieldtrips. Unlike his four elder half-brothers who enrolled at Western universities, he obtained his undergraduate law degree in 2007 from King Saud University in Riyadh. He proudly describes himself as a member of the generation that grew up playing video games.

Since becoming deputy crown prince, Bin Salman colluded with his father to undermine designated Crown Prince Muhammad Bin Nayef with a series of ill-disguised rebuffs. The climax came on 21 June. The monarch stripped Bin Nayef of his long-held post of Interior Minister, passing this on to 33-year-old Prince Abdul Aziz bin Saud, who lacks law enforcement, intelligence or counterterrorism experience.

On 4 November the father-son duo struck with startling speed to cut short potential challenges to their power grab. First, King Salman decreed a new anti-corruption committee, with powers to arrest and confiscate corruptly obtained assets, under Bin Salman.  He reshuffled the cabinet, replacing the Sandhurst-trained Prince Mutaib bin Abdullah as commander of the National Guard, made up of tribes loyal to the House of Saud, with a Bin Salman loyalist. As head of the anti-corruption committee, Bin Salman immediately detained princes, ministers and others – 208 in all – in the gilded prison of Riyadh’s Ritz Carlton. Detainees were prohibited from contacting their lawyers.

The timing is related to the growing list of Bin Salman’s misadventures. Within two months of becoming defense minister, he spearheaded an air blitzkrieg in the Yemen civil war against Shia Houthis controlling the capital of Sana’a and large parts of the republic. He did so without a clear overarching strategy. A headstrong unilateralist, he did not coordinate his campaign with the National Guard and the Interior Ministry. As it happened, National Guard commander Prince Mutaib was out of the country. He is now confined at the Ritz-Carlton.

Bin Salman boasted that the Houthis would be defeated within six months. Just as the Saudi-led air war was picking up in Yemen, he departed for a two-week vacation in the Maldives, renting a private island with a six-star luxury hotel and nearby island for his entourage of bodyguards and advisers. For entertainment, he hired A-list celebrities like Shakira and Rihanna.  The cost of this holiday: $8 million. It’s hard to reconcile such profligacy with a man chairing the Council for Economic and Development Affairs, charged with reforms to tackle low petroleum prices, and now heading an anti-corruption committee.

At the outset Bin Salman had ruled out putting Saudi boots on the ground in Yemen. He had failed to learn a basic military strategy: to seize control of enemy territory, a ground offensive must follow an air campaign. As a result, his military intervention in the Arab world’s poorest nation has turned into an embarrassing quagmire, draining the Saudi treasury by $6 billion a month. More than 8,650 Yemenis have been killed, with millions left homeless and the republic’s infrastructure destroyed.

His next misadventure occurred after he organized 60 Sunni Muslim heads of state to attend an address on countering radical Islamist terrorism by US President Donald Trump in Riyadh on 20 May. Two weeks later Bin Salman breached Sunni solidarity with a hasty move against Qatar. At his initiative, Saudi Kingdom and its three allies not only broke relations with Qatar and imposed a trade blockade, but also presented a set of demands, including some that challenge the emirate’s sovereign rights – preeminent among these a requirement that Qatar terminate diplomatic ties with Iran. The list also challenged Turkey’s sovereignty, including the call to “Immediately terminate the Turkish military presence in Qatar and end any joint military cooperation with Turkey inside Qatar.” Unsurprisingly, Turkey and Iran moved to supply food and other supplies to Qatar even as Doha continues to prepare to host the 2022 World Cup Final.

Bin Salman overlooked that Qatar is a key partner in Washington’s war against the Islamic State – host to 10,000 troops and 100 warplanes and drones at Al-Udeid Air Base, 25 miles southwest of Doha, The failure of his move against Qatar was obvious to all yet he suppressed even muted criticism.

The locus of Bin Salman’s animus is Iran. On 1 May, an Al Arabiya TV interviewer asked if he saw a possibility for direct talks with Iran, which he portrays as the puppet-master of Shia Houthis in Yemen. Responding, he referred to a Shia belief of the 12th Hidden Imam, who disappeared around 868 AD and is expected to return as a messiah, to bring justice to the world: “How can I come to an understanding with someone, or a regime, that has an anchoring belief built on an extremist ideology?” he asked.  He then asserted that Iran aims to “control the Islamic world” – even though Shias represent only 15 percent of Muslims worldwide.

In late October, Bin Salman blamed the 1979 revolution in Iran for turning Saudi Arabia into a hardline Islamic state.  He seemed woefully ignorant of his kingdom’s recent history. The most serious domestic ideological challenge to the Saudi regime came on 20 November 1979, the eve of the Islamic New Year. Hundreds of armed radical Wahhabi insurgents, led by Juheiman bin Muhammad al Utaiba, seized the Grand Mosque in Mecca.  In the two-week battle to retake the sacred site, 127 of the 10,000 troops were killed, as were 25 worshippers and 117 insurgents.

After crushing the most serious armed threat to the House of Saud since its 1932 founding, the regime examined Juheiman’s criticisms, which were subtly endorsed by Grand Mufti Abdul Aziz bin Baz. In a series of social and educational steps, King Khalid and his successor King Fahd closed a gap that had developed over decades between its administration and the puritanical Wahhabi doctrine. The regime closed cinemas and theaters, and banned publication of pictures of unveiled women in newspapers and books. Such bans were not imposed in post-1979 Iran where, for example, state television employs women anchors.

Bin Salman unveiled more drama on 4 November by holding the allegedly corrupt elite in Riyadh’s five-star hotel. Succeeding scenes should reveal the charges leveled against the detainees and the modalities of their trials, the like of which have not been conducted in the Desert Kingdom before.

*Dilip Hiro is the author of A Comprehensive Dictionary of the Middle East (Interlink Publishing Group, Northampton, MA). Read an excerpt. His latest and 36th book is The Age of Aspiration: Power, Wealth, and Conflict in Globalizing India (The New Press, New York). Read an excerpt.

By Dr Subhash Kapila*

US President Trump’s first tour of the Asia Pacific in November 2017, nearly a year after assuming office, raises two questions in terms of estimative analysis— whether it was a strategic foray to a highly volatile region critical for US security or was it merely a diplomatic necessity, particularly in relation to China?

In November 2017, the United States cannot be oblivious to the reality that China’s ultimate strategic aim is to dethrone the United States initially from its Asia Pacific strategic predominance and ultimately exploit the ensuing decline of US power to emerge as the global co-equal of the United States. United States must therefore restrain itself from any deferential display towards China which increasingly has been positioning itself to fill the vacuum of a perceived decline of US power.

On the face of it, it seems to be a mix of both the above named components with the strategic foray imperatives predominating. Nowhere in the world is the United States’ global stature as the world leader and the predominant power in Asia Pacific more challenged than in this region by China.

The United States is under strategic siege in the Asia Pacific and militarily challenged by an aggressive and brinkmanship-prone China. China additionally besieges the United States through its wayward proxy protégé that is North Korea.

China has built up its proxy North Korea satellite into a nuclear weapons and missiles monster to levels where North Korea not only is a serious menace to US Allies in the region but also capable of striking Mainland USA.

President Trump’s Asia Pacific tour was to commence from China but better sense prevailed and this tour started with visits to Japan and South Korea before heading for China. Japan and South Korea have been enduring military Allies of the United States.

Japan significantly is the sheet anchor of the United States security architecture in the Asia Pacific. Japan has been an enduring ally of the United States and deserves more deferential acknowledgement from the United States. China has constantly worked to undermine US national security and is a powerful threat that the US has now to manage—-and nothing beyond that.

By doing so, President Trump validated Japan and South Korea as steadfast security Allies of the United States and this should have been so when contextually viewing China as the root cause of United States’ security and trade concerns in the Asia Pacific.

The United States needs the unstinted strategic, diplomatic and military support of both Japan and South Korea if it has to effectively counter North Korea’s unrestrained nuclear menace and so also to have in place a regional security counterweight system to balance a similar unrestrained military rise of China.

Analytically, therefore, President Trump’s Asia Pacific tour in November 2017 can be estimated as a ‘strategic foray’ to reassure its traditional Allies in the region that the United States stands committed to maintaining security and stability in the region.

President Trump enjoys a strong personal rapport with Japanese PM Abe and there are no doubts here. But in the case of South Korea, the new South Korean President Moon raised US concerns with his initial opposition to US THADD deployment in South Korea and also his efforts for a political outreach to North Korea.

Continuing the thread of strategic foray in the region, President Trump’s visits to Vietnam and Philippines can be estimated to have been an attempt to reinforce the growing US-Vietnam strategic proximity. In case of the Philippines, it can be estimated that the US President aimed the visit as a serious attempt to “reclaim” the Philippines as a firm strategic Ally of the United States. This was an imperative as the mercurial Philippines President went overboard in a political outreach to China soon after his inauguration. This has turned out to be disappointing for the Philippines President.

In view of the foregoing President Trump’s Asia Pacific tour covering Japan, South Korea, Vietnam and the Philippines can be estimated not only as a strategic imperative but also strategically useful for the United States.

The China visit of US President Trump cannot be estimated as a strategic foray as in the preceding months the Chinese President did not honour the US President’s eff orts to enlist him to restrain North Korea’s nuclear belligerence and the threatening rhetoric against the United States. Chinese President Xi with his emphasis on using Chinese ‘Hard Power’ as a policy instrument was not and will not oblige the United States on the North Korean count.

US President could not have realistically hoped to dent the Chinese President’s obduracy on not restraining North Korea belligerence despite having emerged as even more stronger after the 19th NPC last month. Therefore, the strategic component would have been missing in the Beijing parleys.

Estimatively, one could conclude that US President Trump would have indulged in some plain-speaking with the Chinese President behind closed doors on North Korea. If it was otherwise then surely, United States image would take a strategic hit not only in relation to China but also in Asian capitals which do not view China through rosy prisms as the US pro-China Lobby in Washington.

Trade and investments issues are a sore point in US-China relations and here again, despite the rhetorical flourishes in Beijing and his personal effusive praises for the Chinese President cannot cover-up China’s manipulations on trade relations with the US and also currency manipulation.

China however seems to have attempted to silence United States pressures on trade issues by obliging the United States with billions of dollars contracts. Can the United States continue to be permissive on China buying US silence on its aggression in the South China Sea and the East China Sea and other strategic and military turbulences that it creates in Asia?

The above can be estimated as short term transactional financial gains for the United States but unlikely to transform the overall adversarial tenor of US-China relations. What needs to be noted is that while President Trump was more than effusive in personal praise of Chinese President Xi, no matching responses ensued from the Chinese President.

The China visit of US President Trump can be estimated merely as a diplomatic exercise in the overall attempt of the United States to” Manage China” on an aggressive trajectory in the Asia Pacific, while the United States undertakes other steps to contain China. In this connection, it needs to be mentioned that while US President was on the penultimate leg of his tour in the Philippines, the US Navy had commenced a major exercise off the coast of North Korea concentrating three Aircraft Carrier Groups—for the first time in this decade. Significantly, Japan also sent its Helicopter Carrier to join the US Navy exercise.

The message of the above to China by the United States should be seen as signalling that should China not restrain North Korea with its tremendous leverages, the United States and Japan have the military option on the table.

At this stage of this estimative analysis it becomes imperative as to what personal impressions US President Trump has formed over and above the professional briefs provided to him, after his 12 day tour of Asia Pacific including attending the AOPEC and East Asia Summit.

It would be fair to say that one over-riding strategic concern in Asia Pacific capitals other than Beijing would be the fear of an aggressive China moreso reinforced after Chinese President’s ascent to emerging as China’s 21st Century Emperor and the pursuit of his grandiose ‘Great China Dream’.

Strategic concerns in Asian capitals would be two-fold. Firstly, how far the United States would descend to kow-tow to China in the pursuit of US national security interests? Secondly, would the United States have the will to use military power to tame North Korea’s nuclear blackmailing? On both counts, the image of the United States takes a hit unless President Trump carries ot a mid-term course correction to allay Asian fears of China.

The oft-repeated theme in my SAAG Papers of the last fifteen years is that Asian capitals are not willing to accept two things from the United States cantering on China. Firstly, Asian capitals would not countenance United States having a conciliatory and differential approach to China while at the same time egging Asian Nations to confront China. Secondly, Asian capitals would oppose any United States efforts to co-opt China into a G-2 Condominium to manage Asian security and stability. The Obama Administration disabused its mind of this initiative well in his first term.

Concluding this estimative analysis one would like to assert that if the United States wishes to sustain its global and Asia Pacific predominance it can only do so by an unreserved commitment from Asian capitals and not by a US-China G2 Condominium. Can the United States or its Presidents be oblivious to the strategic reality that China’s avowed aim is to dethrone the United States from both these pedestals? That should be the fulcrum around which United States policy formulations on China should revolve.

*Dr Subhash Kapila is a graduate of the Royal British Army Staff College, Camberley and combines a rich experience of Indian Army, Cabinet Secretariat, and diplomatic assignments in Bhutan, Japan, South Korea and USA. Currently, Consultant International Relations & Strategic Affairs with South Asia Analysis Group. He can be reached at drsubhashkapila.007@gmail.com

The politics of Nuclear Supplier Group has proved that international system works never works on moral values and merits; it is based on interests of states. NSG has gained attention of global community when India and Pakistan has applied for membership of nuclear cartel. India and Pakistan are determined to join NSG to acquire new kind of high-tech nuclear related technologies.

The Nuclear Supplier Group is a body of the 48 states, aims to export nuclear-related material for peaceful purpose and prohibit the Nuclear Proliferation for military use. India and Pakistan have applied to get the membership of NSG for two reasons. First, inclusion would help them to become a part of International arena, where norms of nuclear commerce will provide access to sophisticated foreign nuclear technologies. Second, through membership of the group both states would be recognized as a responsible nuclear state.

The United States and several other countries are supporting for NSG membership. Although many states are supporting Indian NSG membership bid but few states, such as China and certain European states, are against this idea. These states are demanding non-discriminatory and criteria based approach. Under the NSG guidelines, a non-NPT state cannot get the membership of the group. This aspect has turned the India the NSG bids into a difficult task despite of many efforts. China and other European states have concerns that considering India, which is not party to Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), will deteriorate both the group and nonproliferation regime.

It is proved that NSG membership of India and Pakistan revolves around the major power politics. India has been granted the status of special waiver whereas Pakistan is facing discriminatory attitude of major powers. The most ironic aspect of this issue is that NSG was established in response of India’s nuclear explosion to stop nuclear proliferation and now its entry is being strongly supported by major powers of the group. Additionally, other initatives such as Grossi’s proposal to support India’s NSG bid has clearly defined the global power’s politics. Therefore, NSG politics are shaping up to be perilous for nuclear diplomacy because irony of the issue is that NSG was established after NPT failed to hamper India from conducting nuclear explosion.

The International community should follow principle approach and treat the nuclear status of India-Pakistan equally. However, India is enjoying the exceptional treatment from various countries of the group while leaving Pakistan on disadvantage. It is imperative to understand that granting membership to India and not Pakistan would disturb the strategic stability and inject the never ending nuclear arms race in the region. So to secure the membership of nuclear cartel and develop the favorable criteria, Pakistan needs to take multiple measures. These measures are following:

Pakistan needs to adopt more proactive foreign policy and diplomacy to cater the support for Pakistan’s bid in nuclear group. Though China’s official stance support the Pakistan’s candidature but it is important for Pakistan to maintain its resilience and sustainability in its strategy regarding membership of nuclear cartel. In this regard Pakistan should start a diplomatic campaign to convince the other NSG members of its needs and capabilities.

Economic engagement and need to project itself as a great economic incentive for other states.
Thus Pakistan should sign agreement for civil nuclear cooperation with other states, while focusing on economic progress to attract other nuclear vendors to discover commercial advantages in the country.

In the future, U.S. and India will increased their efforts to convince member states including china to support India’s membership application without considering the impact of such policies on South Asian strategic stability and global efforts of Non-proliferation. Accordingly, knowing India’s vigorous efforts to disturb the Balance of power in region, it is necessary for Pakistan to take measures to enhance its capabilities in order to ensure that strategic stability and regional security.

Thus, NSG politics shows the United States discriminatory approach to support India’s membership is deeply rooted in its own geostrategic and geo-economics interests. The membership of NSG is significant for Pakistan, but standing against the discrimination is imperative. As well as, the discriminatory approach of NSG member states has significant implications for the credibility of the nuclear cartel and its ability to support non-proliferation norms and international security. To conclude, Pakistan should remember that global politics are based on interest and there are no permanent friends in global politics. So Instead of relying only on China, Pakistan’s policy makers should approach other NSG states to seek support for membership of nuclear cartel.

*Asma Khalid, The writer is Research Associate at Strategic Vision Institute, a think-tank based in Islamabad. Email: asmaakhalid_90@hotmail.com

By R. Upadhyay

This is not the first time when political contestation on controversy over Taj Mahal turned into a communal debate. As far back as in 2005 when Mulayam singh Yadav was the chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, his cabinet colleague Azam Khan created a controversy over the ownership of Taj Mahal and supported the demand of the U. P. Sunni Wakf Board that this medieval monument which was on a grave be handed over to the Sunni Wakf Board. In fact the UP Sunni Wakf Board maintained that it comes under the property of the Wakf and thereby should be controlled by the Sunni Muslims. The move was however challenged by the Archaeological Survey of India and its present position is unknown. Some Muslims also demanded that Taj Mahal should be allowed for Namaj. The issue was viewed in political circle as an effort of the Samajwadi Party to appease the Muslims. Countering the claim of the Muslim leaders, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad claimed that the Taj Mahal was built after demolishing a Shiva temple on the plea that in the sealed basement of the monument contains the “pillars of a temple” and demanded that it should be declared as temple. Recent remark of BJP MLA Sangit Som that ‘Taj Mahal is a blot on Indian culture’ is also viewed as an ideological reflection of his party though the BJP has denied it.

Whether it is the ownership controversy over Taj Mahal initiated by the Muslim leaders or the claim of the VHP or the remark of Sangit Som, in absence of any authentic medieval record it is difficult to prove who is correct except the prevalent historical view that the fifth Moghal Emperor Shahjahan built Taj Mahal in the memory of his wife Mumtaj Mahal, who died in 1631, while delivering the fourteenth child within eighteen years of her married life. Her dead body was temporarily buried at Burhanpur in Madhya Pradesh. It was later exhumed and reburied on the Taj ground in Agra.

The main source about the history of Taj Mahal is the Badsahh Namah (History of Shahjehan reign) written by the paid chronicler of the Emperor’s contemporary writer Abd al – Hamid Lahori. Badshah Namah’ is basically a court document of Shahjehan. Epigraphic accounts and data of the foreign travellers as Peter Mundy Traveenier and Burnier, who visited Agra contemporarily, are also used as corroborative materials. With these base materials tourists, scholars and historians expanded their ideas on Taj only when the British regime developed one of the hundreds of monuments of medieval age for tourist attraction. Prior to that “few Indian artists have written about Taj” (Pal, 1989, page 194 as quoted in ‘Tourist at the Taj’ by Tim Edensor, London, New York, 1998, page72).

“The notion that the Taj Mahal is the supreme romantic building of a fabulous, imaginary romantic building emerged out of colonial classificatory schemes and fantasies” (‘Tourist at the Taj’ by Tim Edensor, London, New York, 1998, page72). For diplomatic reasons, the British deliberately devalued the pre medieval heritage of Indian civilisation by giving preference to the monuments of Muslim period. It was the reason that “Most western tourists articulate notions that the TAJ is a symbol of India, and continue to rank it in global terms” (Ibid. page 75). This author also quoted Pal, who asserted that “both the romance and image of the Taj were largely a creation of the British in the last quarter of eighteenth century” (Pal, 1989, 199-‘Torist at the Taj’ page 194). These observations suggest that glorified writings on Taj were mostly fantasies.

It is said that glorification of any worldly item or event is abjured in Islam. Even in Saudi Arabia there is no tradition for glorifying the funeral of its Kings and they are buried in a common graveyard. Abtesham Qureshy, a columnist in Pioneer on August 11, 2005 said, “in true tradition of Islam, ‘glory be to Allah alone, the Almighty’. Contrary to this spirit of Islam, which is still followed in its birth place, the fifth Moghal Emperor Shahjehan (1628-1658) exhumed the dead body of his ‘most beloved’ wife Mumtaj Mahal from her temporary grave in Burhanpur and housed it in a magnificent monument popularly known as Taj Mahal. Some historians described it as ‘representative of the glorious Moghal period and a unique gift of the medieval age to the people of India’. Glorification of Taj Mahal as ‘a dream of marble’, ‘immortal teardrop on the cheek of time’, ‘a monument of love’ etc. therefore may not fit in the Islamic tradition of simplicity.

Apart from Mumtaj Mahal, Shahjehan had several other queens and concubines whose tombs are still extant at Agra, but he was said to have completely dedicated the monument only Mumtaj Mahal. (‘Agra and its Monuments’ by Professor R.Nath, 1997, page 110). Despite three legal wives and concubines he was said to have completely dedicated the monument only Mumtaj Mahal. This was also against the Quranic concept of treating all the wives equally.

Another point relating to violation of Islamic tradition by Shahjehan was the extravagant expenditure over Taj Mahal. Encyclopaedia of Indian heritage edited by Prof. Ramesh Chandra described Taj Mahal as the most extravagant monument ever built for love. The story goes that had his son Aurangzeb not deposed Shahjehan, he could have built a second Taj of black marble to house his own grave. The estimated cost of the monument is “a little over three crores of rupees of Shahjehan time” (Encyclopaedic Survey of Islamic Culture – Edited by Mohammad Taher, 1997, page 275). ‘Badshah Namah’ gave rupees fifty lakhs as cost of Taj Mahal. 20,000 workers were engaged for over 12 years for completion of the monument. Despite the condition of common people, who lived in ‘abject poverty’ during his reign, Shahjahan remained extravagant. “While the emperor continued his extravagant spending on the construction of the Taj Mahal, a famine raged in Gujarat and Deccan, causing thousands of deaths. Peter Mundy, an employee of the English East India Company, made a harrowing journey from the English trading station at Surat to Burhanpur and beyond. An account of his travels and quotes from official Moghul documents are found in ‘The Peacock Throne’ by Waldemar Hansen”(‘The Taj Mahal’ by Myra Weatherly, Lucent Books, London, 2003, page 47). “At night Mundy’s party pitched their tents in the only space available – among the corpses scattered everywhere.” “Life was offered for a loaf, but none would buy” (Ibid.).

Against the pathetic living condition of common people, Shahjahan spent crores of rupees of his time and constructed Taj Mahal, Lal Qila and Jaamaa Masjid perhaps at the corpse of humanity. The above historical records suggest that Shahjehan even violated the principle of Jakaat (gift to poor and needy), which is one of the five basic principles of Islam namely Kalma, Namaaz, Roza, Zakaat and Haj. His extravagant expenditure over Taj was therefore against the Islamic tradition of jakaat. A poem -‘Ek Shahanshah ne daulat ka sahara lekar, ham garibon ke Muhabbat ka udaya hai mazak’ (A king with the help of his wealth has derided the love of we the poor) is often quoted against the glorification of Taj.

Without realising the danger that any issue having communal overtones might further widen the centuries old communal divide, the Sunni Wakf Board deliberately generated a confrontational debate with a view to play politics on this World famous monument. Some books as well as papers uploaded in web sites appeared with potential arguments that the Hindu palace could have been “converted by decree and some minimum face lifting to a Mughal tomb” etc. A paper entitled ‘An Architect looks at the Taj Mahal Legend’ by Professor Marwin H.Mills, Pratt Institute, New York referred to Badshah Namah of Lahori and said, “As there was a tract of land (Zamini) of great eminence and pleasantness towards the south of that large city (Agra), on which before there was this mansion (Manzil) of Raja Man Singh, and which now belongs to his grandson Raja Jai Singh, it was selected for the burial place (Madfan) of that tenant of paradise Mumtaz).” The writer also questioned the ASI for blocking the scientific dating of Taj. He said: “Why has the Archaeological Survey of India blocked any dating of Taj by means of Carbon – 14 or thermo-luminescence? Any controversy over which century the Taj was built could easily be resolved. [Radiocarbon dating of a piece of wood surreptitiously taken from one of the doors gave 13th century as a possible date. But more data is needed]”(Ibid.).

In the background of extravagant expenditure over Taj by Shahjenan even at the cost of his starving subjects, whether it was a religious monument in the true spirit of Islamic tradition is a debatable point. He might have created even a Wakf for the upkeep of Taj but will such endowment pass the scrutiny under the true spirit of this pious, religious or charitable institution?

Taj is included in the list of international heritage and the ASI is responsible for its upkeep, preservation and protection. Sunni Wakf Board might be under the impression that it would bring back this monument to its pristine glamour. But historical discussion suggests that even during the reign of Shajehan the upkeep of the Taj ‘suffered from neglect and vandalism’. His son Aurangzeb after his visit to the monument found extensive leakage in various parts of the tomb, mosque and assembly hall and accordingly wrote to his father regarding the damage caused by rains. How can the Wakf board ensure better maintenance of Taj than the Archaeological Survey of India? How will the Mutawalli (manager) be prosecuted when large sums will be transacted in the case of Taj Mahal. Should the Shariat courts deal or the regular courts? Certainly the GOI will not permit prosecution under Shariat for criminal.

The Shia descendants of the royal family of Avadh have already protested over the claim of Sunni Wakf Board in the plea that Mumtaj Mahal, whose grave is housed in Taj Mahal belonged to Shia Sect of Muslims and if any claim is staked over this monument, it could be only by the Shias. They however, “appealed to the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to intervene in the politics over the Taj and save the monument of love from the web of controversy” (Pioneer dated July 17, 2005).

The point is that the vote seeking political leaders can go to any extent if it suits their political interests. Ironically, the Muslim masses fall somewhere between the poles of absolute loyalty to the Indian political system and complete contempt against and as a result they are exploited by the vested interests. Sunni Wakf Board too for its political game exploits this situation. Today it is Taj Mahal, tomorrow it may even be Red Fort. Ironically, such never-ending divisive game has become a part of contemporary politics.

Conclusion:

The purpose of this discussion must not be seen as criticism of any individual or institution. It is just an attempt to stir the conscience of both the Islamists and the Hindu nationalists to see that their discordant political cross fire does not affect the reputation of this world famous monument. Dating if need be can be done by the Archaeological Survey of India at any suitable time.

By Ronald-Peter Stöferle*

The vote for Brexit and the election of Donald Trump has baffled the main stream and the establishment. Most market participants and observers didn’t believe ex ante that they were possible, and as a result were completely surprised when the unexpected happened. Ever since the term populism has become socio-politically relevant in modern-day public discourse. Google Trends illustrates that there was a veritable explosion in search queries for the term “populism” last year:

But, populism — regardless of its political flavor — merely represents a symptom. The generally surprising results were consequences of the economical erosion of the past years Although there are idiosyncrasies in every country that foster the rise of populist movements, the ailing foundation of the economy provides the fertile soil and is the major driver of people’s dissatisfaction and the associated voting decisions. To assert that populism is the reason for this process of political change is in our opinion far too simplistic. An analysis of stating that economic erosion is responsible for the rise in populism is supported by by a McKinsey study, which examines the trend in real household incomes in 25 industrialized nations.1 McKinsey arrived at the striking conclusion that real incomes of 65 to 70 percent of households in developed countries either stagnated or even declined between 2005 and 2014. The following chart illustrates the trend in household incomes in selected countries. (The y axis shows the percentage of households with stnating or declining income between 2005 and 2014):

Moreover, numerous studies show that the opportunities and expectations of coming generations to earn more than their parents have worsened significantly. While the probability that members of the baby boomer generation would earn more than their parents was 62%, this probability has declined to 50% for generations born since 1980.2 Income equality has deteriorated dramatically over time as well. The share of national income earned by the bottom 90% of the US population has decreased from 66% in 1980 to 50% today.3 Contrary to the picture painted by numerous macroeconomic statistics, the economic situation is apparently not as bright as it is often portrayed.

What cannot be quantified by statistical aggregates is the cause of the economic erosion suffered by the middle class, which can ultimately be traced back to our monetary system. The low interest rate environment orchestrated by central banks has not only failed to solve our economic problems, but is – in keeping with the business cycle theory developed by Mises and Hayek – the very cause of the business cycle.

Apart from creating the business cycle, ZIRP and NIRP-policies of central banks also result in an ever more pronounced concentration of incomes and wealth. In this context, it is crucial to understand the so-called Cantillon effect, which we have also discussed comprehensively in our book. As we point out there, when newly created money is introduced, it enters the economy at discrete points, it cannot be distributed evenly across the entire economy.

Instead, every expansion of the money supply results in a transfer of wealth: the early receivers of new money can purchase goods at their existing prices and thus gain purchasing power, whereas later receivers of new money can only buy goods at prices that have already increased, and are losing purchasing power as a result. In today’s monetary system, it is primarily commercial banks, the government and large corporations with good financial market access that are benefiting as the earliest receivers of newly created money, while all other sectors are losing out – the further removed from the source of money creation they are, the bigger their losses.

This concentration effect is inter alia reflected by real estate prices in international financial centers such as London or New York, as well as in large discrepancies between urban and rural areas. Maps showing the distribution of votes in the US election and the Brexit referendum can clearly be interpreted from this perspective as well:

It is conspicuous that the Trump election and Brexit met with high approval rates in largely rural areas in the US and Great Britain, while metropolitan areas tended to vote in favor of the status quo (i.e., for Hillary Clinton or Remain).

The economic situation in these regions undoubtedly plays a role in this. While large cities have often benefited from the fiat money system due to their proximity to politics and financial markets, many rural areas are drying up economically. These regions were often hit the hardest by deindustrialization.

The following chart shows the discrepancy between productivity growth and real household incomes. After World War II income and productivity growth tended to track each other closely, but since the 1980s a growing divergence can be observed:

The same applies to hourly wages as well: between 1973 and 2015 net productivity grew by 73.4%, while the hourly wage of the average US worker rose by a mere 11.1% in inflation-adjusted terms, and thus effectively stagnated. Viewed from this perspective, it is not surprising that voters are increasingly warming up to populist ideas.

About the author:
*Ronald-Peter Stöferle is managing partner and fund manager at Incrementum AG, Liechtenstein. He invests using the principles of the Austrian school of economics.

Source:
This article was published by the MISES Institute

Notes:
1. See “Poorer Than Their Parents? Flat or Falling Incomes in Advanced Economies.”, McKinsey<
2. See “The American Dream, Quantified at Last”, New York Times
3. See “Populism is the result of global economic failure”, The Guardian

By Eriks Selga and Benjamin Rasmussen*

(FPRI) — Russian disinformation has led a blitzkrieg over the West, and the implications are grave. Germany witnessed the scandal of “Lisa,” France saw false claims of Saudi Arabian financing for President Macron’s campaign,  Norway was accused of stealing children from their families, and Ukraine was reported as crucifying a three year old child. Not even the United States could escape the Kremlin’s reach; the integrity of the U.S. electoral system was brought into question after Kremlin-financed troll activity and social media advertising helped Donald Trump win the election.

Moscow’s campaigns are far-reaching both horizontally across nations, and vertically within societies. If the United States is to become resilient against these information threats, Washington must craft a strategy that focuses on Russia’s primary target: the mass public. Developing awareness at the grassroots level requires strong guidance from national leaders. Considering the Baltic states have done this for decades with effective results, the United States should lean heavily on takeaways from the Baltic experience when crafting a strategy to defend the U.S. information space.

Understanding the Gamut of Russian Disinformation

The breadth of the modern Russian propaganda machine underscores the urgent need for a counter-disinformation strategy. Moscow has utilized state-controlled internet trolls and bots since 2011, when they were mobilized to gain the support of the Russian middle class in an internet environment not yet under state control. Ever since, Russia has continued to develop a comprehensive methodology that uses a wide network of sources and internet algorithms to push biased content to target audiences and achieve national objectives. A 2016 resolution of the European Parliament accentuated the scope of instruments employed by the Russian Government: “think tanks (e.g. Russkiy Mir), special authorities (Rossotrudnichestvo), multilingual TV stations (such as RT), pseudo news agencies and multimedia services (e.g. Sputnik), cross-border social and religious groups . . . social media and internet trolls.”

Disinformation is often tailored to the local contexts and incidents familiar to the target audience. Campaigns generally bombard target societies with dozens of biased or false stories across the internet until one gets recirculated by more reputable media outlets. While disinformation topics vary widely, they generally center around one of several themes, including radicalization, delegitimization, demoralization, passivation, and deterrence. Concurrently, the stories lend credibility to alternative information outlets by claiming that traditional sources are untrustworthy, thereby creating an “information fog” that sows confusion about the validity of sources. Furthermore, disinformation pieces are often created to corroborate planted stories. Through this method, Russia can impair public decision making capabilities and manipulate opinion.

A report by the Center for European Policy Analysis found Russian strategy to be highly adaptive on a country-by-country basis, with disinformation targets ranging from specific individuals to the political health of the state. The European Union’s East StratCom Task Force highlighted Russia’s use of different tools in different areas. Campaigns directly target Russian-speaking minorities in the Baltic states purposely fill Central Europe with “alternative” websites and flood Scandinavia with comment trolls. Vulnerabilities are carefully sought out to create fitting narratives for the target audience. In the United States, Russian trolls frequently pander to the views of extremists; Twitter bots were found inciting partisan blame for the Charlottesville massacre soon after the event took place, seeking to further national divisions. Disinformation has become endemic across American society; a recent Pew Research Center study found that around a third of Americans encounter fake news online frequently, while almost a quarter have shared such news. When fake news is encountered, Americans are often fooled; an Ipsos study that presented fake news headlines to participants found the vast majority to believe these stories to be either “very” or “somewhat accurate.” Most Americans struggle with what to believe online, making the internet a fertile breeding ground for disinformation.

Baltic Leadership and Disinformation: An Exemplary Model

Disinformation in the Baltic states is disseminated primarily through Russian-controlled media and targets Russian-speaking minorities. The thematic focus of these campaigns is the failure of the state. Recurring themes include economic and social difficulties, state corruption, targeted discrimination against Russian minorities, and NATO/EU support for the broken status quo. Similar campaigns have been prevalent in the region since the collapse of the Soviet Union, but have escalated since the Baltic states began to pursue NATO and EU membership in the late 1990s. Decades of experience against Russian propaganda have allowed the Baltic states to hone their resistance strategies, resulting in a tangible grassroots resiliency.

Baltic populations differ greatly from their U.S. counterparts in terms of susceptibility to disinformation. For example, one study which presented Latvians with fake headlines found that, on average, only a quarter believed the disinformation was truth. Furthermore, only 5 percent of Latvians have not encountered disinformation in mass media, and over half of respondents report the impact of fake news as an important policy issue. These studies suggest that Baltic populations are generally more aware of the disinformation threat and are less easy to fool.

The Baltic information bulwark is built on a distinctively considerable civil and public sector participation in counter-disinformation efforts. In Lithuania, volunteers developed a network of “elves” who counter trolls by following their activity and exposing it as fraudulent in the same forums that disseminate propaganda. Estonia has created its own national broadcasting channel for Russian speakers, and Latvia is implementing media literacy as part of school curricula. The Ministry of Defense in Latvia publicly declared a series of posts stating that NATO was going to mount psychological offenses against Russia as complete falsehoods. All Baltic states have taken various measures against Russian TV channels, intermittently fining and suspending them when their transmissions have constituted illegal agitprop. Finland has already learned from these examples and successfully implemented similar maneuvers to increase its own resiliency against disinformation.

The idea of Russian disinformation is common knowledge across the three neighboring states, and efforts to increase this public awareness originate from the top. The presidents of the Baltic states—Latvia’s Raimonds Vejonis, Lithuania’s Dalia Grybauskaite, and Estonia’s Kersti Kaljulaid—have all taken strong public stances against malicious disinformation campaigns by affirming their existence and leading various response efforts. The combined initiatives of Baltic leaders, the public sector, and the private sector, which consistently echo charges of the Russian disinformation threat, create widespread awareness of the problem. As a result, Baltic populations are more critical when analyzing the media and less susceptible to modern information warfare tactics. Most importantly, the nudging within different levels of society has raised awareness without panic against Russia or other possible perpetrators. Information warfare is considered similar to hacking—a matter of daily life that must be dealt with.

The clarity of positioning by Baltic leaders is a stark contrast to U.S. practice. President Obama, for example, responded to Russia’s information threat not through a straightforward approach towards the public, but rather through opaque discussions with Facebook and other industry giants on their role in the information war. The indecisiveness towards broader public acknowledgment allowed disinformation employed by Russia in favor of its Ukrainian efforts to go largely without criticism from the American public. Even more worrisome are efforts by President Trump and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to downplay Russian involvement in American politics altogether. The lack of a clear stance by U.S leadership towards information feeds the dissonance of narratives, which resonates with the American people. While they are aware of the presence of disinformation, they may fail to understand the full extent of its underlying geopolitical purpose and let down their guard.

Leading the Charge to Grassroots Recognition

If Washington seeks to mitigate disinformation risks, U.S. policymakers must set a new long-term strategic objective for the information space. While studying the domestic disinformation threat and countering it abroad can inform future changes in U.S. tactics for countering the foreign disinformation threat, these initiatives will not be sufficient in creating domestic resilience on their own. Resiliency to disinformation begins at the grassroots level, as the Baltic states have demonstrated. However, grassroots recognition must begin with high-level recognition of the disinformation threat from the most trusted members of the U.S. government.

Therefore, U.S. officials must implement a public awareness campaign that can transform the American public, currently vulnerable to fake news and Russian influence, into a resilient populace aware of the growing disinformation threat. Trust in U.S. defense agencies is high across domestic audiences, so warnings of foreign disinformation should come directly from head defense officials, preferably Secretary of Defense James Mattis or President Trump. These messages could be echoed by Congressmen across the aisle to amplify public awareness.

The positive effects of implementing these tactics are two-fold: first, they would increase widespread public recognition of the problem and organically increase the filtering capabilities of Americans. Second, they would have positive spillover effects on the West’s overall ability to defend against disinformation assaults—steering allied states towards a stronger, more cohesive partnership against a hybrid threat without precedent. High-level recognition alone may not fully solve the disinformation problem, but it would be a powerful step for the United States and its Western partners.

*About the authors:
Eriks K. Selga is an Associate Scholar at FPRI’s Eurasia Program and a lawyer at PricewaterhouseCoopers Legal Latvia.

Benjamin Rasmussen is a Military and Political Intelligence Specialist at the Global Intelligence Trust LLC and a researcher for the Security and Foreign Policy Center of the Roosevelt Institute at Yale.

Source:
This article was published by FPRI

Morocco’s decades-long commitment to clean and sustainable energy is widely recognized. The 2017 Climate Change Performance Index ranked Morocco alongside France, Sweden, and the UK in the top ten most climatically conscious countries, and number one in the developing world, based on criteria including CO2 emissions, renewable energy development, efficiency, and climate policy. Undoubtedly, Morocco will continue to be on the upswing. The northern African nation has strongly promoted a transition towards renewable energy, which it is now implementing. Morocco is widely expected to rank even higher in the coming years

The Moroccan Press Agency reported that Princess Lalla Hasnaa represented in Bonn, King Mohammed VI at the opening ceremony of the high-level segment of the 23rd Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 23).

The opening ceremony was preceded by an informal meeting of heads of state and government chaired by UNSG Antonio Guterres, and attended by Lalla Hasnaa.

The opening ceremony of the COP23 high-level segment was marked by speeches by the UNSG, president of the Federal Republic of Germany Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Fiji’s Prime Minister and COP23 president Frank Bainimarama and UNGA president Miroslav Lajcak.

The high-level segment will resume in the afternoon with statements by several heads of state.

The COP23, held on November 6-17 under the presidency of the Fiji Islands, is meant to devise rules and regulations that would help carry out the Paris Agreement aimed at curbing global temperature rise below 2° Celsius.

As part of the continuity of the Marrakech event, Fiji’s COP23 presidency makes it a top priority to preserve the multilateral consensus laid down in the Paris Agreement to substantially reduce greenhouse emissions, with the ambition of keeping the current momentum for the implementation of the said Agreement via a series of climate actions.

It is worth noting that Morocco last year hosted the 22nd Conference of Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP22) in Marrakesh. A car Berenice that has witnessed a major success. On the sidelines of that successful climate summit King Mohammed VI delivered a powerful message in which he shares his vision and commitment to clean and sustainable energy in the African continent. He is a powerful excerpt of that speech:

“I suggest that we build an African continent that is resilient to climate change and that commits resolutely to sustainable development; an African continent that will use its resources in an optimal way, while respecting environmental and social balances; a continent that will seek to promote inclusive development, in line with the specific features of its identity, particularly the culture of sharing, of fairness and of solidarity.

Before going any further, I would like to raise a fundamental question.

It goes without saying that the concern about the future of our planet and the interest taken in the issue by active civil society organizations are real.

But are there really any common, action-oriented objectives? There are two basic elements I would like to consider with you in this regard..

First, there is a disparity between the North and the South when it comes to culture and the environment. That disparity concerns priorities as well as means.

For this reason, it is important to harmonize, even unify, environmental education efforts. The Moroccan Presidency will seek to achieve that objective during its term.

Do we need to point out that the colonial era is over, and that imposed decisions cannot be productive? Do we need to point out that stakeholders lack neither the commitment nor the goodwill required, though they sometimes lack the necessary means?

We are all aware that what is at stake is the preservation of life, and that we need to work together to protect the Earth. It is precisely for this reason that I would like to see a convergence of views regarding our actions on the ground.”

Bill Maher unleashed a vile assault on Christians, singling out Catholics, on his November 10 HBO show, “Real Time with Bill Maher.”

After discussing an offensive remark made by Alabama state auditor Jim Zeigler, who defended senatorial candidate Roy Moore by citing Joseph and Mary as an example of an older man having sex with a minor, Maher said, “Using Jesus to justify child molestation? I mean, even Catholics went, ‘Tried it, doesn’t work.'”

Maher wasn’t finished. “Joseph and Mary didn’t f***. Isn’t that the whole point of the story?”

Maher’s long history of assaulting the sensibilities of Catholics extends back decades (go to the Catholic League website and click on “Special Reports”). We’ve pursued many avenues of redress against him, but his corporate defenders continue to invoke a free speech argument. That answer was undercut by HBO twice this year.

Just this month, HBO announced that Louis C.K. was barred from participating in the “Night of Too Many Stars: America Unites for Autism Programs”; it is scheduled to air live November 18. HBO also noted that Louis C.K.’s past projects have been removed from its On Demand services. It even nixed all of Louis C.K.’s programs, including “Lucky Louie,” from its website.

After Maher dropped the “N-word” on his June 2 show, HBO said the next day, “Bill  Maher’s comment last night was completely inexcusable and tasteless. We are removing his deeply offensive comment from any subsequent airings of the show.” Maher apologized, saying that “The word was offensive and I regret saying it and am very sorry.”

Catholics want equal justice. Accordingly, we are launching a petition asking HBO to respond to Maher the way it responded to him in June.

If the “N-word” is “inexcusable,” “tasteless,” and “deeply offensive”—and it is—is it not at least as “inexcusable,” “tasteless,” and “deeply offensive” to speak in such an obscene manner about Jesus, his mother, and his step-father?

To sign the petition, click here

When China brutally attacked Tibet, drove out the protesting Tibetans and forcefully occupied the country a few decades back, many Tibetans expected that USA would intervene and liberate Tibet sooner or later. The Tibetans had such expectations, since USA has been claiming that it stands for freedom and liberty and would support the cause of democracy.

However, even the optimists developed doubts about the commitment of USA towards the cause of Tibet’s independence when the former US President Obama received the Dalai Lama through the back door in White House, as he was anxious not to antagonize China and chose to ignore China’s misdeeds in Tibet.

When Trump won the election and became the President of USA, hopes were rekindled amongst the Tibetans that Trump administration would take tough stand against China on number of issues , since one of the major political rhetorics of Trump during his election campaign centred around strong observations against China for it’s various acts of omission and commission. As a matter of fact, immediately after assuming office , he spoke to the Taiwanese President over telephone, which act was thought by many persons as a signal to China as to how Trump would deal with it.

All such expectations have vanished after the recent visit of Trump to China.

Many observers around the world have been of the view that the claims of US government about fighting for the cause of liberty and freedom was not genuine and priority of US in shaping relation with all countries only relates to trade and business interests. The statue of liberty in NewYork seems to be only a one more statue in USA and it appears that it has no significance for the US government.

Earlier, when Chinese President Xi Jinping and his wife visited USA, President Trump never raised any issue about human rights violation in China and it’s unjustified claim on Tibetan territory.

The recent visit of President Trump to China makes it amply clear that USA looks at China only as a trade and business partner and US has absolutely no concern about China’s forced occupation of Tibet suppressing the freedom for Tibetans.

During the visit , the focus of the discussions was only on trade and business interests. Commercial deals of over 253 billion USD was signed between USA and China. It is reported that amongst Trump’s family members, his daughter and son in law have strong business ties with China.

In such scenario, can Tibetans expect that US government would be concerned about Tibetan cause?

Tibetans need to work out some strategies and action plans to keep the torch of their freedom struggle alive.

China’s continued occupation of Tibet and the silence of the world community about China’s aggression in Tibet have boosted the confidence of China that it can take the world reaction for granted for all it’s steps of economic and political aggression anywhere.

There is considerable apprehension in countries in south east Asia and far east about China’s territorial ambitions and it’s aggressive game plans. Japan, Vietnam, Philippines are amongst the countries which are viewing China’s various claims on their territory with apprehension and they are realizing that they would be paying too big a price if they would allow China to have it’s way.

These countries are sure to understand the plight that Tibet had to undergo in the hands of China. Tibetans should take some steps to spread awareness about their plight in these countries and seek the support of the governments. This could be a starting point for the next stage of struggle for the Tibetan freedom.

The US inflation rate in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) fell to 0.1 percent in October after an energy driven 0.5 percent rise in September. That increase was largely the result of temporary shortages due to Hurricane Harvey shutting down refineries in Texas. With these refineries coming back online, the price of gas fell by 2.4 percent, partially reversing the 13.1 percent jump in September.

The core inflation in October was 0.2 percent, bringing its increase over the last year to 1.8 percent. The annualized rate comparing the last three months (August, September, October) with the prior three months (May, June, July) has been a slightly more rapid 2.1 percent, although this is not much of an acceleration.

It remains the case that rent is the main source of the core inflation. Rent proper increased by 0.3 percent in October and is up 3.7 percent for the last year. Owners’ equivalent rent has risen by 0.3 percent and is up 3.2 percent for the last year. The main reason for the difference is that the rent proper index often includes utilities, which have risen more rapidly in price than rent itself. A core CPI, that excludes rent, rose just 0.1 percent in October and is up 0.7 percent over the last year.

There were few surprises in this month’s data. The drop in gas prices was predictable as refineries came back online. There is likely to be a somewhat further decline in November, although a rise in world oil prices since the summer may mean that some of the increase sticks.

One other area likely seeing a hurricane effect is used car prices. These jumped 0.7 percent in October, although they are still down by 2.9 percent over the last year. This can be explained by people who had their cars destroyed by the flooding and are looking to replace them. There was no noticeable effect on new car prices, which fell 0.2 percent in October and are down 1.4 percent over the last year.

Inflation in the historic problem areas of medical care and education continues to be under control. Both the medical care and education indices rose by 0.3 percent in October. In the case of medical care, this followed a decline of 0.1 percent in September, bringing the rate of increase over the last year to just 1.7 percent. Within health care, hospital services are a problem, rising 0.5 percent in October and 4.9 percent over the last year.

The October rise was the second consecutive 0.3 percent rise in the education index, although it did fall by 0.1 percent in August. Over the last year, it is up by 2.1 percent.

One important area where inflation slowed in October was auto insurance. Prices rose by just 0.1 percent in October. Even with this figure, prices are up 8.2 percent over the last year. This component accounts for 2.56 percent of the overall index and 3.25 percent of the core CPI.

Another area driving core inflation is tobacco prices. These rose 1.6 percent in October and have risen by 7.6 percent over the last year. This is deliberate policy as states continue to increase tobacco taxes to raise revenue and discourage smoking. This component accounts for 0.68 percent of the overall CPI and 0.87 percent of the core index.

The producer price indices also show little evidence of accelerating inflation. The overall final demand index rose 0.4 percent in October, but this was driven by a 1.1 percent jump in the trade index. The core index rose by just 0.2 percent and is up 2.3 percent over the last year.

The overall price picture in October remains little changed. Inflation is very much under control, with no real evidence of acceleration. The one major problem area is rents. While there had been some weak evidence of slowing rental increases in the summer, now that’s not the case. Apart from rents, inflation shows no evidence of acceleration whatsoever, in spite of the low unemployment rate.

Sanatan Mandir Cultural Society (SMCS) reportedly plans to launch construction of Canada’s northernmost Hindu temple in Fort McMurray (Alberta) on a two-acre plot in May 2018 and finish in October 2019, costing about four million dollars.

SMCS, a registered charitable organization, is said to be raising funds for this about 30,000 square feet Hindu temple and cultural centre, which will include statues of various Hindu deities and will be marked by various spires.

Interim Mandir run by SMCS opens daily and holds arti. SMCS also organizes various cultural, religious, social and educational events in the area; and to “promote multiculturalism” is one of its objectives. It plans to conduct yoga, spirituality, dance, music, art and language classes; besides undertaking charitable and humanitarian activities. It has launched “One paycheck to Mandir” donation project, reports suggest.

Meanwhile, Hindu statesman Rajan Zed, in a statement in Nevada today, commended efforts of temple leaders and area community towards realizing this temple and cultural centre complex.

Rajan Zed, who is President of Universal Society of Hinduism, further said that it was important to pass on Hindu spirituality, concepts and traditions to coming generations amidst so many distractions in the consumerist society and hoped that this temple complex would help in this direction. Zed stressed that instead of running after materialism; we should focus on inner search and realization of Self and work towards achieving moksh (liberation), which was the goal of Hinduism.

Kalpesh N Patel, Chitra Udayshankar, Vipul Patel and Dipak Bhatt are President, Vice President, General Secretary and Treasurer respectively of the Temple Committee; while Jigar Desai is the Board of Governors Chairperson.

By Alberto Andrés Aguirre*

On 12 October was celebrated the National Day of Spain. I have always thought that it was a wrong date for historical reasons: the American company, which serves as an excuse for the celebration of Hispanity, was a fundamentally Castilian adventure and symbolizes the beginning of a difficult process of colonization, with some lights but also with its deep shadows. Surely it would be more successful, respectful and effective to celebrate a more inclusive date. Perhaps the moment in which the feeling of belonging to the Spanish nation can be considered for the first time was during the anti-French uprising of the Two of May; but it would not be elegant with our French friends and allies and it is not a question of celebrating a massacre. A few years later on Cadiz, representatives of all Spain met for the first time in a single Cortes Generales until a constitution was established on March 19, 1812. Until then, there were only Cortes of the different territories governed under the same crown. That constitution has been an example for many constituent processes around the world and a continuous reference on our long road to democracy. And celebrate this it would have been, besides, an act of historical justice, a good symbol of harmony and unity in these times.

As a Spanish citizen, today I am witnessing, between pain, impotence and rage, a situation to which the spurious interests of the main actors of this drama have taken us. We walked towards a horizon of difficult coexistence in a country where it seemed that we had managed to channel the complex integration of strong identities, different but deeply interrelated. Our common history starts from 22 centuries ago, when the Catalan coastal strip was the first territory termed Hispania by the Romans.

I am not going to commit the anachronism of the Spanish nationalists who retract the origin of their nation up to those times or even earlier: for some the man from Atapuerca was already Spanish. The nation is a fairly modern concept. It is not even true that Spain is more than 500 years old as a state, since in any case it was a mere dynastic union, at least until 1714; nor is it that Catalonia was an independent entity rather than fleeting moments in history; although it did have millenarian institutions of its own and a legitimate identity as an undeniable people since the Middle Ages, which has been reflected in numerous attempts at emancipation.

With all those myths and many half-truths, two versions of history have been constructed that serve as a throwing weapon in this struggle for two situations of territorial political organization of very different sign. On the one hand, the existence of a completely independent Catalan State. On the other, an absolutely centralized Spanish State. In the 21st century, none of these options makes sense: the first because political independence, with integration processes in Europe, is highly devalued, and the second because it is unthinkable in a situation of de facto decentralization, which today is irreversible.

But the main parts of this conflict continue to look at these extremes that lead to the complete defeat of the other. If Catalonia were to achieve independence, Spain would be destroyed as such, and Catalonia would be badly wounded, since there are vital links between them. If Spain were to submit to Catalonia and did not recognize its identity and historical rights, it would cease to exist, but Spain would lose one of its most valuable assets, which is diversity. Between these competition dilemmas and the defeat of the other, we have witnessed in the last two centuries several compromise solutions, although not completely stable because they are not sufficiently accepted by important sectors of both societies.

The Statute of autonomy of the post-Franco transition has been, until now, a more than successful compromise solution. But societies evolve and the political climate of recent years in our country has led to breaking the social basis of the constitutional consensus that led to the transition to democracy and the autonomic solution of the 78. Attempts to adjust the political dress to the current situation have not now had protagonists of the same political mood or sense of responsibility that at that time. The situation in which we find ourselves at this moment is that we are all going to lose (and we have already lost a lot in terms of trust and coexistence), except the fishermen in troubled waters that have brought us here. As Professor Galtung says, sometimes it is necessary to touch the bottom, to lose all, in order to advance on the correct path of a solution: a path that is increasingly satisfactory for both parties, rather than for a single one, which is what happens if we move in the diagonal of the confrontation. Starting from “everyone loses” we can move towards the “win win” progressively seeking the achievement of the maximum legitimate objectives of each party.

But let us analyse what the real parts of this conflict and what their objectives are.

On the one hand, the Popular Party government, with strong Franco reminiscences that it has not yet been able to undo; one of them the mantra of the unity of Spain, understood as monolithic, built on false myths and sustained in a long repressive tradition. A minority government, with volatile parliamentary support and harassed by grave allegations of corruption, finds in the Catalan question the fuel necessary to activate the ultranationalist emotions, which it needs to maintain an electorate that was ceasing to support it by the social management of the crisis, but also in the evidence substantiated by the Courts of Justice of a corrupt management in many of the administrations that it has been occupying for years. The Catalan mess is therefore part of a double strategy: a distracting maneuver on the one hand so that serious and compromising issues go unnoticed, and on the other, a mobilizing element of its hardest bases (for them was the message of strength gone around the world on October 1).

The other main agent of this tragicomedy in which we are immersed is the PDCAT, the former Convergence of Catalonia, a government party in that community for decades, which has even had to change its name to cover also the widespread institutional corruption, as a result of so many years of monopoly of power. Drawing on its former political and class rivals, it has possibly the same motivations as those of the PP: to cover its own dirty laundry and to mobilize the unconditional ones from deep Catalonia.

Esquerra Republicana de Catalunya has managed to impose on its ally in the Junts pel sí coalition its maximum program, and can only hope to gain electoral support with the exacerbation of the conflict. The anti-capitalists of the CUP respond to a revolutionary logic that goes beyond secession and also gain nothing by de-escalating the conflict.

The so-called constitutionalist parties in Catalonia and Spain do not show a more encouraging picture. Among them, the best placed to try something, PSOE and PSC, are not completely in tune, which weakens their possibilities of intervention. And Ciudadanos, which is said to be more liberal than the government party, maintains a more strongly central and intransigent position, as it seeks to capitalize on Catalonia’s opposition to sovereignty and subtract electoral support to the PP in the rest of Spain.

In the case of Podemos and Izquierda Unida, which together with ERC and CUP question the constitutional system itself, they see here a unique opportunity to change the rules of the game, even if it is forced.

In this scenario of confrontation, which favours who has the responsibility to govern in both spaces, there is little room for maneuver. But if we analyse the true objectives, the legitimate aspirations of the Catalan people and the Spanish people, it is more than possible that we can find some point of satisfactory agreement, allowing a certain degree of integration that respects diversity, preserves the identity of Spain, and respects at the same time, not only the Catalan diversity and its own historical identity but also that of other areas of Spain.

We can not expect too much responsibility from the politicians who direct us because they have shown short-term interests; but with governments with minority support on both sides (which does not rule out the possibility of early elections), an open and sincere dialogue should be established in both parliamentary forums to initiate a process of finding agreements that respond to the legitimate aspirations of all the Catalans and all the Spaniards. A first task therefore is to discover all the legitimate objectives that each party should be able to express frankly and honestly.

In recent hours small windows have been opened to possible solutions: President Puigdemont’s offer of independence declaration suspended pending dialogue, which leaves him in a difficult position with his partners; the acceptance by President Rajoy of opening the debate of a reform of the Constitution, to which they were radically denied until this moment, delaying the taking of drastic measures against the Catalan self-government that its hardest bases demand. It seems that something has moved towards sanity and hope that they are more than imposed positions to cause the other to be burdened with the fault of the disaster that we are faced with if not. The great media repercussion of everything does not facilitate the serene dialogue that is now needed and puts great pressure on the political actors. There are enormous obstacles to be removed and bases to be reestablished: respect for the political institutions of Catalonia, half of whose Parliament is being denied by the independence majority; the acceptance to discuss without preconditions by any of the parties, in the debate on the reform of the Constitution; the neutrality of institutions that have recently been distorted from their role of arbitration and have been used on the one hand; a greater impartiality and informative rigor that puts in its place what happens, without distorting the facts in favour of any side beyond what the events themselves show.

For this delicate process to be undertaken, we should begin not only to try not to warm up the environment but to acknowledge the mistakes made by all, alleviating the traumas that have arisen: there is too much emotion and too many feelings hurt by both parties and torpedoes, irregularities and illegalities have been committed, also on both sides. Something we have heard these days: the apology of the delegate of the Central Government for the police excesses, the recognition by the spokesman of Esquerra Republicana de Catalunya in the Cortes de Madrid that in the Parlament of Barcelona the legislation and the parliamentary rules had been broken…

The Catalan society is too interrelated with the Spanish so that it can be seceded without involving collective trauma and thousands of family and personal traumas. Spanish society has too many foundational and referential elements to cheerfully dispense with the Catalan component: we have already said that the first land that received the ancient name of Spain was Catalonia, the first national currency was the peseta (a Catalan voice) The bicolor flag unambiguously proceeds from the senyera bars, the first president of the Spanish Cortes was the Catalan Lázaro de Dou, and nobody could understand Spanish art and culture without the strength of Catalan art and culture.

But truncating the legitimate democratic aspirations of an important, almost majority, sector of the Catalan people, which has built an exciting collective project, without offering equally attractive alternatives, or denying the evidence of a strong differentiated identity for centuries, is to weaken our democracy by encouraging confrontation and slowing down our social development.

If independence is an end in itself, little can be said already. If, on the other hand, historical rights of self-government are not recognized at the highest level, dialogue will not be possible either. But between the two extreme positions there is a wide margin of possibilities to reach a coexistence agreement, at least for the XXI century. It is worth a try, either directly or with experienced mediators who will drive you if you are not alone.

*Alberto Andrés Aguirre is a member of TRANSCEND International, Dr. in Philosophy and Letters (University of Alicante). Secondary teacher at the IES Catalina de Lancaster of Santa María la Real de Nieva (Segovia, Spain) and Coordinator of the International Center for Conflict Solution Alfadeltapi, Alfàs del Pi (Alicante, Spain). albandres@gmail.com

This article originally appeared on Transcend Media Service (TMS) on 13 November 2017.

To most Americans, climate change and horrible air pollution is a myth, a mere conspiracy theory wherein the “globalists” and the “oligarchs” of the world are trying to enact global treaties for carbon emission taxation and penalties designed to usher in a “global new world order government.”

This was the main reason the American people really did not shed a tear or even whimper when the United States recently left the Paris Climate Accord Treaty which was under the purview of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (“UNFCCC”) dealing with greenhouse gas emissions mitigation, adaptation and finance starting in the year 2020.

However there was a major point to President Donald Trump’s decision to leave this Agreement on or about June 2017 because by and large, the United States is a safe and healthy haven for climate control and emissions standards thanks to the wonderful work of the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and other heroic federal, state and local agencies designed to monitor and keep under control greenhouse gas and carbon emissions to keep America’s air as pure as possible.

So to that end, because the U.S. is a very responsible and self-monitoring nation, its carbon emission is actually very much under control, and it is not a pressing matter as other issues seem to be.

Added to the mix is the fact that the major carbon emitter nations are third and second world countries who desperately care more about their rapid economic growth, rather than the long-term ill effects on the health of their people, the American people are even more far removed from this pressing issue of the day, because quite frankly, they don’t really see or experience it on a daily basis.

However, the real pivotal issue is this – unless the typical American (or even European, South American or African) visits and actually sees, breaths, and experiences the literal toxic waste dump that is the surrounding air situation in China and India, the globe’s greatest, largest, and most egregious offenders, one has absolutely no idea how dire the situation actually is.

In a significant move towards enhancing bilateral ties and military to military cooperation, Pakistan’s Army Chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa landed in Iran on November 5 as part of a three-day official visit. The visit reflects a growing realization in Pakistan’s leadership about the significance of forging cordial and mutually beneficial ties with neighboring countries in the face of mounting uncertainties and threats posed by the menace of terrorism.

During the visit, the Army chief met the senior civil-military leadership of Iran and discussed issues ranging from geostrategic environment of the region, management of the Pakistan-Iran border, Afghanistan endgame, growing threat of terrorism and bilateral trade relations.

The significance of the visit cannot be overstated as it comes in the wake of two important developments that have exacerbated security and foreign policy challenges not only for Pakistan and Iran but also for the entire South Asia and Middle East at large. For instance, while Donald Trump’s so called new South Asia policy that envisions a greater role of India in Afghanistan and the region at large has increased strategic anxiety for Pakistan, Iran has also been striving to secure its interests in the wake of Donald Trump’s increasingly bellicose approach; the recent most significant case being the de-certification of Iran nuclear deal.

In such a hostile environment both countries seem to acknowledge the necessity of timely cooperation and coordination in matters of bilateral interests. Pakistan shares 909 km long border with Iran that separates Iran’s Sistan-Baluchistan province and Pakistan’s strategically important Balochistan province, which hosts the strategically located Gwadar port. Army chief’s visit may pave the way for adoption of much needed border management mechanism and intelligence sharing that may prevent cross border infiltration, the sporadic border skirmishes and the consequent deterioration of mutual relations.

Moreover, Pakistan appears cognizant of India’s growing foot print in Iran in the form of Chahbahar port and same is the source of concern for Pakistan. Pakistan’s outreach towards Iran can be seen as a balancing act vis-à-vis India. Fortunately for Pakistan, in view of India’s so called strategic partnership with the US, Iran may soon find India to be unreliable partner and Iranian leadership seems to have realized this early on. This inference is plausible given the fact that India is very unlikely to endanger its much bigger interests with US in favour of Iran. Thus if US and allies decide to re-impose sanctions on Iran, India may find it difficult to continue its engagements with Iran due to fear of backlash from US. Pakistan might seek to capitalize on this inherent weakness in Indo-Iran ties and bolster its relations with Iran.

Afghanistan is yet another issue where Pakistan and Iran share views and support the idea of an ‘Afghan-led and Afghan-owned peace settlement’. On the contrary, Iranian and Indian interests diverge at the geopolitical landscape of Afghanistan. Since the long term presence of US in Afghanistan is detrimental to Iran’s strategic interests in the energy rich and land lock Central Asian region, it would like a complete and immediate withdrawal of US. India, on the other hand, may not be comfortable with such an idea primarily because it owes the newly achieved greater role in Afghanistan and South Asia for the US. Since India is destined to kowtow to the dictates of US, Pakistan is the natural choice of Iran.

However, this by no means warrants lethargy and negligence on part of Pakistan in its relations with Iran. In fact, there are some daunting challenges faced by Pakistan when it comes to keeping balance between Saudi Arabia and Iran. The two countries are engaged in a deadly proxy war with each other in Middle East. Saudi-Iran enmity is Pakistan’s Achilles heel. Although Pakistan has ideological affinity and strategic ties with Saudi Arabia, it also has a long border with Iran and second largest Shia population. Therefore, taking sides in Saudi-Iran conflicts entails risk of domestic polarization and sectarianism.

Therefore, in order to reap the benefits of engagements with Iran, Pakistan should proactively play a mediatory role between the two Middle Eastern rivals and maintain neutrality. Although neutrality comes with a price, if that is less than the price that Pakistan will have to pay by taking sides then better stick to the policy of neutrality. In the long run, Pakistan should seek an independent foreign policy and go beyond Iran-Saudi binary. This objective can be achieved by gaining economic strength and CPEC presents golden opportunity in this regard.

*Nisar Ahmed Khan, Research Affiliate at Strategic Vision Institute