Quantcast
Channel: Eurasia Review
Viewing all 73742 articles
Browse latest View live

CSIR Nanotech Centre Celebrates 10 Years Of Ground-Breaking Research

$
0
0

The Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) is celebrating 10 years of conducting world-class research and development in the field of nanotechnology.

Nanotechnology is a multidisciplinary field that studies materials at the very small scale of between 1 and 100 nanometres. At this scale, materials may have unique optical, mechanical, physical and chemical properties, which can be used to develop new materials for a variety of applications.

The CSIR’s National Centre for Nanostructured Materials (NCNSM) was launched in 2007 as part of the implementation of government’s National Nanotechnology Strategy.

CSIR Chief Researcher, Professor Suprakas Sinha Ray, told SAnews that the centre plays a crucial role in availing its high-tech instrumentation to various stakeholders within the nanotechnology research space.

“Research and development at the nano centre supports the manufacturing of bulk materials with improved properties, such as plastics, that are able to tolerate very high and low temperatures, and plastics that possess fire retardant properties or high resistance to tearing. This includes the development of detection devices that use nanomaterials capable of detecting gases at parts-per-million levels with greater sensitivity and accuracy,” said Ray.

Nanotechnology research is a key pillar of the CSIR’s activities that is focused on finding solutions that address the broader societal challenges of South Africa. Professor Ray said nanotechnology holds the future as it will be the most used technology in the coming years.

In the last decade, the centre has undertaken innovative research on nanostructured materials and established an extensive research network with key local and international research organisations.

The centre is well equipped with cutting-edge scaling up, polymer processing, characterisation and testing facilities, funded by the Department of Science and Technology (DST) to undertake research and develop technology skills in nano related areas.

Other achievements include a prototype breath analyser to detect diabetes without the need of a blood test; setting up of the water and catalysis research groups as new research areas in nano; the polymer processing laboratory for the testing and evaluation of industrial samples and the development and establishment of the Nanomaterials Industrial Development Facility (NIDF) in 2015.

The NIDF enables industry, research entities and small, medium and micro enterprises (SMMEs) to develop and scale up high-tech materials. The focus at present is on using nanotechnology as a key enabler in polymer, cosmetics and other chemical related products.

Cheap imports and the difficulties involved in taking laboratory developed products to the market, as well as the lack of testing and scale-up facilities often make it difficult for SMMEs and even large companies to develop new products and materials.

The NIDF was established to assist researchers and engineers to bridge the gap between materials development and commercialisation. In doing so, it anticipates the creation of additional jobs as one of its critical aims.

Developing human capacity

In human capital development, the centre has produced and trained more than 130 postdoctoral fellows, PhD and Master’s students, including interns.

Zamaswazi Tshabalala, who joined the CSIR as an intern, now holds a Master’s Degree and is a full-time employee at the CSIR.

“I love what am doing, and I want to be an established researcher,” Tshabalala told SAnews.

She advised other young people to follow their dreams.

“Always be eager to know more,” she said. Tshabalala is a full time employee at the CSIR.

Another student, Lesego Maubane, also joined the CSIR as an intern after completing a Diploma in Chemical Engineering. Maubane intends to continue with her studies to acquire her PhD.

“I have always wanted to be a scientist and am confident that this is exactly what I am going to achieve,” she said.

Maubane is a Polymer Characterisation Technologist at the CSIR.

The NCNSM has had 17 scientific articles featured on journal cover pages and top rated articles with more than 8 000 citations, including 18 national and international awards.

It is led by Prof Ray, who won the 2016 NSTF award for the excellence in Science and Innovation Management.

He is also listed in the top 1% of high impact and influential scientists in the world (chemistry, materials science and 22 science disciplines-2015).


The Violent Conclusion: Manus Island And The Clearing Of Lombrum Naval Base – OpEd

$
0
0

It was another etching in a chronicle of extended violence. For days, resistance by refugees and asylum seekers against forced removal from the Lombrum Naval Base on Manus Island had taken very public form. Images of defiance and distress were receiving international attention. With no electricity, with water supplies destroyed, things were getting dire.

As the weekend dawned, PNG officials were claiming that the remaining 328 men from the base had been moved to new camps in Lorengau. To these can be added the 50 men or so forcibly removed a day prior. Journalists from the ABC noted the use of 12 buses taking men and goods to East Lorengau centre on Friday, though they were unsure how many people were on them.

According to refugee Behrouz Boochani, the journalistic spark in the abysmal dark, “The refugees are saying they are leaving the prison camp because the police are using violence and very angry.” The clearing operation was nearing its conclusion.

According to Thomas Albrecht, the UNCHR’s regional representative in Canberra, “The situation still unfolding on Manus Island presents a grave risk of further deterioration, and of further damage to extremely vulnerable human beings.”[1]

In a world of parallel universes, where the views of the heavy handed come up against those of the persecuted, narratives differ vastly. PNG Police Commissioner Gari Baki tends to assume all matters of force as relative. Removing the men (the term “relocation” is preferred) took place “peacefully and without the use of force”.

The Australian Immigration Minister, Peter Dutton, has also done his bit on several fronts of unreality. Efforts are being made to sabotage New Zealand’s offer to encourage the resettlement of 150 men in that country. Dutton’s point is petulant and savage: Australia won’t have them, but nor shall you. Besides, would you really want them, these opportunists, interlopers and deviants?

Dutton has also waged war on those activists whom he sees as giving unnecessary hope to those on Manus. Last week, he publicly castigated pro-refugee protestors who had defaced the office of Kelly O’Dwyer, Minister for Revenue and Financial Services.

“Another example,” seethed the former police officer, “of the moral vacuum of the left. Not only giving false hope to those on Manus – who will never come to Australia – but also diverting important police resources and wasting tax payer money to investigate and clean up vandalism.”[2]

An update from the Ministry of Immigration and Border Protection expressed a mood of contentment at the efforts of the PNG police. “The Australian Government is aware that all men previously refusing to leave the former Manus Island Regional Processing Centre (RPC) have now departed the complex for alternative accommodation.”

The statement paints a picture of cold blooded efficiency. Accounts from refugees who have found their way to the alternative centres differ markedly. “We have been forcibly removed from where we were,” claimed Sudanese refugee Abdul Aziz Muhamat, “to places that are not even ready.”[3]

The statement also reads as a distancing document. Australians should be pleased to know that refugees had been informed since May that the RPC would close, and refugees moved to sites such as the East Lorengau Refugee Transit Centre. “The alternative accommodation has been available to house all inhabitants of the former RPC since October 31.”

A bullet is duly reserved for the irritating bleeding hearts. “Advocates in Australia are again today making inaccurate and exaggerated claims of violence and injuries on Manus, but fail to produce any evidence to prove these allegations.”[4] Before and after Donald J. Trump, news, it would seem, is a relative matter, notably from Australia’s truth-averse Ministry of Immigration, an entity given to fiction and fantasy.

The ministerial statement is also intent to focus on the bad eggs and rotten apples, those nuisances who are never mentioned by name, but hover over the faux compassion of Australian immigration officials like moral pointers and accusers. “What is clear is that there has been an organised attempt to provoke trouble and disrupt the new facilities.”

The Australian government had been informed “that some equipment has been sabotaged at the alternative accommodation centres, including damage to backup generators.” There is “vandalism” to “water infrastructure”. These matters were “under investigation”. Who are these mysterious disrupters? What do they want?

The statement naturally makes little of motivation, the Refugee Convention or virtually anything that would give a human dimension to such protest and dismay. The limbo faced by those who failed to be classed as genuine refugees – about 200 men – is not discussed. Nor is anything mentioned about when the US will come good on the offer to resettle refugees in that country..

There is only, the statement chastises, “false hope” peddled by advocates “that [these men] will ever be brought to Australia.” Humanity is to be eviscerated, and brutality permitted. This is authoritarian speak, bureaucratic babble, the sort that Dutton adores.

Despite such brutal and brutalising tripe, the Turnbull government remains resolute. Australia’s reputation as a state happy to observe human rights has not been impaired – or so its politicians, such as foreign minister Julie Bishop, think. Cosily distant from shared borders, its governments can continue to construct a fortress of selectivity and selectiveness when it comes to refugees and those seeking Australian shores. It will outsource its obligations, and fund the necessary satraps. And to hell with international law on the way.

Notes:
[1] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-24/png-authorities-urge-men-to-leave-manus-island-centre/9187406

[2] https://twitter.com/PeterDutton_MP/status/931337441092317184

[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/24/world/australia/manus-island-detention-refugees-asylum-seekers.html

[4] http://www.minister.border.gov.au/peterdutton/Pages/manus-update-24112017.aspx

Fire, Not Corn, Key To Prehistoric Survival In Arid Southwest

$
0
0

Conventional wisdom holds that prehistoric villagers planted corn, and lots of it, to survive the dry and hostile conditions of the American Southwest.

But University of Cincinnati archaeology professor Alan Sullivan is challenging that long-standing idea, arguing instead that people routinely burned the understory of forests to grow wild crops 1,000 years ago.

“There has been this orthodoxy about the importance of corn,” said Sullivan, director of graduate studies in UC’s Department of Anthropology in the McMicken College of Arts and Sciences. “It’s been widely considered that prehistoric peoples of Arizona between A.D. 900 to 1200 were dependent on it.

“But if corn is lurking out there in the Grand Canyon, it’s hiding successfully because we’ve looked all over and haven’t found it.”

Sullivan has published a dozen papers outlining the scarce evidence of corn agriculture at more than 2,000 sites where they have found pottery sherds and other artifacts of prehistoric human settlement. He summarized his findings in a presentation last month at Boston University.

Sullivan has spent more than two decades leading archaeological field research to Grand Canyon National Park and the region’s Upper Basin, home to the 1.6-million-acre Kaibab National Forest.

When you think of the Grand Canyon, you might picture rocky cliffs and desert vistas. But the Upper Basin, where Sullivan and his students work, is home to mature forests of juniper and pinyon trees stretching as far as you can see, he said.

“When you look down into the Grand Canyon, you don’t see any forest. But on either rim there are deep, dense forests,” he said.

On these high-elevation plateaus, Sullivan and his students have unearthed ceramic jugs adorned with corrugated patterns and other evidence of prehistoric life. Sullivan is particularly interested in the cultural and social practices of growing, sharing and eating food, also called a foodway.

“What would constitute evidence of a corn-based foodway?” he asked. “And if experts agree it should look like this but we don’t find evidence of it, that would seem to be a problem for that model.”

Like a detective, Sullivan has pieced together clues firsthand and from scientific analysis to make a persuasive argument that people used fire to promote the growth of edible leaves, seeds and nuts of plants such as amaranth and chenopodium, wild relatives of quinoa. These plants are called “ruderals,” which are the first to grow in a forest disturbed by fire or clear-cutting.

“It’s definitely a paradigm-threatening opinion,” Sullivan said. “It’s not based on wild speculation. It’s evidence-based theorizing. It has taken us about 30 years to get to the point where we can confidently conclude this.”

Lab analysis identified ancient pollen from dirt inside clay pots that were used 1,000 years ago before Sullivan and his students found them.

“They’ve identified 6,000 or 7,000 pollen grains and only six [grains] were corn. Everything else is dominated by these ruderals,” Sullivan said.

The corn itself looked nothing like the hearty ears of sweet corn people enjoy at barbecues today. The ears were puny, about one-third the size of a typical cob, with tiny, hard kernels, Sullivan said.

So if prehistoric people were not growing corn, what were they eating? Sullivan found clues around his excavation sites that people set fires big enough to burn away the understory of grasses and weeds but small enough not to harm the pinyon and juniper trees, important sources of calorie-rich nuts and berries.

Evidence for this theory was found in ancient trees. Raging wildfires leave burn scars in growth rings of surviving trees. In the absence of frequent small fires, forests would accumulate vast amounts of underbrush and fallen timber to create conditions ripe for an inferno sparked by a lightning strike. But examinations of ancient juniper and ponderosa pine trees found no burn scars, suggesting big fires are a relatively new phenomenon in Arizona.

“To me that confirms there weren’t massive fires back then,” Sullivan said.

Sullivan also studied the geologic layers at these sites. Like a time capsule, the stratigraphic analysis captured the periods before and after people lived there. He found higher concentrations of wild edible plants in the period when people lived there. And when people abandoned the sites, the area they left behind saw fewer of these plants.

But it was only this year that Sullivan found contemporary evidence supporting his theory that prehistoric people generated a spring bounty by setting fires. Sullivan returned to the Grand Canyon last spring to examine forest destroyed by a massive 2016 fire. Touched off by a lightning strike, the blaze called the Scott Fire laid waste to 2,660 acres of pines, junipers and sagebrush.

Despite the intensity of the forest fire, Sullivan found edible plants growing thick everywhere underfoot just months later.

“This burned area was covered in ruderals. Just covered,” he said. “That to us was confirmation of our theory. Our argument is there’s this dormant seed bed that is activated by any kind of fire.”

Archaeologists with the National Park Service have found evidence that corn grew below the rim of the Grand Canyon, said Ellen Brennan, cultural resource program manager for the national park.

“It does appear that the ancient people of the Grand Canyon never pursued corn agriculture to the extent that other ancestral Puebloan peoples did in other parts of the Southwest,” Brennan said. “In the Grand Canyon, it appears that there continued to be persistent use of native plants as a primary food source rather than corn.”

The National Park Service has not examined whether prehistoric people used fire to improve growing conditions for native plants. But given what is known about cultures at the time, it is likely they did, Brennan said.

The first assumptions about what daily life was like in the Southwest 1,000 years ago came from more recent observations of Native Americans such as the Hopi, said Neil Weintraub, archaeologist for Kaibab National Forest. He worked alongside Sullivan at some of the sites in the Upper Basin.

“Corn is still a big part of the Hopi culture. A lot of dances they do are about water and the fertility of corn,” he said. “The Hopi are seen as the descending groups of Puebloan.”

While native peoples elsewhere in the Southwest no doubt relied on corn, Weintraub said, Sullivan’s work has convinced him that residents of the Upper Basin relied on wild food — and used fire to cultivate it.

“It’s a fascinating idea because we really see that these people were highly mobile. On the margins where it’s very dry we think they were taking advantage of different parts of the landscape at different times of the year,” Weintraub said.

“It’s been well documented that Native Americans burned the forest in other parts of the country. I see no reason why they wouldn’t have been doing the same thing 1,000 years ago,” he said.

The area around the Grand Canyon is especially dry, going many weeks without rain. Still, life persists. Weintraub said the forest generates a surprising bounty of food if you know where to look. Some years, the pinyon trees produce a bumper crop of tasty, nutritious nuts.

“In a good year, we didn’t need to bring lunch in the field when we were out at our archaeological surveys. We’d be cracking pinyons all day,” Weintraub said.

Weintraub recently studied the forest burned in last year’s big Scott Fire. The exposed ground was thick with new undergrowth, particularly a wild relative of quinoa called goosefoot, he said.

“Goosefoot has a minty smell to it, especially in the fall. We actually started chewing on it. It was pretty pleasant,” Weintraub said. “It’s a high-nutrient food. I’d be curious to know more about how native peoples processed it for food.”

UC’s Sullivan said this prehistoric land management can teach us lessons today, especially when it comes to preventing devastating fires.

“Foresters call it ‘the wicked problem.’ All of our forests are anthropogenic [man-made] because of fire suppression and fire exclusion,” Sullivan said.

“These forests are unnatural. They’re alien to the planet. They have not had any major fires in them in decades,” he said. “The fuel loads have built up to the point where you get a little ignition source and the fire is catastrophic in ways that they rarely were in the past.”

The National Park Service often lets fires burn in natural areas when they do not threaten people or property. But increasingly people are building homes and businesses adjacent to or within forests. Forest managers are reluctant to conduct controlled burning so close to population, Sullivan said.

Eventually so much dry wood builds up that a dropped cigarette or unattended campfire can lead to devastating fires such as the 2016 blaze that killed 14 people and destroyed 11,000 acres in the Great Smoky Mountains or the fires in California this year that killed 40 people and caused an estimated $1 billion in property damage.

“It’s a chronic problem. How do you fix it?” he asked. “The U.S. Forest Service has experimented with different methods: prescribed burning, which creates a lot of irritating smoke, or thinning the forest, which creates a disposal problem.”

Fire also seems to increase the diversity of forest species. Sullivan said vegetation surveys find less biodiversity in forests today than he found in his archeological samples.

“That is one measure of how devastating our management of fire has been to these forests,” he said. “These fire-responsive plants have basically disappeared from the landscape. Species diversity in some cases has collapsed.”

Today, federal land managers conduct controlled burns when practical to address this problem, even in national parks such as the Grand Canyon.

“The fire management program for Grand Canyon National Park seeks to reintroduce fire as a natural agent of the environment,” the park’s Brennan said. “That is to reduce ground fuels through prescribed fire, mechanical thinning, and wildland fire.”

Scientists also are studying how to adjust forest management techniques in the face of climate change, she said.

“Program managers are working to understand how climate change affects forest management and how to restore forests to the point where fire can follow a more natural return interval given a particular forest type,” she said.

Climate change is expected to make wildfires more frequent and severe with rising temperatures and lower humidity. Meanwhile, public lands are under increasing pressure from private interests such as tourism and mining, putting more people at potential risk from fire, Sullivan said.

“Rather than create more uranium mines or establish more tourist cities in our forests, it’s better to spend our money on addressing ‘the wicked problem,'” Sullivan said. “Unless we solve that, all of these other ventures will only add to the severity of the risks.”

Wonder Blunder Sees Israeli Actress Gal Gadot ‘Revealed’ As Mossad Agent

$
0
0

It was a case of hysterical espionage.

Israeli ‘Wonder Woman’ star Gal Gadot was pictured as a Mossad agent on the front page of a Lebanese newspaper yesterday.

Beirut-based Al Liwaa newspaper used a picture of the actress to illustrate a story about Colette Vianfi, an alleged Israeli Mossad officer accused of recruiting Lebanese comedian and playwright Ziad Itani as a spy.

A senior newspaper executive described the incident as “embarrassing” in a telephone interview with Arab News.

Tareq Damlaj, one of the managing editors at the newspaper, said: “People were spreading the photo of actress Gal Gadot on social media, especially through WhatsApp, believing it was a photo of the Israeli officer.

“But after receiving a phone call today from cinema enthusiasts, and not security services, we learned this was the photo of an Israeli actress.”

Itani was arrested last week for what a security source called “collaborating with Israel over the past three years.”

He was detained on Thursday evening in Beirut with security sources claiming at the time that he was in touch with a woman who was supposed to come to Lebanon on Dec. 2.

Gadot was born and raised in Israel and was crowned Miss Israel in 2004 before serving two years as a soldier in the Israeli Defense Forces.

Gadot, who played an ex-Mossad agent in one of the “The Fast and the Furious” movies, was not immediately available for comment through her Beverly Hills public relations company.

But the Al Liwaa editors should take some comfort in knowing that even the mighty BBC can occasionally trip up on an embarrassing caption.

In a report on yesterday’s news about the Royal engagement, the BBC subtitles quoted UK Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn as admiring both “Prince Harry and Hezbollah.”

The BBC blamed the blooper on its malfunctioning voice recognition technology.

Australia’s Foreign Policy White Paper: Dealing With Uncertainty – Analysis

$
0
0

The new Australian Foreign Policy White Paper sets an agenda that seeks to balance Australia’s economic and security interests between a more powerful China, its major trading partner, and a less certain United States, its major security partner.

By Sam Bateman*

The Australian government has released a new White Paper to establish its foreign policy for the next decade. It comes 14 years after the last White Paper on Australia’s international relations. The latest Paper acknowledges that the international environment has changed significantly since the last one with increased complexity and more uncertainty. It also reflects the changes in Australia itself over the past 14 years.

The new Paper is largely focused on the challenges posed by the rise of China alongside uncertainty about the future of American engagement in the Indo-Pacific. It indicates that Canberra intends to prioritise cooperation with the United States and other like-minded regional stakeholders to balance against China’s increasingly assertive presence. However, while the Paper does not explicitly say so, it implies the US is no longer as reliable as it once was.

Driving Forces

While the balancing act between China and the US has attracted the attention of most commentaries on the White Paper, it also says a lot about Australia’s other interests. It gives considerable attention to trade and economic issues. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment jointly released the Paper.

Economic factors clearly have a major influence on Australia’s foreign policy, including the importance of the tourism market domestically. The Paper warns of increased risks of economic nationalism and protectionism. It commits Australia to an open, outward looking regional economy strongly connected to global markets and with a broadening network of free trade agreements.

Among the other interests it covers, the White Paper singles out Papua New Guinea and Timor-Leste as the two countries most in need of support from Australia. It highlights that with the world’s third largest exclusive economic zone (EEZ), Australia has a fundamental interest in regimes for governing the oceans that are increasingly under environmental threat. It observes that Australia has sovereignty over 42% of the Antarctic continent, and prioritises a leading role in the management of Antarctica.

Five key actions for Australia’s foreign policy flow from the White Paper. The first is the pursuit of economic opportunities with Indo-Pacific partners. The second will be efforts to shape the region in association with like-minded democracies that share Australia’s interests and commitment to rules-based institutions: India, Japan, Indonesia and South Korea are the Asian countries mentioned in this context.

The third is to treat Southeast Asia as a top priority, including a commitment to increasing Australia’s investment in maritime security capacity building in that region. The fourth is to match this greater commitment to Southeast Asia with similar actions in the South Pacific. Lastly, resilience and self-reliance are new themes that run strongly through the Paper.

Relations with China

The White Paper commits Australia to strong and constructive ties with China, However, it is forthright in its criticisms of actions by China, especially in the South China Sea, which it sees as a major ‘fault line’ in the region. It implies that China is behind challenges to ‘the rules-based international order’.

Predictably these parts of the Paper attracted an indignant response from Beijing, although there were also some comments from China that it provides a sound, objective view of the bilateral relationship.

Like other regional countries, Australia’s bilateral relationship with China is a vexed challenge for foreign policy. While showing concern about the destabilising potential of some Chinese activities, foreign policy must also recognise the fundamental importance of good relations with China.

Apart from China’s domineering position in Australia’s overseas trade, over a million Chinese tourists visit Australia each year and about 160,000 Chinese students are studying in Australia. China is now the major source of both overseas tourists to Australia and overseas students. Chinese investment in Australia is also highly significant and sometimes a vexed political issue.

Relations with the United States

The White Paper says Australia is strongly committed to supporting America’s global leadership. It sets a foreign policy objective to actively encourage the US to remain involved in the region. It reflects Australia’s ongoing belief that the Washington-led regional strategy remains the best one for the region.

Over the years Australia’s security has been supported by its alliance with the US and privileged access to American technology and intelligence. In helping the US to remain engaged in the region, Australia plans to increase the access it provides to American military forces. However, this move may not be well received in some parts of the region. Indonesia in particular could have concerns, having previously criticised the American military presence in northern Australia.

Planning Problems

The White Paper acknowledges that planning for an uncertain future is problematic. It involves dilemmas, especially the need for good relations with both Beijing and Washington. The Paper also identifies major international opportunities for Australia but then predicts increasing political alienation and economic nationalism. It sees the South China Sea as a major fault line, but then does not acknowledge the recently improved situation there.

While the White Paper talks a lot of uncertainty, the future direction of the region may already be known. China’s growing influence and the decline of American influence are established trends unlikely to be reversed. Despite the Paper’s pious expectation that a post-Trump America will return to the region and assist the preservation of the post-WWII order, that outcome is uncertain at best. The White Paper continues the polite fiction that Australia does not need to make a choice between Washington and Beijing. But in reality it is frequently making that choice by, for example, not engaging in more assertive FONOPs in the South China Sea and by joining the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB).

In hoping for the restoration of American power and influence, the White Paper looks back nostalgically to the past regional order. It might have shown greater sensitivity to the changes that suggest a US-led regional order is no longer realistic.

*Sam Bateman is a Senior Fellow in the Maritime Security Programme at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. He is a former Australian naval commodore who had several postings in the Strategic Policy area of the Department of Defence in Canberra.

Iran Says Doing Best To ‘Equip Strategic Navy Forces’

$
0
0

Iranian Defense Ministry is doing its best to equip the country’s strategic Navy forces, defense minister said, according to IRNA.

“Iranian Navy forces have achieved capabilities and enjoy all-out preparation for urgent situations,” Brigadier General Amir Hatami said Monday, November 27 in a ceremony held to mark anniversary of establishing the Iranian Navy.

“Defense Ministry will support Navy forces and Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) forces as well.”

The Navy of the Islamic Republic of Iran is the naval warfare service branch of Iran’s regular military, the Islamic Republic of Iran Army.

Why Priests Can’t Break Seal Of Confession

$
0
0

By Mary Rezac

Lawyers in the United Kingdom have recommended that mandatory reporting laws apply to priests in the confessional, in order to curb incidents of child sexual abuse.

The recommendation came during an investigation of Benedictine abbeys and their associated schools, after numerous victims came forward alleging clergy at the schools had committed acts of child sexual abuse.

Richard Scorer, a representative with the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA), said during a hearing that mandatory reporting laws should apply even to information bound by the seal of confession.

“A mandatory reporting law would have changed their behaviour,” Scorer said, according to The Guardian. “At Downside Abbey, abuse was discovered but not reported, and abusers were left to free to abuse again and great harm was done to victims.”

“The Catholic Church purports to be a moral beacon for others around it yet these clerical sex abuse cases profoundly undermine it … Why has the temptation to cover up abuse been particularly acute in organisations forming part of the Roman Catholic church?”

David Enright, a lawyer representing numerous victims in the investigation, echoed Scorer’s sentiments.

“Matters revealed in confession, including child abuse, cannot be used in governance,” Enright told The Guardian. “One can’t think of a more serious obstacle embedded in the law of the Catholic church to achieving child protection.”

The seal of confession often arises during cases of the abuse of minors in the Church.

According to Church law, a priest is under the gravest obligation not to reveal the contents of a confession, or even whether a confession took place. He cannot do so even under threat of imprisonment or civil penalty, and can incur a latae sententiae excommunication if he breaks the seal of confession.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1467, explains the Church’s view on the seal of confession:

“Given the delicacy and greatness of this ministry and the respect due to persons, the Church declares that every priest who hears confessions is bound under very severe penalties to keep absolute secrecy regarding the sins that his penitents have confessed to him. He can make no use of knowledge that confession gives him about penitents’ lives.”

The Church has long taught that allowing violations of the seal of confession would discourage the confession of sins, and prevent penitents from seeking forgiveness and rectifying their lives.

According to the Code of Canon Law, “a confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; one who does so only indirectly is to be punished according to the gravity of the delict.”

In 2016, the Supreme Court of Louisiana heard a similar case, in which a priest was asked to reveal the contents of a confession of a minor, which he was alleged to have heard. The court upheld the priest’s right to the seal of confession. Louisiana’s law makes an exemption for priests as mandatory reporters in cases of abuse of minors if he “under the discipline or tenets of the church, denomination, or organization has a duty to keep such communication confidential.”

Earlier this year, the bishops of Australia indicated that they would resist the Royal Commission’s proposal to criminally punish priests who do not break the seal of confession in cases involving the abuse of minors. The proposal was made in response to a widespread clerical sex abuse scandal that broke in the country in recent years.

While the Catholic Church upholds the seal of confession, it also recognizes clerical abuse of minors as criminal and gravely sinful.

In recent years, the Vatican has expanded its efforts to protect children from sexual abuse. In 2001, the Church issued norms strengthening its approach to prosecuting crimes committed against children, requiring that allegations of abuse be forwarded to civil authorities and to the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).

In March 2012, Pope Benedict XVI issued guidelines to prevent abuse of minors and to involve the faithful in abuse prevention.

Pope Francis has continued these efforts during his pontificate, creating a special group within the CDF to hear the cases of high-ranking clerics charged with the most serious crimes. He has also begun to study the possibility of introducing to canon law the crime of “abuse of office” for bishops who fail to fulfill their responsibilities to prosecute sex abuse.

In addition to disciplinary measures against abusers, the Church has also worked at the highest level to reach out to victims and provide them with counseling and support.

A Terrible Thought: What If Gabbay Believes What He Says – OpEd

$
0
0

Suddenly, A terrible thought struck me. What if Avi Gabbay really believes what he is saying?

Impossible. He cannot really believe all those things. No, no.

But if he does? Where does that leave us?

Avi Gabbay is the new leader of the Israeli Labor Party. Until recently, he was a founding member of a moderate right-wing party, Kulanu (“We all”). Without ever being elected to the Knesset, he served as a junior minister. He resigned when Avigdor Lieberman, considered by many as a semi-fascist (and the “semi” is far from certain), was allowed to join the government as Minister of Defense, the second most important post.

In a bold move, Gabbay left Kulanu and joined the Labor Party (also known as “the Zionist Camp”) and was soon elected its chairman. However, he did not become the official “Leader of the Opposition”, because he was not a member of the Knesset. (The formal title remained with his predecessor, the very nice but rather insignificant Yitzhak Herzog.)

One of Gabbay’s outstanding qualities is the fact that he is “Oriental”, an Eastern Jew. He is the seventh of eight children in a family that immigrated from Morocco in 1964, just three years before his birth.

This is very important. The Labor Party is decried as “Western” (or Ashkenazi), the party of the social elites, estranged from the mass of the Orientals. It must overcome this characterization if it ever wants to attain power again.

In the Likud Party, the situation is the exact opposite. The mass of Likud voters are Orientals, but Binyamin Netanyahu is as Ashkenazi as you can get. The Orientals adore him, as they have never adored any Oriental leader.

But Gabbay’s origin is not his only attribute. From his humble beginnings, he climbed the heights of economic success. He became the CEO of one of Israel’s most important corporations, amassing a personal fortune on the way.

He is not a charismatic leader, not a person to arouse the masses. Indeed, his face is easily forgotten. But he took with him from the business world a sound, logical way of thinking. In politics, logic is a rare commodity. It can be obstructive.

The question now is: where does logic take him?

During his few months as leader of the Labor Party, Gabbay has deeply shocked many party members. Shocked them to the core.

About once a week, usually on Shabbat, Gabbay lets loose a statement that seemingly contradicts everything the party has stood for during its more than one hundred years of existence.

He once declared that peace does not mean that any of the many dozens of settlements in the occupied territories must be removed. Until then, the party line was that only the “settlement blocs” – located hard on the Green line – could remain, within the framework of an agreed exchange of territories, and that all the others must be removed. Gabbay’s announcement caused quite a stir, since it probably makes the “Two-State solution” impossible.

On another occasion, Gabbay announced that he would never set up a coalition with the “United List”, the only Arab list in the Knesset. This list consists of three separate – and very different – Arab parties, which were compelled to unite when Lieberman (the same) raised the minimum electoral threshold in order to eliminate them.

It is very difficult (if not impossible) to put together a leftist majority in the Knesset without the Arab list. The Oslo agreement would never have come into being if the Arab members had not given their unwavering support to Yitzhak Rabin (but without joining his government).

To make matters worse, Gabbay announced that the only Arab member of the Labor Party in Parliament – a popular sports commentator – would not be in the next Knesset. His crime: he criticized the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which promised the Jews a national home in Palestine, which at the time was an Arab land.

The climax (so far) came last week. To top it all, Gabbay did something that many Labor members found abhorrent.

There are in Israel tens of thousands of non-Jewish African refugees, especially from Sudan and Eritrea. They have been held for several months in an open semi-detention facility, which is vastly superior to conditions at home. Others vegetate in the poor quarters of Tel Aviv, doing occasional jobs and competing with poor inhabitants, making them very angry.

Israel claims to be a “Jewish State”. Jews have been persecuted refugees for centuries. But now the government has decided not only to stem the flow, but to pay to dispose of the refugees who are already here: paying the government of Rwanda 5000 dollars for every refugee they accept from us. The refugees themselves will also get 3500 dollars each if they go voluntarily. If they refuse, they will be put in a real prison indefinitely.

Deported? Imprisoned? In a “Jewish” state? Incredible. And here comes Gabbay and calls upon his party to vote for this atrocity!

As if all this was not enough, Gabbay said something else incredible. He denounced his party’s stand on Judaism.

Years ago, Netanyahu was caught on camera whispering into the ear of a very old rabbi that “the Labor Party has forgotten what it means to be Jewish”. Incredibly, Gabbay repeated this accusation, announcing that the Labor Party had indeed “forgotten what it means to be Jewish”.

Nothing could be more shocking than that. The party was founded a century ago by convinced atheists, like David Ben-Gurion, who refused to put a kippah on his head even at funerals. (Sometimes even I do so out of courtesy to religious mourners.)

The entire Zionist enterprise started as a rebellion against religion. Almost all the important rabbis of his day condemned Theodor Herzl, the founding father, as a heretic and cursed him in no uncertain terms. God Himself evicted the Jews from their country because of their sins, and only God could send His Messiah to bring them back there, if and when He pleases.

The Zionist Labor Movement has always been profoundly atheistic, except for minuscule religious elements. What Gabbay was saying now amounted to an ideological revolution. (By the way, gabbay is the Hebrew word for the administrator of a synagogue.)

Nobody is quite sure what “to be Jewish” means nowadays. Does Judaism represent a religion, a nation, or both? Does it only mean that one identifies with Jewish history and tradition, or that one believes in a God who has “chosen us from among the peoples”? And who the hell cares?

So does Gabbay really believe all this stuff, or is it just political propaganda?

It may well be the latter.

Gabbay is a seasoned businessman. His logic is that of a businessman. It adds numbers.

There are two ways to view the Israeli political landscape. One is the simple one: adding election results. According to this system, the Right now enjoys a clear majority. Apart from the Likud, it consists of two extreme rightist parties, the “Jewish Home” and “Israel is Our Home”, Kulanu and two Orthodox parties. The Left (or “Center-Left” as they like to call themselves these days) consists of Labor, Meretz, Ya’ir Lapid’s “There is a Future” and the Arab list.

To change the balance, Labor must win over a considerable number of voters from the moderate Right.

Another way of looking at the picture sees a rightist minority facing a leftist minority, with the great mass of the people in between. The result is the same: the Center-Left must win over enough voters to change the balance.

How? Gabbay’s answer seems logical: steal the clothes that the Right hung out to dry, as Churchill once put it. Meaning in practice: adopt the slogans of the right, look religious, act chauvinistic, make it possible for Rightist voters to vote for you.

That seems to be Gabbay’s tactic. Can it succeed? In political life, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If he can attract enough right-wing voters, he may change the balance. If his party loses voters on the left, no problem. They will vote for Meretz, which makes no difference. And if the Arabs are very angry, that makes no difference either: they have no choice but to support a leftist government “from the outside”.

Bur what if this approach leads to disaster? Political logic is quite different from business logic. It is not based on a 2 + 2 = 4 equation. In politics, the answer may well be 3 or 5.

And then it hit me. What if this is not a political tactic at all? What if Gabbay really believes in all this?

God save us!


Pope Francis Arrives In Myanmar

$
0
0

By John Zaw

Pope Francis arrived at the Yangon International Airport on Nov. 27 at the start of a four-day trip as preparations are almost complete for a flood of pilgrims to a Nov. 29 open-air Mass to be conducted by Pope Francis in the commercial city of Yangon.

There is to be a youth Mass at the city’s cathedral the following day.

Welcome banners have been strung up for the first ever visit by a pontiff to the strife torn nation.

More than 120,000 Catholics and members of other faiths, from both Myanmar and abroad, are expected to join main Mass.

Scheduled to be in attendance are six cardinals, dozens of bishops and more than 700 priests as well as 2,000 religious.

A choir group with 250 brothers and sisters is to sing gospel songs.

An organizing committee urged all parishes to provide their Sept. 24-Nov. 26 Sunday collections.

Individuals and congregations are also being asked to directly contribute.

Father Joseph Mg Win, who is involved in logistical organization, said both local people and businesses had been generous in making contributions.

Father Mg Win told ucanews.com that all contributions would be voluntary and a show of support for the papal visit.

As part of fund raising, the church’s 16 Myanmar dioceses are selling hundreds of thousands of t-shirts, hats, fans and flags bearing Pope Francis’ photo and/or the visit logo.

Some local donors will distribute snacks and drinking water to pilgrims.

Catholic churches in Japan and Korea also made donations.

The local government of Yangon cooperated on the provision of security, toilets and drinking water as well as electric power and transport for pilgrims for the Nov. 29 Mass.

More than 650 Caritas workers will act as ushers.

Myanmar’s 700,000 Catholics are served by 17 active bishops, more than 900 priests and 22,000 religious.

EU Consumers To Benefit From Safer And More Innovative Electronic Payments

$
0
0

The European Commission on Monday adopted rules that will make electronic payments in shops and online safer. This will also allow consumers to access more convenient, cost-effective and innovative solutions offered by payment providers.

These rules implement the EU’s recently-revised Payment Services Directive (PSD2) which aims to modernize Europe’s payment services so as to keep pace with this rapidly evolving market and allow the European e-commerce market to blossom. Monday’s rules allow consumers to use innovative services offered by third party providers, also known as FinTech companies, while maintaining rigorous data protection and security for EU consumers and businesses. These include payment solutions and tools for managing one’s personal finances by aggregating information from various accounts.

Valdis Dombrovskis, Vice-President in charge of Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union said, “These new rules will guide all market players, old and new, to offer better payment services to consumers while ensuring their security.”

A key objective of PSD2 is to increase the level of security and confidence of electronic payment. In particular, PSD2 requires payment service providers to develop strong customer authentication (SCA). Today’s rules therefore have stringent, built-in security provisions to significantly reduce payment fraud levels and to protect the confidentiality of users’ financial data, especially relevant for online payments. They require a combination of at least two independent elements, which could be a physical item – a card or mobile phone – combined with a password or a biometric feature, such as fingerprints before making a payment.

PSD2 also establishes a framework for new services linked to consumer payment accounts, such as the so-called payment initiation services and account information services. These innovative services are already on offer in many EU countries but thanks to PSD2 they will be available to consumers across the EU, subject to strict security requirements. The rules specify the requirements for common and secure standards of communication between banks and FinTech companies.

Following the adoption of the Regulatory Technical Standards by the Commission, the European Parliament and the Council have three months to scrutinise them. Subject to the scrutiny period, the new rules will be published in the Official Journal of the EU. Banks and other payment services providers will then have 18 months to put the security measures and communication tools in place.

Monday’s Regulatory Technical Standards have been developed by the European Banking Authority in close cooperation with the European Central Bank. They spell out how strong customer authentication (SCA) is to be applied.

The simple provision of a password or details shown on a credit card will, in most situations, no longer be sufficient to make a payment. In certain cases, a code that is only valid for a given transaction will be needed together with the other two independent elements. The aim is to significantly reduce current fraud levels for all payment methods, especially online payments, and to protect the confidentiality of users´ financial data.

However, the rules also acknowledge that acceptable levels of payment security can, in some cases, be achieved in other ways than by using the two independent elements required for SCA. For instance, payment service providers may be exempted if they have developed ways of assessing the risks of transactions and can identify fraudulent transactions. Exemptions also exist for contactless payments and transactions for small amounts, and particular types of payments such as urban transport fares or parking fees. Thanks to these exemptions, payment services providers can keep payments convenient without jeopardising the security of payments.

EU Opens Investigation Into Spain’s Support For Coal Power Plants

$
0
0

The European Commission has opened an in-depth investigation to assess whether Spain’s environmental incentive for coal power plants is in line with EU State aid rules. The Commission said it has concerns the support has been used to meet EU environmental standards that were in any case mandatory.

Commissioner Margrethe Vestager, in charge of competition policy, said, “If you pollute, you pay – this is a long-standing principle in EU environmental law. EU State aid rules do not allow Member States to relieve companies of this responsibility using taxpayer money. We currently believe that this Spanish scheme did not incentivise coal power plants to reduce harmful sulphur oxide emissions – they were already under an obligation to do so under EU environmental law. Therefore, we are concerned that the support gave these coal power plants an unfair competitive advantage. We will now investigate this issue further.”

In 2007, the Spanish authorities introduced a scheme (‘environmental incentive’) to support the installation of new sulphur oxide filters in existing coal power plants. These filters were supposed to reduce sulphur oxide emissions from those plants below certain limits. In return, the coal power plants were entitled to receive public support linked to the size of the plant for a period of 10 years (i.e. €8,750 per megawatt per year). Since 2007, 14 coal power plants benefitted from the scheme and received in total more than €440 million in public support, and payments will continue until 2020.

Spain did not notify this measure to the Commission for assessment under EU State aid rules. At this stage, the Commission has concerns that the emission limits imposed on beneficiaries of the scheme merely implement mandatory environmental EU standards which applied to coal power plants at the time. The relevant legal requirements were laid down in EU legislation on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants.

If confirmed, this means that the scheme did not actually have any environmental incentive effect. Furthermore, the financial support may breach a long-standing principle of EU State aid rules, namely that Member States may not grant State aid to companies to meet mandatory environmental EU standards. This would go against the “polluter pays” principle and give the relevant coal power plants an unfair competitive advantage towards other forms of power generation and towards coal power plants in other EU countries subject to the same EU legislation.

The Commission will now investigate further whether its initial concerns are justified. The opening of an in-depth investigation gives Spain and interested third parties an opportunity to submit comments. It does not prejudge the outcome of the investigation.

Germany: Merkel Points To Coalition With Social Democrats

$
0
0

(EurActiv) — Chancellor Angela Merkel on Saturday (25 November) welcomed the prospect of talks on a “grand coalition” with her Social Democrat (SPD) rivals and defended the record of the previous such government, saying it had worked well.

Merkel’s fourth term was cast into doubt when the pro-business Free Democrats (FDP) walked out of three-way coalition talks with her conservative bloc and the Greens last Sunday, causing a political impasse in Europe’s biggest economy.

But on Friday, the SPD reversed a previous decision and agreed to talk to Merkel, raising the possibilities of a new “grand coalition” which has ruled Germany for the last four years, or of a minority government.

Addressing party members on Saturday, Merkel argued voters had given her conservatives a mandate to rule in the 24 September election which handed her party the most parliamentary seats but limited coalition options. Her conservatives bled support to the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD).

“Europe needs a strong Germany, it is desirable to get a government in place quickly,” Merkel told a regional party meeting in northern Germany, adding, however, that her acting government could carry on day to day business.

“Asking voters to go to the polls again would, I think be totally wrong,” she said. On Monday, Merkel had said she would prefer new elections to a minority government in which her party would be only held in power by others.

Without even mentioning the option of a minority government, Merkel said she wanted to look ahead after the setbacks of the last week. Sounding self-assured and drawing applause during her speech, she turned her attention fully to the SPD.

Welcoming the prospect of talks with her former partner, she defended the record of the last coalition.

“We worked well together,” she said, adding under the grand coalition, Germany enjoyed the strongest labour market for decades, a balanced budget and pensioners and families had benefited, she argued.

President Frank-Walter Steinmeier is to host Merkel, SPD leader Martin Schulz and the leader of her conservative CSU sister party for a meeting on Thursday. Steinmeier had exerted considerable pressure on Schulz to change course for the sake of stability in Germany.

Substance

However, no one is saying things will be easy and the two former partners are already jostling over policy.

Merkel said her aims are to maintain Germany’s solid finances, cut some taxes and expand the digital infrastructure.

In a nod to her CSU conservative allies, she also said she aims to limit the number of migrants entering Germany to 200,000 per year.

This, however, may be hard for the SPD to swallow.

“A cap, which may not be called that, breaches the constitution and the Geneva Convention. With the SPD there will be no limit put on family members who want to join asylum seekers,” SPD deputy leader Ralf Stegner told the Funke media group.

Schulz, who had until Friday rejected any deal with Merkel, said there was nothing automatic about the outcome and promised party members a vote on talks.

The SPD is split as many members fear that renewing a grand coalition would be political suicide. It scored its worst result since 1933 in the September election.

Several other leading SPD members have called for other commitments, such as investment in education and homes.

Some senior SPD members have made clear that they will not let Merkel hold them hostage. “Mrs Merkel is not in a position to be setting conditions,” Malu Dreyer, premier of the state of Rhineland Palatinate, told the Trierscher Volksfreund.

Macedonia To Trim Secret Police’s Eavesdropping Powers

$
0
0

By Sinisa Jakov Marusic

Macedonia’s secret police, UBK, will no longer have unchecked powers to place people under surveillance, under a set of bills that form part of EU-recommended reforms of the security sector.

A set of government proposed bills in Macedonia, aimed at improving civilian control over the security services, which Brussels has noted in the past as a serious issue, will enter parliamentary procedure this week.

One of the main novelties contained in the bill on communications surveillance, prepared by the Interior Ministry, is that the secret police will no longer be in charge of the technical process of surveillance.

Instead, the country will form a new Operational Technical Agency, OTA, which will be independent from the secret police and under much firmer civil control.

Its work will be monitored closely by the Prosecutor’s Office, the bills envisage.

Additionally, five institutions will monitor surveillance activities to prevent any repeat of past abuses and breaches of people’s privacy and other human rights, the government has proposed.

Parliament, the directorate for classified information, the personal data protection agency, the Ombudsman’s Office and a newly formed civic council will all be engaged in the OTA’s monitoring work.

As part of the system of checks and balances, OTA will only be in charge of collecting surveillance data, and will not be able to listen to and analyze them. Its chief will be appointed by parliament and will have to possess at least ten year’s work experience in the police.

The UBK will only be able to analyze the collected data but will no longer have the ability to eavesdrop itself.

The current law allows the UBK to eavesdrop without seeking a court’s permission and without notifying the telecom operators.

As part of the reforms, mobile operators will no longer be obliged to provide technical equipment to the UBK, with which it could easily penetrate their systems for surveillance purposes.

The reforms in the security sector come as part of the new government’s drive to curb misuses of surveillance, after a mass illegal surveillance scandal rocked Macedonia in 2015, causing a long political crisis.

Former Prime Minister and VMRO DPMNE chief Nikola Gruevski and his cousin, former secret police chief Saso Mijalkov, were accused of masterminding the illegal surveillance of some 20,000 people, including government ministers.

They denied the charges. The crisis only ended this May with the election of a new Social Democrat-led government.

In November 2016, the Special Prosecution, SJO, which was formed as part of an EU mediated agreement between Macedonia’s parties and tasked with investigating allegations of high-level corruption, confirmed that the secret police ran the illegal wiretapping operation.

As a result, Mijalkov and other former senior police officials are currently on trial for the illegal surveillance operation and for trying to destroy evidence of it.

In October, Greek police arrested two runaway former Macedonian secret police employees whose testimonies in court, after their extradition to Macedonia, may shed additional light on the mass illegal wiretapping.

If it carries out all the most urgent reforms, Macedonia’s new government hopes to open acession talks with the EU next year.

Microbeads And Microfibre: A Big Challenge For Blue Economy – Analysis

$
0
0

By Vijay Sakhuja*

A recent BBC documentary titled Blue Planet II that has an agonising three-minute clip of a dead pilot whale moving along with her dead calf, apparently poisoned due to chemical pollution, left many audiences in shock. Wildlife expert Sir David Attenborough, the narrator of the documentary, pleaded, “Unless the flow of plastics and industrial pollution into the world’s oceans is reduced, marine life will be poisoned by them for many centuries to come.”

While plastic litter has been acknowledged as one of the many pollutants being dumped into the sea, two more materials – microbeads and microfibre – have been discovered deep in the oceans and are affecting marine life. However tiny these may be, the sheer scale of the problem they pose is enormous. Some countries have banned the use of microbeads, and clothing companies are being asked to step up in a big way to address the problem of microfibre.

Microbeads are tiny particles of plastic found in ‘wash-off, rinse-off, and leave-on’ personal care products for scrubbing, exfoliating and cleansing. These are found in body wash prodcuts, scrubs, age-defying makeup products, lip gloss, lipstick, nail polish and even toothpastes, and are washed by the billions every day into drains. Most wastewater treatment plants and systems cannot filter out microbeads which end up in large and small water bodies such as oceans, rivers, lakes and static ponds. Microbeads can absorb contaminants such as pesticides, flame retardants, motor oil, etc, and are inadvertently consumed by marine life all the way up into human food.

It is estimated that five mililitre of facial scrub contains between 4,500 and 9,4,500 microbeads. The Personal Care Products Council (PCPC), an international body that represents the cosmetics industry worldwide, has conceded that they understand the problem and are voluntarily phasing out plastic microbeads in scrub products. However, they argue that microbeads represent only “the tiniest fraction of plastic pollution in aquatic environments” and that 99 per cent of the microbeads are removed by water purification plants. In the US, acknowledging the impact of microbeads on marine and human life, President Obama signed the Microbeads Free Waters Act of 2015, barring the use of plastic microbeads in personal care products sold in the country.

While that may be the case with developed countries. particularly in Europe and the US, the microbeads menace in developing countries is far worse. The existing sewage treatment plants are not designed to capture and remove microbeads. For instance, a report by the Environment and Social Development Organisation (ESDO), Bangladesh, notes that nearly 7928.02 billion microbeads are washed every month into the rivers, canals and other water bodies in major cities such as Dhaka, Chittagong and Sylhet. Further, little is known about the adverse impact of microbeads on marine life, and the fish confuse them for eggs or zooplankton and accidentally ingest them. The report has called on the government to bring about legislation banning the use of microplastic and microbeads in the country.

The issue of microfibre is as complex as microbeads. Nearly 60 per cent of all clothing used by humans is made of synthetic (acrylic, nylon and polyester) fabrics. Synthetic fibres are non-biodegradable and soak up as the molecules of harmful chemical pollutants found in wastewater. Scientists believe that synthetic fibres from apparel are a threat to both the environment as also marine life, which forms an important component of the human food chain. Among these, acrylic has been identified as the worst microfibre-shedding material, up to four times faster than the polyester-cotton blend.

Even though clothing made from natural fibres such as cotton and wool may be biodegradable, it can be a source of contamination for marine life given that the cotton-growers use hazardous insecticides. The remedy lies in using non-genetically engineered organic cotton or wool items with natural dyes that can help solve marine environmental problems.

It is estimated that 1.4 million trillion microfibres are already contaminating the world’s waters. Further, tests have revealed that a synthetic fleece jacket releases an average of 1.7 grams of microfibre and top loading washing machines release about 530 per cent more microfibre than front loading models. To get a better sense of the problem, a study notes that “100,000 people could send anywhere from 20 to 240 pounds of microfibres into local waterbodies daily, which averages out to around 15,000 plastic bags.” Ironically, “clothing brands have been slow to respond to this growing threat” but some brands such as Patagonia and Nike are engaged in research to respond to the impact of microfibre.

The presence of microbeads and microfibres in the oceans, seas and rivers poses a major challenge for the development of ‘Blue Economy’, which is high on the agenda of a large number of countries. If the aim is to harness the resources of the seas in a sustainable manner, society may need to take a step back and think about the everyday products they use.  The remedy lies in accurately understanding the ‘extent, nature and sources’ of microbeads and microfibres before using these products, which certainly enhance human appearance, but adversely impact the marine environment. Perhaps the reason for the lack of a robust response to the problem is that nobody wants to take responsibility.

*Vijay Sakhuja
Former Director, National Maritime Foundation (NMF), New Delhi

The R4+S Approach For Afghanistan – Analysis

$
0
0

By Rajat Ahlawat*

The new US strategy for Afghanistan has switched from a ‘time-bound’, ‘troop numbers-based’ approach to a ‘conditions-based’ approach. A conditions-based approach would give the US administration more flexibility in terms of determining troop numbers and their roles and cooperation levels. US Secretary of Defense, James Mattis and Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph Dunford, in their testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on 3 October 2017, explained the new strategy with the acronym ‘R4+S’ which stands for Regionalise, Realign, Reinforce, Reconcile and Sustain.

Theoretically the strategy looks solid, but it will require long-term commitment and cooperation by the US to bring sustainability and stability to Afghanistan.

The Four ‘R’s, According to the US:

  • Regionalise: The US will focus on the roles of regional states neighbouring Afghanistan; according to Mattis, these are India, Pakistan, China, Iran and Russia.
  • Realign: The US troops will focus on advising Afghan forces at battalion levels, and will participate with them in combat operations.
  • Reinforce: This entails a further addition of over 3,000 US troops, and fighter and heavy bomber aircraft. The US also expects NATO and its allies to contribute with more troops (around 1,000 in total) and financial support.
  • Reconcile: The hope of a desired political outcome from the enhanced military operations.

‘Regionalise’?

With the US focusing on India as a security and economic partner under the new strategy, India’s economic role in Afghanistan will see a boost. But much against Washington’s desires, India will not maintain military presence in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, the likelihood of Pakistan cracking down on terror-groups acting against India and operating from its territory is low, despite US pressure. Islamabad is also unlikely to accept New Delhi’s greater role in Afghanistan. The US will have to navigate through this fundamental difference of opinion.

US President Donald Trump’s administration has also failed to reach out to Russia. Moscow-Washington cooperation in Afghanistan is unlikely to see the light of day in the near future. This apparent divide, which has manifested since the US-backed Quadrilateral Contact Group (QCG) meeting in Oman did not invite Russia and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) meeting on Afghanistan in Moscow did not see any US participation, points against a possible ‘regionalisation’.

Although President Trump has tried to reach out to his Chinese counterpart President Xi Jinping, it is still doubtful whether this will translate into any real cooperation on ground in Afghanistan. While China’s participation in both the formats points towards its rising role in Afghanistan, the US’ failure to develop a consensus on the technicalities of China’s future role in Afghanistan would prevent any potential US-China cooperation in Afghanistan. This might result in China pursuing its independent economic interests primarily based on its Belt and Road Initiative.

Iran is also a key regional player which shares a long and porous border with Afghanistan, and is directly affected by the Afghan security situation and illicit drug economy. Both countries share some common interests like curbing the illicit drug economy in Afghanistan and suppressing the presence of Islamic State in the country. But with the current US administration viewing Iran unfavourably, especially with President Trump’s aggressiveness against the nuclear deal, Tehran might not hold itself back in acting against Washington’s potential interests if it seeks to benefit from them.

‘Realign’ and ‘Reinforce’

The Realign and Reinforce components are expected to go hand-in-hand. After 2014, NATO had ceased combat roles and restricted its troops to training and advisory capacities, and primarily on the brigade and divisional levels. Now the US troops would focus more on lower battalion levels and participate in combat operations led by the Afghan forces, and coordinate NATO’s fire support.

However, doubts remain whether the alliance countries would be willing to send their troops into combat. NATO Chief Jens Stoltenberg has stated his preference for NATO troops not partaking in battles. This might lead to over-burdening of US troops who will be expected to conduct ‘advise and assist’ missions in active combat operations. This begs the question: 16 years on, why are the Afghan forces not operationally capable, and why is the Afghan Air Force, largely incompetent?

‘Sustain’

The most difficult component of the new strategy is the ‘S’, which stands for ‘Sustain’. Achieving long term “stability and security” in Afghanistan would require effective and independently-capable Afghan security forces; and there is still a long way to go before this is achieved. The limited capabilities of the Afghan forces means US troops would remain in the country for at least the coming six to seven years, which in turn would reaffirm the Taliban’s resolve of not agreeing to negotiate.

Except for a renewed focus on ‘advising and assisting’ at battalion levels during Afghan-led combat operations, there is nothing new in the Trump administration’s strategy that the US has not tried earlier. Though a conditions-based approach would give the US more adaptability on how they define “victory,” the current security situation combined with the US’ differences with Russia, China, Iran, and now Pakistan will prove to be major hurdles in the success of the strategy.

* Rajat Ahlawat
Research Intern, IReS, IPCS


How Ivanka Trump Can Revive Exports And Create Jobs – OpEd

$
0
0

By Sanjeev Ahluwalia

The future of work is uncertain. Within this global conundrum, India has a peculiar problem. The International Labour Organisation estimates that fewer women in India are opting to work. From a ratio of two men for every woman in the work place in 1990, there are now three men for every woman in the workplace. Despite women becoming better educated and overweight in the honors list of colleges, two thirds of graduate women do not work.

This statistic does not align with the over-crowded “ladies” section of the Mumbai local trains or how the workplace looks in metros, particularly InfoTech heavy Bangalore, where gender diversity is the norm.  What seems more likely, is that with low-skill jobs declining in significant numbers, women step back to allow their men to get such jobs. It helps that men are implicitly preferred by employers, despite costing more than women for similar work.

This wealth of unused woman power in India, is what Ms.Trump could tap into, at Hyderabad next week, where she will be a key note speaker at the Global Entrepreneurship Summit.

Ms. Trump, now in honorary public office, as an Advisor to the President of the United States, was previously a businesswoman in the luxury goods market. She knows first-hand, the potential of global supply chains, to drive development and growth, across networked economies. India needs all the help it can get in boosting exports.

Exports have lagged economic growth since 2014 and this trend is projected by Standard and Poor’s – the international rating agency – to continue, at least, till 2019. Curiously, S&P is simultaneously bullish about the resilience of India’s external position. This is principally due to our sound monetary management; a “liquid” rupee, trading for which constitutes around 1 percent of all forex transactions; low external debt levels at around 20 percent of GDP and our ability to finance the sizable trade deficit of 7 percent of GDP from surpluses in the export of services; our net balance of remittances from expatriate Indians and inward net flow of foreign investment.

But left unsaid is the fact that low oil prices over the last three years have significantly decreased the trade imbalance. But the risk of potential external imbalance remains if the oil price strengthens. Pumping up exports is not just necessary for a healthy and sustainable external balance. Booming exports are a signal of increasing competitiveness of the domestic economy and its enhanced integration into global supply chains.

It is less easy to define how to boost exports selectively, without distorting incentives for domestic producers. Creating “walled” export enclaves with superior facilities means “ghettoizing” the rest of the country. China can do this, because of its repressive labor and immigration policies and its top down, centralised, party managed, authoritarian State. India is closer in values; in diversity and in political architecture to the US. Out of the options for incentivising exports – tax breaks; cheaper finance or better infrastructure facilities, the least distorting and the most efficient is maintaining a realistic exchange rate.

The rupee is currently overvalued by around 20 percent. This strategy is great for limiting the public expenditure on import of defence and transport related equipment and on the subsidy for installation of imported solar panels for generating power.  It is also great for households which buy “cheaper” imported products – ranging from LED backlit plastic Gods to iPhones – from China. But it is a killer for domestic industry. It is not just the exports which suffers. Small and medium enterprises also take a direct hit if ceramic tiles from Turkey can outprice domestic production.

Agriculture also suffers. If the exchange rate was realistic, government would not need to impose an additional duty to discourage the import of cheaper, imported onions. A seasonal glut of vegetables could be avoided if a realistic exchange rate made the export of agricultural produce more competitive, thereby increasing farm incomes without a subsidy.

If Ms. Trump is truly concerned about empowering women, the lessons from India are the following. First, women suffer more from economic downturns than men. By losing their income they slide into the traditional role of being financially dependent – not a happy position to be in, for anyone. Second, higher exports help women, particularly if production is decentralised to exploit localised skills, like high value embroidery and handicrafts. Finally, integrating domestic production into global supply chains seamlessly, is key, for empowering women sustainably.

One hopes Ms. Trump will ponder over these issues. Over dinner, in the lavishly ornamented Falaknuma Palace, one hopes she will nudge Prime Minister Narendra Modi into depreciating the rupee to realistic levels, by exclaiming, she was shocked by the dollar prices quoted for the pearls, she had intended to buy, at Charminar. She would only be acting to further US interests. Robust exports increase India’s capacity to buy American. Down-at-heel Indian exporters and the women of India will also thank her for this collaborative gesture.

This commentary originally appeared in The Times of India.

New Geopolitics In The Middle East? – Analysis

$
0
0

By Joshua Krasna*

(FPRI) — The possible creation of a new geopolitical reality in the Middle East may have snuck under the radar this holiday weekend. The continuing spectacle of the investigations into Russia’s possible involvement in the 2016 Election and the continued naming and shaming of corporate leaders and politicians involved in sexual harassment (as well as Thanksgiving), may have overshadowed the summit in Sochi between the Presidents of Russia, Turkey, and Iran, shortly after Syrian President Bashar al-Assad visited President Putin in the same city (and thanked him for “saving Syria”).

The three presidents announced the winding down of the radical Islamist threat in Syria and the continued cooperation of their three states until “the final defeat” of the Islamic State and the al-Nusra front. More significantly, they announced the convening of a Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi in the near future, aimed at a “political solution to the crisis through a comprehensive, free, fair and transparent Syrian-Syrian process, that leads to a draft constitution with the support of Syrians and free and fair elections with participation of all people in Syria, under the proper supervision of the United Nations” (not a little ironic, considering the questionable democratic bona fides of the three regimes) and stressed their continued joint involvement in rebuilding Syria. According to the Russian press, Putin called President Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Saudi Arabia’s King Salman, President Abd el-Fatah a-Sisi of Egypt, and Qatar’s Emir Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani and informed them of the details of the summit.

The chiefs of staff of the three states’ militaries met in Sochi as well just before the summit: they discussed the current situation in Syria, outlined further steps to be taken in order to “destroy terrorist groups, ensure security in the de-escalation zones, and to pave the way for political settlement of the conflict.” Russian Chief of General Staff Valery Gerasimov noted that “the active phase of the military operation in Syria is nearing its completion … Although some issues are yet to be addressed, this stage is coming to its logical end.”

The EU noted “ … the statement of the three Astana guarantors in Sochi [in addition to the agreement of the Syrian opposition on the composition of its delegation to the Geneva talks slated to start November 28] … allows us to now look forward to the next round in Geneva, with the strong hope that the way is now paved for concrete decisions between the Syrian parties including on transitional governance, a constitutional process and UN-supervised free and fair elections.” The Astana process launched by the three powers last year (and largely viewed in the West as a marginal talking shop) is now poised to dovetail with the stalled U.N.-led Geneva process and may, with the heft of the three international players who have put the most skin in the game on the battlefield behind it, open the way to a resolution of sorts to the Syrian crisis.

This is only the formal pinnacle of cooperation which has been developing between Russia and Iran since the beginning of Russia’s intervention in Syria in 2015, and between Moscow and Ankara since June 2016, after Turkish President Erdogan apologized for the November 2015 downing of a Russian combat jet by Turkey, which had led to a crisis in bilateral relations. Russia and Iran have been closely cooperating, strategically, politically, and operationally to first stabilize the Syrian regime and its forces, and then to assist them in advancing towards victory.

The party which seems to have undergone the most serious change in policy, and has come the farthest to the current three-way cooperation, is Turkey. In the beginning of the Syrian crisis, Erdogan’s government was firmly supportive of the Syrian opposition and condemnatory of Assad’s regime – it even hosted the MOM, the Northern military operations center, which coordinated the efforts of several regional and international powers active in Syria. Turkey’s position on the conflict has evolved, as:

  • the civil war morphed into a parallel war between the regime and foreign powers (including Russia and the U.S.) against the Islamic State, which has carried out a bloody terror war against targets inside Turkey;
  • the Russian intervention reversed the tide and brought the Assad regime close to victory;
  • Kurdish groups – supported by the U.S. – gained more prominence and power as the most effective Syrian force against the Islamic State, raising latent fears in Turkey of possible Kurdish irredentism (which were only fanned by the recent aborted moves by the Iraqi Kurds towards independence).

Turkey’s ire at the United States after the April 2016 coup attempt, which Turkish officials have accused the U.S. of abetting, and the U.S. refusal to extradite Fethullah Gulen, led them to the door of Putin, for whose authoritarianism President Erdogan seems to also feel a kinship. Turkey’s understanding that in the current populist atmosphere in Europe – which has found anti-Islamic and anti-Turkish expressions – has buried their forlorn hopes for accession to the EU, may also have contributed. Turkey is becoming less and less an integral and dependable part of NATO. The Turkish media is rife with reports of intense Turkish-Russian cooperation in the defense industry/security field (including the possible sale of Russian S-400 air defense systems, and construction of a Russian nuclear reactor in Turkey). As Metin Gurcan notes in Al-Monitor, “this year, 66.5% [of [Turkish poll respondents] said the United States is the worst threat to Turkey, up from 44.1% a year before. Last year, only 14.8% thought that strategic cooperation with Russia could be an alternative to EU membership. This year, that figure reached 27.6%.”

Turkey and Iran share a common interest in calming Kurdish national fervor, which will be promoted by an end to the civil war in Syria – whether negotiated or compelled – and a return to more centralized rule, combined with the developments in Iraqi Kurdistan. To contain Kurdish ambitions, Turkey also needs to cooperate with the other countries perceiving a threat from their direction: Assad’s Syria – the key to which is in Russian and Iranian hands – and Iranian-influenced, Shiite-dominated Iraq. The Turkish daily Hurriyet reported in the wake of the summit that President Erdogan ruled out any place for the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) and its armed wing, the People’s Protection Units (YPG), in the Sochi conference; he added that he believes that Putin and Assad share this view.

Iranian newspapers and news sites described the Sochi meeting as a process leading to a “new Middle East.” The reformist Shargh daily wrote, “this summit indicates that the unity among Iran, Russia and Turkey is more prominent than in the past and these countries are engaged in a joint road map that is designed for Syria, and has been pursued in various summits. … Today, Iran, Turkey and Russia are drawing a road map for the new Middle East.”

Saudi Arabia hosted, contemporaneously with the Sochi summit, a meeting of Syrian opposition groups, aimed at forming a united opposition delegation for the Geneva talks. It is not clear how this move meshes with the Russian game plan, or if it runs parallel or even counter to it. In any case, Saudi Arabia may well have contributed to the new regional Great Entente. Saudi Arabia’s overstretched attempt at playing regional architect – and neighborhood bully – is not showing great results, apart from puffing up Iran’s threat to the region and pushing the two non-Arab Muslim powers even closer together. Riyadh is bogged down in Yemen, and absorbing greater and greater international criticism for its role in the humanitarian crisis unfolding there. Its economic war on Qatar – seen as an Iranian ally – has not brought it to heel, but has pushed it even closer economically and strategically to Turkey, which has posted military forces in the peninsular emirate as a deterrent. In addition, its apparent attempt to reengineer Lebanese politics is shaping up to have been “a bridge too far.” The Saudis have neither the strategic experience and acumen nor the military muscle to succeed in the role that has been thrust on them by the lack of American leadership in the region. The promising “moderate Sunni camp,” led by Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Jordan, which countered the pro-Assad camp (the regime, Iran, and Hezbollah) at the beginning of the Syrian crisis, is in tatters in the wake of the Russian intervention and the regional reshuffle it put into play.

The key to understanding both the strategic dynamics that led to the Moscow-Ankara-Teheran condominium, and to its possible future significance, is the perceived absence and irrelevance of the West in the Middle East. This is due in a large part to its failure, and specifically that of the United States under Presidents Obama and Trump, to effectively address the crisis in Syria. Russia, Iran, and Iran’s ally and creation, Hezbollah (aided by Iraqi Shia militias), stepped in and turned the tide; Turkey decided to go with the devil it knows (Assad) rather than the anarchic and – for it – even more destabilizing alternatives, to block the Kurds, and to join the winning team. The rest of the world (Israel is a clear exception), including the United States – whose President spoke with Putin for over an hour, “mostly about Syria,” according to Administration officials, two days before the Sochi summit, and seems to have promised President Erdogan in a phone call Friday that military aid to the YPG Kurdish militia will cease – and the EU, are apparently just happy someone (else) is doing the work.

Russia is an important enough player (and has enough other important interests, such as high oil prices and arms sales), that its bloc with Iran and Turkey on Syria does not exclude ties with other players on other issues: Saudi Arabia and OPEC on oil prices, Egypt on arms (look for Cairo’s moving closer to Moscow after the most recent outrage in Sinai) and Israel on de-confliction, as well as containing, and perhaps messaging Iran. Putin will be on his way to winding down the Russian military operation in Syria, and show the Russian public his preeminence as a global leader, before he runs for his next presidential term in March 2018. The Sochi process may also help Iran’s normalization, despite Washington, Jerusalem, and Riyadh’s best efforts.

This attempt to solve the Syrian morass may well go the way of its predecessors. But it seems to bear greater potential than most, both because the regime seems to be close to victory over both the Islamic State and its other opposition, and because the three heavyweights of the Middle East’s northern tier have lined up behind it: “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” In any case the new tripartite pact is likely to be able to parley their success into political capital and power in the region, as those who are willing not only to talk but to act decisively, as well to promote Putin as the “go-to” man for regional problems (perhaps outside the Middle East as well).

About the author:
*Joshua Krasna
, a Robert A. Fox Fellow in the Foreign Policy Research Institute’s Program on the Middle East, is an analyst specializing in Middle East political and regional developments and forecasting, as well as in international strategic issues

Source:
This article was published by FPRI.

Targeting Islamic scholars from Malaysia To Tunisia, Saudi Arabia Puts Itself In The Bull’s Eye – Analysis

$
0
0

By declaring the Qatar-based International Union of Islamic Scholars (ILUM) a terrorist organization, Saudi Arabia is confronting some of the world’s foremost Islamic political parties and religious personalities, opening itself up to criticism for its overtures to Israel, and fuelling controversy in countries like Malaysia and Tunisia.

In a statement earlier this week, Saudi Arabia charged that ILUM was “using Islamic rhetoric as a cover to facilitate terrorist activities.” The banning of ILUM goes to the heart of the Gulf crisis that pits a UAE-Saudi-led alliance against Qatar and is driven by United Arab Emirates Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed’s visceral opposition to any expression of political Islam.

The UAE for several years has sought with little evident success to counter ILUM’s influence by establishing groups like the Muslim Council of Elders and the Global Forum for Prompting Peace in Muslim Societies as well as the Sawab and Hedayah Centres’ anti-extremism messaging initiatives in collaboration with the United States and the Global Counter-Terrorism Forum.

The ban appears to have been designed to position Saudi Arabia as the arbiter of what constitutes true Islam and marks a next phase in a four-decade long, $100 billion campaign waged by the kingdom to counter Iran by spreading for the longest period of time Sunni Muslim ultra-conservatism, that often served as an ideological inspiration for jihadist philosophy – an iteration ultra-conservatives have condemned.

ILUM “worked on destroying major religious institutions in the Muslim world, like the Council of Senior Scholars in Saudi Arabia and Al-Azhar in Egypt,” one of the foremost institutions of Islamic learning, charged Abdulrahman al-Rashed, a prominent Saudi journalist and columnist for Al Arabiya.

Al Arabiya’s owner, Waleed bin Ibrahim al-Ibrahim, was among the kingdom’s top media barons arrested in Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s recent purge of members of the ruling family, senior officials, and businessmen under the mum of anti-corruption.

“The terrorism project hiding under Islam launched its work around the same time organizations which issue extremist fatwas (religious legal opinions) were founded. Like al-Qaeda and ISIS (an acronym for the Islamic State), these jurisprudential groups said they refuse to be local as they view themselves as global organizations that cross borders. The most dangerous aspect of terrorism is extremist ideology. We realize this well now,” Mr Al-Rashed said.

The Council of Senior Scholars, despite having endorsed Prince Mohammed’s reforms in a bid to salvage what it can of the power sharing agreement that from the kingdom’s founding granted his ruling Al Saud family legitimacy, is a body of ultra-conservative Islamic scholars.

Various statements by the council and its members critical of aspects of Prince Mohammed’s economic and social reform since his rise in 2015 suggest that support among its scholars is not deep-seated.

Prince Mohammed recently vowed to move the kingdom away from its embrace of ultra-conservatism and towards what he described as a more “moderate” form of Islam.

Speaking to The New York Times, Prince Mohammed argued that at the time of the Prophet Mohammed  there were musical theatres, an absence of segregation of men and women, and respect for Christians and Jews, who were anointed People of the Book in the Qur’an. “The first commercial judge in Medina was a woman! Do you mean the Prophet was not a Muslim?” Prince Mohammed asked.

Authorities days later banned pilgrims from taking photos and videos in Mecca’s Grand Mosque and the Mosque of the Prophet in Medina in line with an ultra-conservative precept that forbids human images. The ban was imposed after Israeli blogger Ben Tzion posted a selfie in Mecca on social media. Authorities bar non-Muslims from entering the two holy cities.

In a statement, authorities said the ban was intended to protect and preserve Islam’s holiest sites, prevent the disturbance of worshippers, and ensure tranquillity while performing acts of worship.

Founded by controversial Egyptian-born scholar Yousef al-Qaradawi, one of Islam’s most prominent living clerics and believed to be a spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, ILUM members include Rachid al-Ghannouchi, the co-founder and intellectual leader of Tunisia’s Brotherhood-inspired Ennahada Party, and Malaysian member of parliament and Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS) head Abdul Hadi bin Awang.

Mr. Al-Qaradawi, a naturalized Qatari citizen who in the past justified suicide bombings in Israel but has since condemned them,  was labelled a terrorist by Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Egypt in June as part of their diplomatic and economic boycott of Qatar. The UAE-Saudi-led alliance demanded that Qatar act against Mr. El-Qaradawi and scores of others as a condition for lifting the six-month-old boycott.

Mr. El-Ghannouchi was named one of Time magazine’s 100 Most Influential People in the World in 2012 and Foreign Policy’s Top 100 Global Thinkers in 2011. He was also awarded the prestigious Chatham House Prize. Mr. El-Ghannouchi is widely credited for ensuring that Tunisia became the only Arab country to have successfully emerged from the 2011 Arab popular revolts as a democracy.

The banning of ILUM has, moreover, sparked political controversy in Malaysia. Karima Bennoune, the United Nations Special Rapporteur for cultural rights, recently noted a deepening involvement of Malaysia’s religious authorities in policy decisions, developments she said were influenced by “a hegemonic version of Islam imported from the Arabian Peninsula” that was “at odds with local forms of practice.”

“Arab culture is spreading, and I would lay the blame completely on Saudi Arabia,” added Marina Mahathir, the daughter of former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad

Critics of PAS  demanded that Mr. Bin Awang, a vice-president of the group, “come clean that he does not preach hatred” in the words of former PAS leader Mujahid Yusof Rawa, and called on the government to ask Saudi Arabia for information to back up its charges against the union.

Mr Bin Awang, referring to Saudi King Salman, asserted last week that he relied on the “Qur’an (for guidance) although the ruler who is the servant of the Two Holy Cities has forged intimate ties with Israel and the United States, because my faith is not with the Kaaba but with Allah.” One of the most sacred sites in Mecca, Muslims turn to the Kaaba when praying.

“Just like Qatar, PAS had tried to ingratiate itself with Iran in an attempt to cover both bases, along with Saudi. Now the chicken has come home to roost, and just like Qatar, global minnows like PAS find themselves caught in the middle between the two Muslim world influencers,” said Malaysian columnist Zurairi Ar.

Among other members of ILUM is controversial Saudi scholar Salman al-Odah, who was among clerics, intellectuals, judges and activists arrested in the kingdom weeks before the most recent purge.

With millions of followers on social media, Mr. Al-Odah, a once militant scholar, turned a decade ago against jihadis like Osama bin Laden and played a key role in the kingdom’s program to rehabilitate militants, but retained his opposition to the monarchy.

OPEC Will Extend The Cut – Analysis

$
0
0

By Zainab Calcuttawala

There will be an OPEC deal extension—no matter the public tussling between opposing forces in the industry cartel—if the world’s largest oil producers are really determined to end the supply glut.

A failure to agree on the market remediation would cause oil prices to plummet immediately, forfeiting any gains that have been made in the last year.

Saudi Arabia needs $60 per barrel for its Aramco initial public offering to be a success in the second half of next year. It plans to sell just five percent of its prized company in the largest IPO in financial history, but a low price could force the country to sell a larger share, siphoning off government revenues at a time of strained budgets.

Aramco’s IPO is important not just for Saudi Arabia’s non-oil future. As one of the world’s most efficient and low-cost oil producers, its longevity can be seen as an indicator of how the larger industry will fare. An unstable oil price—fueled by the indecisiveness of OPEC members—will trigger an extended period of low oil prices as demand continues to grow. In the short to medium term, this will heighten demand as consumers in the market for new cars will likely put off buying expensive hybrid or electric cars due to the plethora of cheap fuel. Similarly, the pace of natural gas and renewables adoption by utilities companies will slow as oil floods the markets.

Pushed to the edge, the leanest oil companies will buy out their bankrupt contemporaries, continuing the consolidation trend that has dominated the sector over the past two years. But in the long run, dwindling exploration budgets should stagnate the industry’s development.

None of this would correspond to an ideal situation for any of the OPEC countries. All members are charting their economy’s course out of oil. The Gulf is using its savings, stored in huge sovereign wealth funds, to retrain its workforce, build industrial cities, and find a new niche. Algeria, Venezuela, and Nigeria are suffering through the political blowback of years of corruption and mismanagement. Their civilian populations ask where decades of oil profits are now. They question how their nations fell so deep into the oil curse and demand change—whether economic or political.

Prices need to rise for these governments to afford wars against terrorist groups in the region (Boko Haram for Nigeria), medical supplies for its ill citizens (Venezuela), and salaries for the massive public workforce (Algeria).

For some countries, the final years of oil’s dominance in world energy markets will fund the diversification of over-dependent yet semi-developed countries (Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, and Qatar). In other cases, it will spell the end of entrenched corruption (Algeria, Nigeria, Venezuela, Angola) or provide the capital to reconstruct entire cities torn by years of conflict or sanctions (Iraq, Iran, Libya).

The world’s top oil and gas exporters know their trophy commodity’s days are numbered. They are in search of anything that will allow the last of the glory days to be as profitable as possible, and a ‘no deal’ on an extension agreement simply won’t cut it.

“We’re in extensive consultations with all our colleagues around the world within and outside OPEC and we can’t make any statements at this stage until we get to Vienna [at the end of the month],” Saudi Oil Minister Khalid al-Falih told reporters coyly last week. “Everybody wants to call it the right way, but stay tuned and you’ll find out when I find out in Vienna.”

Consider al-Falih a fan of the will-they-won’t-they romance between OPEC and its commitments. All political and economic incentives, however, point toward a green-light for an extension.

To keep a closer eye on all of OPEC’s oil prices as this situation develops, you can check out our Oil Price Charts page.

Source: https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/OPEC-Will-Extend-The-Cut.html

Qatari Opposition: A Failed Quartet Project – Analysis

$
0
0

By Stasa Salacanin

The stand-off between Qatar and the Saudi-led Arab bloc has entered its fifth month bringing to the surface some Qatari exile opposition figures. Despite heavily promoted in Quartet states, it seems that these little-known figures, appearing suddenly out of nowhere, can play no more than an episodic role in the politic arena and it is hard to believe that any can become a serious challenger to the throne.

However, despite their obscurity inside and outside Qatar, these so-called “leaders of Qatari opposition” have received broad media coverage in Saudi led quartet states.

Egyptian, Emirati and Saudi newspapers have been full of reports claiming that domestic opposition to Qatari Emir-Sheik Tamim was mounting. But, deeper analysis of this reports reveals that any possible threat for Qatari ruling elite, at least in theory, comes from its dissatisfied family members and not from the street.

Qatari opposition “leaders”

As soon as Qatari crisis emerged in June, Egyptian press reported that little known Sheikh Saud bin Nasser Al-Thani, member of the ruling family in Qatar, was preparing to form a political party based in London, in opposition to the ruling regime of Emir Tamim. This newly formed opposition party was to pursue a different course in its foreign policy, one more in line with Saudi and UAE demands, including freezing Qatar’s relations with Iran, ending Qatari support for Islamists in Libya and Egypt, and expelling Islamist leaders from the Gulf state. It was also reported that the ruling family’s dissidents, gathered around Sheikh Abdul Aziz Bin Khalifa Al-Thani, the Geneva based uncle of the Qatari Emir, will create an opposition front against the current Qatari ruler.

Paris-based Sheikh Sultan bin Suhaim Al-Thani, the son of Qatar’s foreign minister from 1972 to 1985, Sheikh Suhaim bin Hamad Al-Thani, is also among those members of the ruling dynasty that oppose the policies of the Qatari Emir. Gulf media reported on October 16, that Qatari State security forces stormed his palace in Doha, confiscating documents and holdings of Sheikh Sultan bin Suhaim as well as his father’s archives. Before this incident, he heavily criticized Qatari leadership in his Sky News Arabia appearance in mid-September. “Because of mistakes made by the Qatari government”, he said, “I have all fears that the Qatari identity will be linked to terrorism,” while expressing its firm support to Sheikh Abdullah bin Ali bin Abdullah Al Thani’s views to resolve the Qatari crisis.

Sheikh Abdullah bin al-Thani has emerged as the central figure of the opposition, according to Quartet media, and soon became a frequent guest in Saudi royal court. He might have gained a few political points after high-profile visits with Saudi King Salman and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman due to his possible role in Saudi Arabia’s decision to allow Qatari pilgrims direct passage to the Saudi Arabia for the hajj in August. But this could have also been a tactical move of Saudis presenting little known Sheikh Abdullah, as someone who can solve the crisis. It is not surprising that soon afterward Saudis have been suggesting Sheikh Abdullah should rule Qatar as an emir in exile. Salman Al-Ansari, for example, the founder and president of the Saudi American Public Relation Affairs Committee (SAPRAC), a powerful lobbying group, openly called for regime change in Qatar. In his tweet, he called for Quartet states to support Sheikh Abdullah bin Ali Al Thani as the “only legitimate” leader of Qatar.

Finally, Khalid al-Hail, a Qatari exile who has proclaimed himself a leader of the country’s opposition, is the latest personae to emerge amid the Qatar crisis. Although he came into the media spotlight back in 2014 when he founded a little known “Youth Movement for the Rescue of Qatar”, this entrepreneur caught the attention after organising the controversial and semi-secret conference held on September 14th in London. “The Qatar, Global Security & Stability Conference” was supported by the founder of the British Monarchist Society and Foundation.

The London Conference and its impact

The debate on the conference focused on political Islam and terrorist groups, democracy, human rights and Al Jazeera/free press. The conference website has presented a publication called “Qatar Crisis:  Exploring the possible outcomes of the Qatari leadership crisis.”

Possible outcomes presumed were that Qatar’s foreign relations will shift in a Saudi/Emirati direction, but without mentioning measures of democratic reforms inside Qatar. The document also openly advocated for a “bloodless coup” which would replace emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, either by dissatisfied members of his own family (with support from Qatar’s armed forces) or as a result of military intervention by “regional states.” All of these presumptions comply with Hail’s previous statements given to various Gulf media. But when asked to further explain the agenda of Qatari opposition and his views on foreign intervention against his own homeland and the role of neighbouring countries in supporting his movement, Mr al-Hail remains silent. The same goes for other participants at the conference, including Mr. Thomas Mace-Archer-Mills, the founder of British Monarchist Society and Foundation who supported this conference and  Daniel Kawczynski , a Conservative pro-Saudi MP and the “Honourable Member for Saudi Arabia,” who also has not responded to our calls.

Members of the anti-Qatar Quartet have heavily promoted Qatari opposition and their ideas of political changes in the Qatar. But this is rather strange, as quartet states have an extremely poor record on any of the points discussed at the conference including democratic values, human rights or freedom of the press, making their concern over these issues in Qatar even more bizarre.

This is why Perry Cammack, a  fellow in the Middle East Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and former senior staff member of former US Secretary of State John Kerry, thinks that “London opposition conference was an unusually ineffective PR stunt and irrelevant to Qatar’s future.”

Amna Al Thani, an AM Candidate from the Centre for Middle Eastern Studies at the Harvard University, is quite convinced that this event was conducted by a neighbouring country and very few Qataris participated at the conference “Did you see any Qatari at this event? London has thousands of Qataris living there as students or for other purposes and no one had attended. It has not really crossed Qataris radar even,” she noted.

Relevancy of Qatari opposition

The limited impact of the London conference brings a question how much influence these exiles from the newly formed “opposition” enjoy among Qataris and how much support if any they can expect from global key players?

According to Dr. Gerd Nonneman, Professor of International Relations & Gulf Studies from the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University’s campus in Qatar, none of these figures have any significant support in Qatar. And even if they represented some minor strands of grievance among some sections of the population or the Al Thani, whatever credibility or support they might have theoretically derived from that would have been completely destroyed by their association with the four boycotting countries.

Calling for foreign intervention against its own people has never been met with sympathies anywhere.  Since the crisis began, there has been mass public support for Emir Sheikh Tamim all over Qatar. Amna Al Thani told us that the Qatari general public is “completely behind Sheikh Tamim as you saw from the happiness and sense of pride that occurred when he came back from New York after the UN general assembly meeting and his meeting with the US president.”  In the last five months one could easily notice an avalanche of support messages via social media and in public life as Qataris as well as expats decorated their cars and boats with images of Qatari Emir -Tamim al-Thani.

Cammack, however, noted that public opinion in the Gulf is notoriously difficult to measure, and some of the public displays of affection for Sheikh Tamim were no doubt exaggerated for international consumption. But nevertheless, “the instinct to rally around the flag into the face of political interference is nearly universal. It is almost certain that the clumsy support by Saudi Arabia and the UAE for the Qatari opposition will discredit it, rather than bolster it,” he told us.

Consequently, Amna Al-Thani believes that “if the blockade states are aiming to destabilize the country, it has certainly produced the complete opposite effect. “ So far there has been no evidence of a serious domestic challenger to the emir.

Therefore, Dr. Nonneman believes that Qatari exiles cannot get any serious support anywhere outside quartet states, as decision-makers elsewhere can see through these things and know they are no more than bit-players in the propaganda war of the Quartet. Even the international media have been very sceptical of the claimed roles and importance of these figures.

“Qatari opposition”- the failed Quartet project

The emergence of the exile opposition is without doubt closely linked with Saudi-UAE efforts to bring down the current Qatari leadership. It seems that the whole project of Qatari opposition has been inspired or at least heavily supported by the Quartet. According to Dr. Nonneman the “Qatari Opposition” tactic being adopted on occasion by Saudi Arabia and Abu Dhabi can only be understood as an attempt to cause friction, worry and questioning inside Qatar and the ruling family, in the hope that the tactic would lead in a more indirect way to destabilisation and hence might increase the Qatari leadership’s willingness to submit to the Quartet’s demands. The real impact of these efforts, according to Cammack, “is to further personalize the conflict, making it that much more difficult to resolve.”

Nevertheless, Dr. Nonneman points out that it is very hard to believe – although not completely impossible – that anyone in the leadership in the Quartet countries seriously thinks there was ever scope for regime change by using these tactics, but even the less ambitious idea betrays a real lack of understanding of current Qatari social and political dynamics. “That is why I think the explanation cannot be complete without pointing to flawed decision-making by a very small and closed circle in Riyadh and Abu Dhabi, without the benefit of advice and intelligence from other voices and state institutions (including the intelligence professionals formerly overseen by Mohammed bin Nayef-deposed Saudi crown prince) where real insights on Qatari political dynamics might have been found”.

Source: This article was published by Modern Diplomacy

Viewing all 73742 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images