A former colonel of the Salvadoran military, Inocente Orlando Montano Morales, has been ordered to be imprisoned in Spain, as he awaits trial for his alleged participation in the murder of five Jesuit priests in 1989.

Montano, was extradited to Spain from the United States on Wednesday, the Associated Press reported. He had been in US custody for six years, after being arrested for charges of immigration fraud.

The former colonel was El Salvador’s vice-minister for public security during the brutal civil war that divided El Salvador in the 1980s. He will be tried for terrorist murder, and crimes against humanity, in the killing of five Spanish priests. Another priest, their cook, and her daughter were also killed. Montano maintains his innocence.

The Jesuits in El Salvador were active proponents of peace talks and a negotiation between the government and the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front, an organization of left-wing guerillas. The priests were targeted because of one of them, Father Ignacio Ellecuria, SJ, was an outspoken critic of El Salvador’s government, according to Reuters.

The killings took place on Nov. 16, 1989, during a battle being waged across the city of San Salvador. Ellecuria served as rector of the Central American University, which was occupied by an elite battalion of the Salvadoran army. The Spanish government alleges that Montano ordered that the priests be executed because of their apparent support for “subversive movements” critical of the government.

The government was supported by the United States during the twelve year conflict, which killed 75,000 people, and during which 8,000 people disappeared. The United Nations has estimated that 85% of civilians killed during the conflict died at the hands of government forces.

Although widely regarded to have ordered the killing of the Jesuits, Montano, 74, was not charged by Salvadoran authorities. He will be required to testify in Madrid next week as his trial begins, according to the Associated Press.

It’s often thought that Democrats care about fairness and not economic growth, while Republicans care about growth even at the cost of some fairness.

Rubbish. Growth and fairness aren’t opposites. In reality, Democrats are the party of economic growth and fairness. Republicans are the party of neither.

The only way to grow the economy is by investing in the education, healthcare, and infrastructure that average Americans need in order to be more productive. Growth doesn’t “trickle down.” It rises up.

Consider the two biggest legislative initiatives over past decade – the Affordable Care Act, achieved without a single Republican vote, and the current Trump-Republican tax overhaul, speeding ahead without a single Democrat.

The ACA extends coverage to 21 million mostly lower-income Americans, including millions of children.

It’s largely paid for by two tax increases on the rich – a 3.8 percent increase on their capital gains taxes and other investment-related income, and a 0.9 percent surcharge on their Medicare taxes. Those tax increases are a major reason why Republicans have wanted to repeal it.

But the ACA isn’t just about fairness. Healthier Americans are also more productive workers. Children who receive health care are better learners. The Act thereby fuels economic growth and widens prosperity.

Republicans say their tax overhaul will promote growth by increasing the profits of American corporations and investors. This is trickle-down nonsense.

Every major study (including Congress’s own Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation) finds that its benefits would go mainly to big corporations and the wealthy.

Share prices may rise for a time. They’re already at record highs in anticipation of the tax cut. But higher share prices don’t trickle down, either. The richest 1 percent owns almost 38 percent of the stock market. Eighty percent of Americans together own just 8 percent of all shares of stock.

This won’t fuel growth. Corporations expand and invest only when customers are eager to buy what they produce. And most of these customers are middle-income and below, who spend just about all they earn. The rich spend only a small fraction.

Profits are now at record levels but corporations aren’t investing them. They’re using them instead to pump up share prices and executive pay.

After the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, economic growth stalled and then dissolved in recession. After the 2004 corporate tax holiday for bringing foreign profits home, corporations didn’t invest or expand. The Reagan tax cut of 1981 didn’t cause wages to rise; they flattened.

What’s the real formula for growth? Better access to education, healthcare, and transportation, all of which make workers more productive.

These more productive workers command higher wages. With higher wages, they purchase more goods and services. These purchases motivate companies to expand and invest, and create more and better jobs.

American experienced this virtuous cycle for thirty years after World War II. We invested unprecedented sums in education, healthcare, and infrastructure. We financed these investments through higher taxes on the rich and on big corporations.

The economy boomed and wages shot upward. The wages of the bottom fifth rose even faster than the wages of the top fifth. This unleashed consumer spending, which generated more growth.

The Clinton administration tried this formula on a much smaller scale in the 1990s, raising taxes on the top and investing in education and infrastructure. The economy boomed, 23 million new jobs were created, and for the first time since the late 1970s the typical American’s wage rose.

The Trump-Republican tax overhaul would take us in the opposite direction. It raises taxes on the middle class, which would reduce their purchasing power. The Senate version would cut the Affordable Care Act, causing millions to lose coverage.

It also explodes the federal debt, which will stymie growth. Debt service itself would likely require cuts in other programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, education, and transportation.

Senator Orrin Hatch warned last week that the Children’s Health Insurance Program may not be refunded “because we don’t have money anymore.”

The current tax proposal would also eliminate the state and local tax deduction, which would likely cause states to cut back spending, including education and infrastructure.

All of this would slow economic growth.

For years, Republicans have been selling tax cuts by lying that they spur growth, which trickles down to average Americans.

For just as long, Democrats have been selling fairness, but without explaining why a fairer economy is also more productive and prosperous.

It’s time for Democrats to make the case. It has the virtue of being true.

The path forward for the Democrats is clear. They need to accept responsibility for their humiliating defeat to Donald Trump and move on. That means they need to stop passing the buck and make a solid effort to reconnect with the millions of disillusioned ex-Dems in the center of the country who either didn’t vote, because they couldn’t stand Hillary, or switched sides to vote for Trump. These are the people the Dems need to lure back into the fold if they expect to be competitive in the future. If they can’t do that,  the party is doomed. It’s that simple.

Check out this excerpt from an article by Democratic pollster, Stanley Greenberg at The American Prospect. Greenberg helps to zero-in on the key issue that cost Hillary the election:

“The Democrats don’t have a “white working-class problem.” They have a “working-class problem,” which progressives have been reluctant to address honestly or boldly. The fact is that Democrats have lost support with all working-class voters across the electorate, including the Rising American Electorate of minorities, unmarried women, and millennials. This decline contributed mightily to the Democrats’ losses in the states and Congress and to the election of Donald Trump…..”(“The Democrats Working-Class problem”, Stanley Greenberg, American Prospect)

This is great analysis. It helps to pinpoint the root-cause of the Dem’s troubles which can be traced back to a tone-deaf party leadership that failed to craft a message that would rally their working-class base. They didn’t do that. They didn’t address bread and butter issues of economic security and standards of living which have steadily eroded under the blinkered misrule of Barack Obama.  Instead they launched a pathetic public relations campaign aimed at persuading everyone that things were just hunky dory.  Not surprisingly, no one was taken in by the ruse.  Here’s more from Greenberg:

“Working-class Americans pulled back from Democrats in this last period of Democratic governance because of President Obama’s insistence on heralding economic progress and the bailout of the irresponsible elites, while ordinary people’s incomes crashed and they continued to struggle financially….

In what may border on campaign malpractice, the Clinton campaign chose in the closing battle to ignore the economic stress not just of the working-class women who were still in play, but also of those within the Democrats’ own base, particularly among the minorities, millennials, and unmarried women.” (The American Prospect)

Exactly right! Clinton chose to shrug off the suffering taking place right under nose and, as a result, got her head handed to her. Whose fault is that?

She traipsed from one venue to the next touting the  “recovery” while the wretched economy continued to sputter along at a lousy 2 percent GDP, health care costs continued to skyrocket, and the good-paying jobs vanished altogether.  Meanwhile, her pal, Obama did absolutely nothing. He didn’t lift a finger to boost government spending, launch a second round of fiscal stimulus, or implement his grandiose infrastructure plan. Nothing. He ushered in an eight year period of falling incomes, higher personal debts, eviscerated household balance sheets and nearly-universal economic uncertainty. This is the dismal economic record that Hillary decided to run on. Is it any wonder why she lost to the most unqualified, least trustworthy, farthest right-wing candidate in American history?

Just because Obama’s personal approval ratings remained high, doesn’t mean that people wanted another eight years of his penny-pinching deficit reduction and grinding economic strangulation. No way. What they wanted was the change they were promised in 2008, but never got. Here’s more from Greenberg:

(Past supporters) “pulled back because of the Democrats’ seeming embrace of multinational trade agreements that have cost American jobs. The Democrats have moved from seeking to manage and champion the nation’s growing immigrant diversity to seeming to champion immigrant rights over American citizens’. Instinctively and not surprisingly, the Democrats embraced the liberal values of America’s dynamic and best-educated metropolitan areas, seeming not to respect the values or economic stress of older voters in small-town and rural America. Finally, the Democrats also missed the economic stress and social problems in the cities themselves and in working-class suburbs.” (The American Prospect)

Americans have had it up to here with free trade. It’s all a public relations hoax aimed at enriching a few fatcat corporate honchoes at the expense of people who actually work for a living. Everyone knows that, just like they know that Hillary was a free trade proponent before she pulled the old switcheroo. Her vacillating position on trade just underscored her abject phoniness on any issue of substance. The woman would say anything if she thought it would win her a couple of votes.

Hillary wanted her supporters to believe that the whole center of the country was loaded with racist, misogynist, homophobic, gun-toting, Bible-thumping zombies who mere presence should offend prosperous, educated liberals whose enlightened views on global warning and transgender bathrooms would lead the country to a new cultural renaissance.  Got that? Turns out, many of Hillary’s Deplorables used to be Democrats before the party affixed itself leech-like to the Wall Street banks,  the tech giants and the big weapons manufacturers. The more cozy the Dems got with the corporate giants, the more working people got thrown under the bus, until now the entire center of the country–from North Carolina to Idaho– is blood-red GOP territory, a clear sign that the Dems no longer speak the language of working people, in fact, they look down their noses at them.

If the Democratic Party is the party of working people than how did a bloviating, billionaire casino magnate win the election?  The election results prove that whatever the Dems are selling, working people ain’t buying.

So now the Dems have decided that they’re going abandon their platform altogether and morph into the “We’re not Donald Trump Party”. That, they think, is the fast-track back to the White House and another undeserved eight years of executive power.

But they’re still looking for the right person to lead the charge.  Or are they?  Maybe they’ve already picked their candidate but they want to keep it hush-hush until the right moment. Is that it?

The Dems have two options: They can either promote a candidate that seriously addresses the issues that working people really care about or they can follow the blueprint pioneered by Barack Obama, that is, take an unknown senator with impressive oratory skills and great personal charisma, transport him to venues that magnify his popularity, fabricate an aura of celebrity around his ‘stately persona’, and make sure he scrupulously avoids explicit positions on the issues but, instead,  speaks only in the broadest and most nebulous terms.

These are the keys to Obama’s success. It represents the success of public relations over content. The man was an empty slate upon which his backers could scribble their own most-heartfelt aspirations. And they did too,  after all, he won. Even now, his most ardent supporters refuse to accept that the man was an empty suit who never veered the slightest from the elitist script given to him on Day 1 of his presidency. The myth continues.

So how do the plutocrats who run the party duplicate that same ‘lucky’ string of events? That’s the question. Where are they going to find another candidate with Obama’s stature, gravitas and charisma, a towering, telegenic colossus who can melt an audience with his riveting oratory and stand tall among the world’s kings and prime ministers? Someone who can connect with the working man in Scranton, the single mom in Winnemucca, and the struggling pensioner in Tallahassee, but someone who –at the same time– faithfully executes the warmongering imperial agenda without the slightest reservation.  Where are they going to find someone like that?

Well, there’s always Hillary Clinton? She might be up for another go, right?

Nope. Hillary’s time is over.

Biden?

Too old.

Elizabeth Warren?

You’re kidding.  Wall Street would never allow it.

Then who?

The Dems need a proven commodity,  a Princeton under-grad with a Harvard Law degree. Magna cum laude. A spotless record, no sordid affairs, embarrassing arrests or spotty personal history. A paragon, a shining example of strength, virtue, perseverance.  A telegenic, charismatic pillar of the community who can deliver a barnburner with the best of them. A black woman whose name recognition makes her the most formidable candidate in the country today, bar none.

Michelle Obama. It’s as plain as the nose on your face.

But what makes the Democratic leaders think that Michelle would be anymore revolutionary then her husband who oversaw the greatest upward transfer of wealth in the history of the country?  Why would they think that Michelle would focus on raising wages, or pushing universal health care, or fighting Wall Street, or lifting living standards, or ending poverty, or creating more good-paying jobs, or ending the foreign wars?

She wouldn’t attempt any of those things, that’s the point. Michelle already knows the drill,  that’s what makes her the perfect candidate. She knows the president is a meaningless figurehead. She knows the whole thing is a charade. She knows that the rich will get richer while working people get stomped on. She’s been there, she’s done that.

And now its her turn to shine, her turn to take center-stage and lead the conferences, and meet the foreign dignitaries, and spar with the press, and hold meetings in the Rose Garden, and languish in the big leather chair in the Oval Office.

Michelle’s day is coming, and the party leaders are already licking their chops.

The US knows that the Pakistan government has little to no control over the support to terror groups as it is done by the deep state, comprising the army and the ISI. The regular warning to the Pakistan government to act, have been ignored.

By Harsha Kakar

As per Pakistan’s Dawn newspaper reports, US Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph Dunford, and Defence Secretary, James Mattis, are expected to visit Pakistan shortly, seeking cooperation from it in their war against the Taliban in Afghanistan. The visit comes after the US announced the completion of deployment of an additional 3,000 troops in Afghanistan and its readiness to commence joint operations with Afghan forces. An additional 2,000 troops from NATO nations are still awaited. Thus, Afghanistan would have over 15,000 NATO troops.

The US strategy in Afghanistan is to apply pressure on the Taliban, by degrading its fighting capabilities and targeting its leadership, to come to the negotiating table with the Afghan government without any preconditions. For this strategy to move forward and produce results, it is essential that the Taliban and Haqqani leadership, presently located in safe bases in Pakistan, must be dislodged into the mountains of Afghanistan. It is only by dislodging would the US be able to target them, compelling them to come forward for negotiations. Further, if Afghanistan is to be stabilised economically, and its military trained and equipped, it would need additional assistance. This is the role that the US visualises for India, after all India has a major stake in seeking stabilisation of Afghanistan.

Pakistan, a major player in the region, as being Afghanistan’s neighbour and an ardent supporter of the Taliban and Haqqani network, needs to be compelled to act. There is clearly a mismatch in perceptions of the US and Pakistan, concerning Afghanistan, which unless bridged, would neither bring about peace in the country nor permit the NATO to withdraw successfully. Though peace in Afghanistan is in Pakistan’s interest, there is a difference in the nature of peace it desires.

For Pakistan, Afghanistan has always been its strategic backyard, which it seeks to control, by having a favourable pro-Pakistan government in place. Hence, it is unwilling for India to have any role in the nation. It has always had a few misconceptions, which need to be set aside. The first is that India is fuelling insurgency in Baluchistan, through Afghanistan. Second, India has the support of the Afghan intelligence agency, National Directorate of Security (NDS), in supporting anti-Pakistan militancy and insurgencies. Third, the NDS and the Afghan government are providing sanctuary to anti-Pakistan terror groups, which regularly target Pakistan, with tacit Indian support. In simple terms, India is already playing a destabilising role in Pakistan, through Afghanistan. Hence, any incident occurring in Pakistan is blamed on Indian intelligence agencies. Even during the ongoing standoff in Islamabad, the Pak interior minister, Ashan Iqbal, claimed that the protestors were in contact with India.

Pakistan has also been stating that the Taliban does not need Pak territory for sanctuary as it controls almost 40 percent of Afghanistan. Pakistan’s regular international cry has been that it has been the largest sufferer in the battle of terror and its anti-terror operations have forced all terror groups from its soil. Its accusations of India and Afghanistan of interfering in its internal matters and its own battle against terror are generally ignored by the world body.

The US views are at a variance. It is of the firm belief that unless the Taliban and Haqqani network are choked of weapons and funds as also pushed out of Pakistan, there is little possibility of them engaging in peace talks. Further, the US is willing to up the ante by employing drone strikes across the border, into Pakistan to target those who are still located there. To further prove its seriousness, it has made release of funds to Pakistan, contingent to its action against these groups. However, to provide Pakistan some leeway, it has delinked the LeT from the Haqqani network.

The US knows that the Pakistan government has little to no control over support to terror groups as it is done by the deep state, comprising the army and the ISI. Hence, regular warning to the Pakistan government to act, have been conveniently ignored. With additional deployment completed, it is now time for pressure to be applied, to compel Pakistan to act or NATO would face failure. So, the coming visits by the US top brass to Pakistan is very crucial.

The US has limited options and time, if it must force Pakistan’s hands. As winter commences, the Taliban hibernates, regrouping and reorganising, while preparing for its summer offensive. The Taliban and Haqqani network leadership should not be permitted to enter Pakistan in the winters, but remain in the mountains of the Pak-Afghan border, open to US drone strikes.

Blocking flow of funds to Pakistan is one option, but with China backing Pakistan, this may not succeed. It needs to threaten Pakistan of being projected as a sponsor of terror groups, while seeking to remove it from the list of non-NATO allies. This would be a diplomatic blow for a nation, which has prided itself as being a victim of terror. Simultaneously, it should commence enhancing drone strikes across the border, unmindful of collateral damage. Such an action would lower the prestige and standing of the Pakistan army, as it would be questioned for being unable to protect its own population.

Internally, the US could request Afghanistan to quit using Karachi as its export base and shift its exports through Chabahar, with Indian support. This would impact Pak’s supposed control over Afghan trade, which it implements by blocking the international border.

However, the biggest carrot in US hands is the Indian factor in Afghanistan. The very suggestion of enhancing Indian role in Afghanistan is anathema in Pakistan’s eyes. It may be willing to act, if assured that Indian role would not imply an increase in influence and deployment in the country. Since Pakistan views the world through an Indian prism, such a move may be enough for it to change its perceptions. Another minor carrot could be a promise to target the anti-Pak Taliban in equal measure.

The US needs Pakistan to act, but has not been able to compel it to do. It needs to apply pressure on the deep state, including threatening to increase drone strikes across the border, enhance Indian presence and influence as also embarrass Pakistan in international forums to force it to act. If it does not do so, it may well continue in Afghanistan for another few decades, or withdraw in failure akin to the Soviets.

Given the challenges that China-Pakistan Economic Corridor is facing, India will need to do much more to provide an effective counter-narrative.

By Harsh V. Pant

The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) has been attracting a lot of attention lately and for all the wrong reasons. Pakistan has reportedly rejected China’s offer of assistance for the $14 billion Diamer-Bhasha Dam, asking Beijing to take the project out of the $60 billion CPEC so that Pakistan can build the dam on its own. Because the project was in a disputed territory, the Asian Development Bank had refused to finance it. So China was keen to step in but Pakistan realized that the tough conditions being imposed by Beijing pertaining to the ownership of the project, operation and maintenance costs, and security of the dam would make the project politically and economically untenable. It gravitated, therefore, towards self-financing.

This was followed by differences on the use of the Chinese yuan in Pakistan along the lines of the US dollar. Pakistan had to reject this demand as well, arguing that common use of the yuan in any part of Pakistan, exchangeable like the dollar, has to be on a reciprocal basis.

As the initial euphoria surrounding CPEC gives way to a more realistic appraisal of the costs of the project, both Beijing and Islamabad seem to be reassessing the terms of their engagement. While China is demanding greater autonomy and security in operationalizing the project, Pakistan is finding it difficult to accede to most of these demands. There are growing voices in Pakistan that China seems to be a bigger beneficiary from CPEC than Pakistan, with its modus operandi of importing goods and labour for the projects at the expense of the local market and Islamabad carrying the burden of paying interest on loans to Chinese banks way into the future.

Chinese ambassador to Pakistan Sun Weidong made it clear recently that Pakistan is not producing the goods that are needed in China. Only when Chinese companies start producing such products in Pakistan would the trade balance be rectified, according to him. This has reinforced the perception that all China wants is to use the infrastructural advancement of CPEC for the benefit of Chinese companies.

Meanwhile, China’s overtures to India on joining One Belt, One Road (Obor) have continued. The Chinese ambassador to India, Luo Zhaohui, said during a recent speech that China “can change the name of CPEC” and “create an alternative corridor through Jammu and Kashmir, Nathu La pass or Nepal to deal with India’s concerns”. It is getting clearer by the day that the viability of CPEC requires India’s participation.

India so far has steadfastly refused to participate in the Belt and Road Initiative, maintaining opposition to China’s investment in CPEC, which passes through Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. India, boycotting the Belt and Road Forum in May, announced: “No country can accept a project that ignores its core concerns on sovereignty and territorial integrity.” Indian foreign secretary S. Jaishankar articulated this position at the 2017 Raisina Dialogue: “China is very sensitive about its sovereignty. The economic corridor passes through an illegal territory, an area that we call Pak-occupied Kashmir. You can imagine India’s reaction at the fact that such a project has been initiated without consulting us.” Prime Minister Narendra Modi too asserted that “connectivity in itself cannot override or undermine the sovereignty of other nations”.

The long-term strategic consequences of Obor for India could also allow China to consolidate its presence in the Indian Ocean at India’s expense. China may use its economic power to increase its geopolitical leverage and, in doing so, intensify security concerns for India. CPEC gives China a foothold in the western Indian Ocean with the Gwadar port, located near the strategic Strait of Hormuz, where Chinese warships and a submarine have surfaced. Access here allows China greater potential to control maritime trade in that part of the world—a vulnerable point for India, which sources more than 60% of its oil supplies from the Middle East. What’s more, if CPEC does resolve China’s “Malacca dilemma”—its over-reliance on the Malacca Straits for the transport of its energy resources—this would give Asia’s largest economy greater operational space to pursue unilateral interests in maritime matters to the detriment of freedom of navigation and the trade-energy security of several states in the Indian Ocean region, including India.

Indian opposition has now galvanized those who remain suspicious of Chinese motives behind Obor in Pakistan as well as in the rest of the world. The West is now more vocal in its concerns and voices in Pakistan are demanding a reappraisal of the project. But India needs to do more than just articulate its opposition. It needs to provide a new template for the world on global connectivity projects. New Delhi has moved in that direction recently with an articulation of the Asia Africa Growth Corridor (AAGC). The AAGC, structured to connect East Asia, South-East Asia and South Asia with Africa and Oceania, provides a normative alternative to Obor with its promise of being more consultative and inclusive. With the AAGC, India and Japan have underscored the “importance of all countries ensuring the development and use of connectivity infrastructure in an open, transparent and non-exclusive manner based on international standards and responsible debt financing practices, while ensuring respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, the rule of law, and the environment.”

This is a welcome first step but given the challenges that CPEC is facing, India will need to do much more to provide an effective counter-narrative

commentary originally appeared in Live Mint.

By Garima Maheshwari*

What was expected and proclaimed to be a rather technical working conference to hash out the rules for 2018 is turning out to be a political minefield with the potential to undermine the very basis of ‘climate justice’ that has formed the core of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) since 1992. On the very first day of COP-23, at the plenary session itself, the presidency held by Fiji has backtracked on the pre-2020 promises to the majority of developing countries, grouped under coalitions like ‘like minded developing countries’, ‘BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India and China)’ and G-77+China. Fiji twisted the hard-fought inclusion of ‘pre-2020 commitments’ on the COP-23 agenda and declared that they would not be discussed in the main negotiations.

Under the Kyoto Protocol’s second commitment period, the pre-2020 commitments obligate the developed countries to meet their mitigation targets and also provide ‘mean of implementation’ – like finance, technology and capacity-building – to developing countries. Post-2020, as envisioned in Paris, even developing countries would be nearly equal partners in mitigation. The understanding that the pre-2020 commitments would be fulfilled had allowed for consensus on discussing ambitious mitigation commitments by developing countries.

The commitments arising out of historical responsibility of the developed countries forms the core of climate justice, hard-won by developing countries since 1992 under UNFCCC. India, China and others have always been clear that the Paris Agreement falls within the UNFCCC, and yet the attempt now is to subvert the principles of UNFCCC itself. One wonders why Fiji is playing this politics. The island nation wants the temperature limit controlled up to 1.5oC above pre-industrial levels; and for that, ambitious mitigation action is necessary. Although this can be justified, would it not make more sense to compel the developed countries to stick to their mitigation targets and other commitments (since that would also incentivise developing countries to ramp up climate action)?

This would have been the most rational course to take for Fiji and it would have kept all parties on board, instead of alienating a whole section of developing countries and the African group of least developed countries that acutely needs the finance. It would have cohered with Fiji’s understandable ambitions to leave a mark or a legacy on the COP. The only explanation for Fiji’s hostile turnaround is that it has joined forces with the developed countries’ bargaining positions.

This politics renders the term climate justice vacuous and vulnerable to political appropriation. The term is often used loosely in the COPs, and the implications of each definition would be very different. It has become even more vacuous and narrowly quantified ever since the Paris Agreement provided breathing space to countries. While everyone was complacent at Paris (despite its weak climate pledges), now the whole thing seems to be backfiring and threatening the very nature of climate regime built over the last 25 years.

This space is being utilised by advanced historical emitters and developing countries alike. For the advanced historical emitters, attempting to avoid pre-2020 commitments and focusing mainly on mitigation actions after 2020, would solve the purpose of letting the advanced polluting economies go scot-free on their earlier commitments as well as avoid the tricky issues of finance and technology transfers by privileging mitigation over adaptation.

Developing countries appear cornered for now. From the way the current political positions are panning out, even speculations about China assuming leadership at Bonn seem exaggerated. Countries’ political positions are determined more by their alliances and less by sincere climate action back home. In fact, in the latter case, India is about to meet its 2030 commitments, but the vexatious politics at UNFCCC is far from being in India’s favour. China may have allied with the US at Paris, but right now the usual multilateral voice of G-77 and ‘like minded developing countries’ would likely predominate. Nevertheless, these countries will find themselves on the backfoot in the mitigation debate.

They may refuse to cooperate altogether on the post-2020 Paris agenda if the pre-2020 commitments and mobilisation of finance is not done. By also stressing that adaptation is a priority for developing countries, the adaptation versus mitigation debate threatens to lock down critical aspects of negotiations. This would be a loss for the island states. The G-77+China and the island states have a lot to share – including critical issues like mobilising finance for the Warsaw Mechanism on Loss and Damage (which has been perennially stuck because of developed countries’ resistance). Therefore, alienating the developing countries under the delusion that ambitious mitigation action is possible by allying with the developed countries will only obstruct climate action further. Disasters due to climate change are a reality and current pledges and measures can only be temporary palliatives, but even so, to bargain over the bare minimum of commitments shows that climate inaction is here to stay.

* Garima Maheshwari
Researcher, IReS, IPCS

The Russian Ministry of Justice has declared the Carriers Union of Russia a foreign agent because the group has received some 250,000 rubles (4,000 US dollars) from Germany. The action comes just two weeks before the union plans to restart its strike against the Plato payment system that drivers have staged labor actions before.

Andrey Bazhutin, the head of the union, said the action was not entirely unexpected given that justice ministry officers checked the union’s books the week of November 15-20 but that neither he nor his colleagues viewed the acceptance of such contributions as making them “a foreign agent” (novayagazeta.ru/news/2017/12/01/137526-vystupivshuyu-protiv-platona-organizatsiyu-dalnoboyschikov-priznali-inoagentom).

This designation will give Moscow yet another propaganda tool to be deployed against the strikers and may lead some who had planned to take part in the job action to stay on the job. It may also make it more difficult for Bazhutin to run for Russian president as he has said he hopes to do.

The parties had been groping (appropriate, given the daily revelations about harassment) for some common ground. There had been discussions about having further discussions, hedging, ducking and weaving. In a dysfunctional relationship, options tend to shrink rather than expand. And so it turned out in the latest round of Brexit negotiations between the May government and officials of the European Union.

As much in the manner of marriage revolves around cash and valuables, the issue of the divorce bill was never going to go away. If anything, it was marching towards British diplomats with promising menace.

The figure on the table induces dizzy wonder: somewhere up to 55 billion euros to be paid in staggered instalments over four decades. This was the British offer, and it seemed awfully resonant of surrender. As the foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, chirped, “Now’s the time to get the ship off the rocks.”

Truly, a different tune to the Johnson of July’s bullish colours, who proclaimed with avid enthusiasm in the Commons that the “sums I have seen that [the EU] propose to demand from this country seem to me to be extortionate and I think ‘to go whistle’ is an entirely appropriate expression.” The usual Mt. Olympus clap-trap, a sell for those far below, involved getting “a great deal”. Oh, and yes, “there was a time when Britain was not what we then called the common market.”

That similar tone was struck by Prime Minister Theresa May on invoking Article 50 in March, thereby triggering the Brexit process. In doing so, she claimed that it was time to “make our own decisions and our own laws… to take control of the things that matter most to us.”

Tides have changed, optimism soured and odds lengthened on Britain’s chances for a robust arrangement. The EU’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, after six rounds of uneasy talks with David Davis, the Brexit secretary, was firm with what he saw as mere chatter before serious negotiations: the UK had a fortnight to settle its debts or sabotage any prospect of working through a transitional deal that would ease the concerns of British business.

While Davis called for “creativity and flexibility on both sides,” Barnier was merely interested in the next stage. “We are not asking or concessions, nor are we planning to offer any ourselves, we are working on facts.”

A fait accompli had presented itself. A process “dressed up as a negotiation,” in the words of Charles Grant, director of the Centre for European Reform but really “a story of the British taking time to realise that they have got to accept what the EU demands of them.” This, in other words, is what leaving the EU looks like: total bureaucracy, implied threat, and stifling control.

Even now, the process, and amount, is problematic. The figure of 45-55 billion euros is a starting point, a grudging acceptance by the May government that the hawks in Brussels must be placated, their bowls filled. Amounts continue to swirl, but this is a starting point that will cause consternation.

“We’ve said,” claimed transport secretary Chris Grayling, “that we’ll meet our obligations, we’ve said that that needs to be part of a broader agreement – that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.”

Grayling, for all his circular reasoning, felt obliged to provide a few crumbs to press questions, though they supplied minimal nourishment. “Good progress” had been made, though on what he could not say, but, with typical Bull Dog obliviousness, he suggested that “we can move on to trade talks at the European Council.”

Some of the Tories are distinctly unhappy with these proposals, preferring to pitch the World Trade Organisation terms as a framework for negotiations. But rather than being in the cabinet, they remain, bullets at the ready, on the perimeter. Julian Smith, the new chief whip, may well find his in tray filled with requests from members of the pro-Brexit European Research Group to ease the means by which the payments are to be made.

The mess is also compounded by a range of other internal disagreements. No one can quite accept that Her Britannic Majesty’s government should be forking out quite that much; nor is there consensus about the nature of how favourable trade terms can be secured. Others want to get out yet somehow still be that lingering member at a dying cocktail party.

The selling point for irate Brexit-types is the sense that the divorce be genuine, firm, and final. But these types have gone somewhat quiet of late, even as the appropriate flag has been raised. “When the time came to hoist the white flag,” noted Dan Roberts, “the cabinet’s swashbuckling Brexiters were nowhere to be seen.”

The former UKIP leader, Nigel Farage, not being a negotiator or in the cabinet, continues to luxuriate at a splendid, polemical distance. No deal, he claims, need be reached at all, showing his usual firm grasp of the realities. “I have always argued that no deal is better than a bad deal. Make no mistake about it, 55bn euros to leave the EU is a very, very bad deal.”

With shades of a future stab-in-the-back claim, Farage insists that Britain get more. In a sense he is right – the terms seem bruising on the wallet, but they were essentially promised. What irks him more is that the very thing Brexiters thought would not happen – the prizing out of the common market – has real prospects of taking place. “For a sum of this magnitude to be agreed in return for nothing more than a promise of a decent settlement on trade represents a complete and total sell out.” Crestfallen and browbeaten, British negotiators await the next, even more bruising round.

By Jeoffrey Maitem

Islamic State recruiters in the southern Philippines are luring frustrated fighters from the country’s largest Muslim rebel force, despite the deaths of top IS-linked Filipino leaders and their defeat in Marawi, a senior MILF guerrilla warned Friday.

An undetermined number of Moro Islamic Liberation Front rebels have “defected” to at least one group that has pledged allegiance to Islamic State, Mohagher Iqbal, the chief peace negotiator for MILF, told BenarNews, citing intelligence information from field commanders.

“We created a task force to talk to our commanders. We are really engaging them. We mobilized our Islamic religious leaders to tell them teach real teaching[s] of Islam,” Iqbal said.

“People, like in Marawi, they have been swayed already. The radicals in Marawi have consistently cited frustration in the peace talks as one of the reason why they fought the government,” he added.

MILF field commanders have found it hard to rein in young MILF fighters from joining IS, Iqbal said.

New IS leader

The IS faction in the southern Mindanao region is now headed by an ex-MILF guerrilla commander named Abu Turaipe, who controls a massive marshland area in Maguindanao town, where his forces have been involved in low-intensity fighting since August.

Turaipe split from the Moro Islamic Liberation Front when it signed a peace deal with Manila three years ago. The MILF then dropped its separatist bid for an independent state in the south, an idea that did not sit well with Turaipe. He broke away from the rebel chain-of-command and led his followers, who numbered in the few dozens, to press on with the fight.

Since then, the Philippine congress has stalled on passing the Bangsamoro Basic Law, legislation needed to implement autonomy for MILF-controlled areas in the south, as outlined in the peace agreement. The region is endowed with rich mineral deposits but its population has remained poor because of decades of insurgency that have left tens of thousands dead.

At first, Turaipe’s band was dismissed as nothing more than a small group of bandits, until its members pledged allegiance to IS last year. They were, however, forced to engage in hit-and-run attacks largely confined in Maguindanao. His faction was not involved in the five-month battle of Marawi, led by Isnilon Hapilon, the overall IS leader in the region, who was subsequently killed.

Now that Hapilon is gone, the low-profile Turaipe has emerged as the next IS leader.

“We are not saying we will not go back to armed struggle if the passage of the BBL fails. [T]he option right now is to pass the BBL,” Iqbal said.

Last week, Wahid Tundok, a senior MILF leader who is its 118th Base commander, warned of violence larger than Marawi should Congress fail to enact the law.

President Rodrigo Duterte, meanwhile, has appeared to listen to MILF’s warnings. During a visit to an MILF camp several days ago, he pledged to shepherd the pending legislation through Congress in a special session to be called at a future date.

The Bangsamoro Basic Law was touted as the centerpiece legislation of then-President Benigno Aquino’s administration. But efforts to pass it have met with stiff resistance from several lawmakers, who are wary of giving too much power to MILF. The proposed law calls for giving the group its own power structure, police force and money.

Past failed efforts to bring about peace in Mindanao have spurred deadly violence. In 2008, the Supreme Court invalidated a deal brokered by the government that would have declared large swathes of Mindanao as the MILF’s “ancestral domain.” As a result of the court’s ruling, peace talks at the time collapsed and hundreds of people were killed in ensuing violence.

Recruitment drive

According to the military, the aide of Omarkhayam Maute, one of the leaders behind the Marawi attacks who were killed in the battle there, has reportedly been recruiting residents, especially young men, in surrounding Lanao del Sur province.

Col. Romeo Brawner Jr., deputy commander of the military’s Joint Task Force Ranao, said militants aligned with Maute had been going around Muslim communities and actively trying to regroup after their defeat in Marawi in late October.

Citing fresh information from local residents and officials, Brawner said that a man identified as Abu Dar, one of the Maute leaders who escaped from Marawi, was leading the recruitment drive.

“The recruitment efforts for training of new fighters of IS-Maute terrorist group were monitored in the towns of Piagapo, Lumbacaunayan and Sultan Domalondong,” Brawner said.

At least 40 men were working along with Abu Dar in their recruitment drive, said Haroun Al-Rashid Lucman, vice governor of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. He appealed to the military not to allow the “terrorists to regroup.”

Felipe Villamor in Manila contributed to this report.

Rock art just discovered shows hunting dogs bringing down prey and others standing by the sides of men, ready to be loosed from leads. The carvings are believed to be from the Holocene period, which came just after the end of the Paleolithic ice age, says Dr Michael Petraglia, an archaeologist from the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, in Germany. He is a co-author of a study, which appeared in the ‘Journal of Anthropological Archaeology’ and was first reported by ‘Science’.

Working through EU support to the PALEODESERTS project, Dr Petraglia found the images carved under those of cattle, indicating that the depictions of dogs predated those of the cattle. The researchers acknowledge that they are unable to date the images directly because of the nature of the etchings. Instead the team correlated the rock art with nearby archaeological sites that they had dated.

They maintain earlier evidence had suggested these particular ancient humans had domesticated dogs before they began keeping cattle and explain that the transition from being hunter-gatherers to herding probably happened between 6 800 and 6 200 B.C.E. They hypothesise that the rock art featuring dogs appeared before humans began herding.

Silent testimony of the role of dogs in prehistoric hunting

The dogs, people and prey are clearly defined once the carvings are highlighted in the photos. Some stand next to men, leads running from their necks to the hunter at their sides: in one scene two lines connect the necks of two dogs to the hips of the humans. Others are frozen in the act of bringing larger prey down, working together as a pack: three at a time, hanging on the lips and pulling at the necks of the antelope, much like African wild dogs today. The dogs have pricked ears, angled chests, curly tails and resemble modern-day Canaan canines. The men stand by, many with bows and arrows, to kill the prey, which seem to be ibex and gazelles.

Speaking to the New York Times, Dr Melinda Zeder, a curator of Old World archaeology at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History, who was not involved in the study says, ‘You can almost hear the dogs barking and the humans yelling.’

Although Dr Zeder believes there is room for argument on the dating of the scenes, and that more research is needed to establish the period in which the art was created, she acknowledges the importance of the find, ‘This is giving us an actual window into the visceral thrill of the hunt,’ she said. ‘With the rock art you’re putting flesh on the bones.’

A rich find in the heart of the Saudi Arabian desert

Dr. Guagnin, an archaeologist from the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History and lead author, analysed more than 1 400 panels of rock art containing more than 6 600 animals across two sites. The images showed dogs helping humans hunt equids, or African asses, as well as lions and leopards. Some artwork depicted the dogs taking down medium-size prey, and in others they were used to corner larger prey. The team found it impossible not to be moved: the prey animals were frequently accompanied by their young, ‘It’s a little bit heart wrenching (…) It’s quite interesting to see these scenes with the dying animals and there are dogs hanging off them.’

She adds that it is now possible to say that around 9 000 years ago people controlled their dogs with leads and used them in complex hunting strategies.

The PALAEODESERTS (Climate Change and Hominin Evolution in the Arabian Desert: Life and Death at the Cross-roads of the Old World) is aiming to set out a series of testable hypotheses to address the relations between humid and arid climatic periods and population expansions, contractions and extinctions. They are taking an interdisciplinary approach using information from palaeoenvironmental studies, palaeontology, geography, geochronology, animal and human genetics, archaeology, rock art studies and linguistics.

The Saudi Commission for Tourism and National Heritage worked in partnership on this element of their research.

Cordis source: Based on project information and media reports

In 2016 a team of international scientists made the headlines as they set out to solve the Himalayan yeti mystery, using DNA samples collected by local observers over the years. Their conclusions have just come out, and they’re a cold, hard truth for Yeti believers: the samples actually belonged to different sorts of bears and… a dog.

The study, led by University at Buffalo College biologist Charlotte Lindqvist, consisted in sequencing DNA from potential Yeti samples stored in museums and private collections before comparing them with the genomes of known species. A total of 24 samples were analysed, including nine still purported to be from Yeti. Eight of them turned out to be from Asian black bears, Himalayan brown bears or Tibetan brown bears. The ninth belonged to a dog.

Prof. Lindqvist’s effort isn’t the first one discrediting the Yeti theory. Previous attempts had already suggested that hair samples thought to belong to the Yeti resembled that of polar bears, and that the explanation to what the photographer N.A. Tombazi had first seen in 1925 would most likely be found in an unknown hybrid species between polar and brown bears.

To be sure, Prof. Lindqvist tried to get her hands on as many samples as she could, collected from the Himalayas and Tibetan Plateau, with help from the UK film production crew behind the 2016 documentary ‘Yeti or not’. Then, she took a closer look at the samples’ mitochondrial DNA – the cell’s genetic material passed down only by females – and compared it with an international database of common bear genomes.

‘This study represents the most rigorous analysis to date of samples suspected to derive from anomalous or mythical ‘hominid’-like creatures,’ Prof. Lindqvist claims. It also marks the first-ever generation of a full mitochondrial genome from the likes of Himalayan brown bear and Asian black bear, which are both on the list of endangered species. In total, the team sequenced the mitochondrial DNA of 23 Asian bears.

Scientists hope this information will help them to figure out how genetically different these rare subspecies are from more common species, as well as the last time these groups shared maternal ancestors. For example, the study showed that while Tibetan brown bears share a close common ancestry with their North American and Eurasian kin, Himalayan brown bears belong to a distinct evolutionary lineage that diverged early on from all other brown bears.

Besides the value of solving the Yeti mystery, Prof. Lindqvist points out that clarifying population structure and genetic diversity among bears can help in estimating population sizes and crafting management strategies. Besides, the study could lead the path to similar research efforts, this time to unveil the truth behind stories of other mythical creatures. ‘Our study demonstrates that genetics should be able to unravel other, similar mysteries,’ says Prof. Lindqvist.

Beware, Sasquatch.

Cordis source: Based on media reports

Uranium can perform reactions that previously no one thought possible, which could transform the way industry makes bulk chemicals, polymers, and the precursors to new drugs and plastics, according to new findings from The University of Manchester.

Writing in the journal Nature Communications, the chemists have discovered that uranium can perform reactions that used to be the preserve of transition metals such as rhodium and palladium. And because uranium sits between different types of reactivity of lanthanides and transition metals it might be able to combine the best of both to give new ways of producing materials and chemicals.

This discovery is also profiled in a new video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m3CbQct0pM) which is part of a series produced by the School of Chemistry. Other videos show how chemists at Manchester have developed the world’s smallest fuel powered motor and identified that Parkinson’s sufferers can have a unique smell identifying the disease – before any medical professional can see symptoms.

The YouTube series attempts to put world class scientific papers into words that anyone can understand.

The latest discovery means that industry might now be in a position to develop new compounds that can’t be made in any other way.

What’s more, uranium is one of the elements we know the least about and while it is associated with nuclear weapons and nuclear power, the new discovery suggests other uses may be on the horizon.

Steve Liddle, Professor and Head of Inorganic Chemistry, and author of the paper, said: “This discovery will lead to some monumental developments that could change the way we live. Development work like this really could pave the way for new medicines and also the creation of truly biodegradable hard plastic.

“It is comparable to the discovery of liquid crystal displays, which happened 20 years before everyone sat up and realised that they could be used in modern computer displays and TVs.”

By Seth Cropsey*

I. Strategy, Geopolitics, and Ideology – Israel and Hezbollah

Early in November, Lebanon’s Sunni prime minister Saad Hariri, while on a visit to Saudi Arabia, resigned. He said that his life was in danger from the terrorist group, Hezbollah, to which the people and government of Lebanon are enthralled. Since then, the picture has only become murkier. However, what’s clear remains what’s been clear for years: in the fractured state of Lebanon, Hezbollah wields the largest club. The crisis that Hariri’s resignation precipitated is another step toward war.

Since this past March, reports have emerged that Iran is constructing advanced missile factories in Lebanon to supply Hezbollah, its proxy terrorist organization. Israel, Hezbollah’s primary adversary, last struck the organization in force during the 2006 Lebanon War, in an unsuccessful attempt to erode the Lebanese government’s support for Hezbollah and neutralize the terrorist group as a military threat.

Since then, Israel and Hezbollah have abided by a tense, semi-formal truce. The IDF refrains from directly striking Hezbollah in Lebanon as long as Hezbollah does not bombard Israel with its rocket arsenal, or kidnap IDF soldiers. Hezbollah has turned eastward since 2011, deploying its military forces in support of the Assad regime in Syria. As such, its attention, and the attention of its Iranian benefactor, has been directed away from Israel. Nevertheless, Iran has continued to attempt to build up Hezbollah’s missile stockpile, utilizing new routes through Iraq and Syria enabled by its growing ability to project power and Middle Eastern instability. In response, Israel has engaged in a sustained interdiction campaign, attacking Iranian-Hezbollah arms convoys in Syria.

A new war with Hezbollah is likely. ISIS as a ground force will be eliminated by the end of 2017, while the rest of the non-Kurdish Syrian opposition will be nullified as a threat to the Assad regime not long afterwards. As for the Kurds, Assad lacks the manpower to bring them to heel. Moreover, an attempt to regain control over Syrian Kurds would necessitate a similar campaign against their brethren in Iraq – an effort Iran and Russia are unlikely to undertake, given the potential for direct conflict with the United States.

But the Syrian civil war’s conclusion does not end Iran’s geopolitical offensive. Just as before 2011, Israel remains Iran’s primary target. Some, such as British journalist John Bradley, have argued that Iran’s international actions have been purely reactive and defensive. They argue that facing the militarily powerful Israel, wealthy Sunni Arab states with large populations, and the United States, Iran has merely searched for ways to ensure its own security. Its nuclear and ballistic missile programs, along with its support for terror in and beyond the Middle East, are simply defensive. If Iran restricted its action to the Persian Gulf, such a view might be warranted. However, Iran’s attempt to exercise direct and indirect control over the Eastern Mediterranean – through its partnership with Russia – and the Gulf of Aden – through its partnership with and support of Yemeni militant groups – indicate different intentions.

Tehran has established a “Shia crescent” running from its borders through Iraq and Syria to Lebanon’s Mediterranean coastline. Iran seeks to remake the Middle East by ejecting America from the region, and replace American and NATO in the Eastern Mediterranean with Russian control of the maritime space. Thus would the “Shia crescent” reach beyond Lebanon’s coast into the Mediterranean itself. By such means Iran’s leaders can hope to export Shia ideology at the same time that they re-assert ancient Persian imperial ambition.

The US is an obstacle to this goal. Its naval deployments, particularly in the Persian Gulf, threaten Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz’s oil flows, while its ground and air forces scattered throughout the region can counter Iran’s conventional and proxy forces. However, Iran’s regional rivals, Saudi Arabia and Israel, are of significant consequence in Iran’s strategic calculus, and likely demand more immediate action. America has been increasingly ambivalent, and recently incoherent, regarding Middle Eastern force commitments. Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies have had no such qualms – Gulf Cooperation Council countries fund anti-Assad militant groups in Syria, while deploying conventional military forces in Yemen against Iranian-backed Houthi tribesmen. Saudi Arabia and Iran pose mutual ideological threats to one another. Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabism sets it on a collision course with Iran’s Shia theocrats, much as the Safavids and Ottomans, and before them the Abbasids and Fatimids, were likely to collide.

Despite the military threat that the Saudi-led coalition poses to Iranian power, Israel represents a broader challenge, as has been proved repeatedly in wars its Arab neighbors initiated. Its intelligence services have taken on almost-mythical status, and for good reason – Iran’s difficulties in obtaining a nuclear weapon are in no small part due to Mossad’s sabotage efforts. Israel’s economy is the Middle East’s best. Although it does not have region’s largest economy, or its highest GDP per capita, Israel achieves a $300 billion GDP and a $34,000 GDP per capita without oil wealth. Israel possesses a regionally unrivalled human capital, which has translated into a world-class technological sector. Israel’s external links with the United States help ensure its qualitative military superiority. Finally, Israel has nuclear weapons, and an effective second-strike capability. Compared to the economically unstable, militarily ineffective Gulf Arabs, Israel is clearly the greater threat. In order to achieve regional domination, Iran must confront, and defeat, the Jewish State.

Hezbollah figures prominently into this strategy. Positioned on Israel’s northern border with Lebanon, Hezbollah is the only force that Israel has faced that has extracted an operational and strategic stalemate from the IDF. The “Party of God” has been a major military and political force in Lebanon since its founding in the early 1980s. Since the Lebanese Civil War, it has replaced the PLO as the primary anti-Israel militant group in Lebanon, and has used its political wing to work its way into the Lebanese state.

Iran’s proxy cannot hope to invade Israel. Nor can it hope to challenge the IDF conventionally, as the PLO attempted to in 1982 to disastrous effect. Instead, it uses irregular light infantry to pin down the technologically sophisticated IDF in drawn-out urban battles, nullifying Israel’s advantages in artillery, armor, and airpower. Not only do these urban operations blunt Israel’s otherwise overwhelming offensive power, they also give Hezbollah the time to launch rocket salvos against civilian targets throughout Israel.

IDF intelligence estimates Hezbollah has an arsenal of over 150,000 rockets and missiles varying in range – in a future conflict, Hezbollah can be expected to fire an average of 1,000 rockets per day. Moreover, Hezbollah has been expanding its maritime capabilities, as demonstrated by the INS Hanit attack in 2006. Today, not only are Israeli warships threatened – Hezbollah can also threaten any Israeli offshore developments in the Leviathan Gas Fields, while harassing the 99% of Israel’s economic exports that are carried by sea.

Countering Hezbollah is clearly a top Israeli priority. Neutralizing the group would relieve pressure on Israel’s northern border, prevent further economically and psychologically damaging rocket attacks, and frustrate Iran’s designed for regional hegemony.

Hezbollah is also a threat to the United States. Iran views Israel and America as inseparably intertwined. Iran’s rulers frequently describe America as the “Great Satan,” terming Israel as its “Little Satan” counterpart. Iran’s regime is defined in opposition to Zionism and Western liberalism, a fact readily apparent in Ayatollah Khomeini’s book Islamic Government, the foundational text of Iran’s political system.

From its establishment onwards, the “Islamic Republic” has been in conflict with the United States. The 1979 hostage crisis may not have been instigated by the Islamic regime, but certainly received its support. Iran was behind the murder of 17 American diplomatic officials in the 1983 Embassy bombings, and 241 American peacekeepers in Lebanon in the Beirut barracks bombings that same year—a slaughter of U.S. Marines that remains unanswered one-third of a century later.

Iranian mines in the Persian Gulf during the Iran-Iraq War threatened American and allied freedom of navigation and damaged an American warship. Iran killed 19 more US servicemen in the 1996 Khobar Towers bombings, an operation potentially authorized by Ayatollah Khameini. More recently, Iran provided direct support and training to Shia militant groups in Iraq from the US invasion onwards. Using the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), specifically its Quds Force special operation division, Iran transferred advanced IED production techniques to groups like the Mahdi Army, while also providing training and financial assistance to these organizations. Iranian-supported militias killed nearly 1,000 American servicemen in Iraq.

This death toll is the result of the geopolitical and ideological conflict between Iran and the United States. Iranian hegemonic aspirations challenge American power – the US’ carrier groups in the Persian Gulf along with troop commitments in the Middle East, financial and economic power, and links with Israel: all these stand in the way of Iran’s ambitions . So do U.S. relations with the Gulf’s Arab states. Iran’s mixture of regional ambition and radical fundamentalism, to say nothing of nuclear weapons and long-range ballistic missiles, spells trouble in the Middle East and beyond for at least the foreseeable future.

Iran is an aggressive and active power; it does not sit on its hands waiting to respond to events that others initiate. It has used its proxies to foster and capitalize on instability in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, thus expanding its influence. Its nuclear program, if successful, will give it an umbrella under which to tighten its control over the Middle East. Iran is an ideological actor, but that has not precluded pragmatism in pursuing its broader goals. It bankrolls Hamas, the Sunni terror organization that rules the Gaza Strip, while it likely has links with the Taliban, an explicitly Sunni insurgent group. Iran has an ambiguous relationship with al-Qaeda, but one cannot describe the two parties as fully hostile, despite the clear ideological difference between the Shia regime and the Sunni Wahhabi terrorist organization.

Eliminating Hezbollah as a threat therefore is clearly within US interest. Iran would lose the ability to exert pressure on the Eastern Mediterranean, where Russian naval influence is growing, the air campaign against ISIS and the Syrian civil war continue, and increasing natural gas finds demand stability and peace if they are to be extracted. Destroying Hezbollah would shatter Iran’s most effective irregular tool.

Why, then, has Israel, or the United States, not destroyed the terrorist group? America’s decision can be explained by a lack of resources for direct action, along with the political backlash that would follow an American intervention in Lebanon, particularly after the Afghan and Iraq Wars. Moreover, the Obama Administration’s Middle Eastern policy rested upon accommodating Iran and pressuring Israel to conclude a peace agreement with the Palestinians. Pressuring Hezbollah was antithetical to Obama’s views and objectives.

Israel’s inaction, alternatively, can be attributed to political pressure. In previous confrontations, particularly in 2006, large-scale rocket fire was a decisive factor in ensuring Hezbollah’s success. Its salvos crippled the Israeli economy and undermined civilian morale. Moreover, the terror group’s urban warfare techniques and rudimentary launch techniques made the IDF powerless to stop rocket attacks, further increasing pressure on the Israeli government to conclude a ceasefire. Hezbollah’s strategy seeks rather to punish than to triumph. By bombarding Israel with rocket fire, terrorizing the civilian population, and forcing the IDF to engage in high-cost urban operations, it seeks to wear down Israel’s will to fight.

Israel’s conscript military is remarkable in its efficacy, leveraging the majority of Israeli society into a modern fighting force. However, conscription comes at a cost – casualties are apparent and resonant in Israeli society. By contrast, it is the exception for an American to have a close family member or friend in the military, and highly uncommon, even in this group, to have a direct connection to an individual killed in combat. Americans speak about sending their “sons and daughters” to war. But fewer than half a percent serve active duty, a proportion that tops out under 0.7% when reservists are included. Israelis actually send their sons and daughters into harm’s way, while Israeli men are eligible for reserve duty until their mid-40s (Israeli women in non-combat roles are exempt after having a child).

Because of universal service, Israeli society has been deeply affected by operating in Lebanon. The First Lebanon War was notorious for massacres. Israel was culpable in the 1982 Sabra and Shatila Massacre – the subsequent investigation and public backlash forced then-Defense Minister Ariel Sharon to resign. Any protracted involvement in Lebanon, with its complicated nest of ethnic militias and proxy groups, risks a similar political reaction.

Combine this with the predictable international hostility toward Israel that rises up in times of conflict, and Israel’s aversion to using force is easier to understand. Even the often hawkish-sounding Netanyahu government has been extremely cautious in its use of force, relying on airstrikes and artillery fire (Pillar of Defense) and committing ground forces for only a short time (Protective Edge). This also includes the Netanyahu government’s noncommittal comments on Hezbollah’s missile advances, despite previous indications that advanced missile capabilities would be a red line for the Israelis.

II.Unmanned Systems and a new Theory of Victory

Israel’s theory of how best to gain victory over Hezbollah is questionable. The IDF’s overwhelming conventional superiority cannot ensure its victory in a contest with the terrorist group. Dahiya Doctrine, developed by current IDF Chief of General Staff Gadi Eisenkot, attempts to leverage this conventional supremacy in an asymmetric setting by attacking public infrastructure, rather than solely targeting insurgents. By inflicting punishment upon the host state and the terrorist organization, Israel—it is hoped—can force Lebanon to reject and isolate Hezbollah. This strategy has yet to prove successful. Rather than rejecting Hezbollah, the Lebanese government has grown even closer to the organization. Hezbollah’s cabinet ministers in the Lebanese government remain in their posts, and the Lebanese Armed Forces have threatened to fight alongside Hezbollah in another war with Israel. Additionally, destroying civilian infrastructure gives Hezbollah the opportunity to replace it after the conflict, enabling the organization to portray itself as a political movement, rather than an armed group.

American military planners failed to articulate a “theory of victory” in Vietnam that matched the facts on the ground, resulting in an ineffective, costly campaign that pitted an overwhelming conventional military against guerillas who slipped away when confronted by superior forces. The Viet Cong’s resilience damaged the US’ international position and spurred opposition to the war in the U.S.

Similarly, Israeli strategists and military leaders have yet to articulate a plausible theory of victory against Hezbollah. Israel’s objective in the next war should be to destroy Hezbollah as a military threat. However, it is clear that an overwhelming air and artillery offensive, followed by an armored thrust into Lebanon, will meet the same difficulties as other Israeli campaigns against Hezbollah have in the past. The Lebanese Armed Forces may challenge Israel conventionally, but IAF strike aircraft will quickly destroy Lebanese air defenses, while Israeli tanks will easily overpower their Lebanese armored counterparts. But Hezbollah, potentially with additional Lebanese ground forces, will engage in the same urban attrition campaign as it has in the past, while launching rocket salvos against northern Israel and beyond. Overwhelming force is not the path to Israeli victory.

In order to crush Hezbollah, Israel must be prepared to engage in a protracted ground campaign. As noted, political considerations have precluded this sort of operation. But unmanned systems can help enable the longer Israeli ground campaign required for a decisive victory over Hezbollah. In light of their shared strategic objectives, a US-Israeli partnership on unmanned doctrinal development would prove effective.

Global militaries have already begun to integrate unmanned systems into their operational doctrines beyond the low-intensity intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) roles that American and allied UAVs have conducted throughout the Global War on Terror. In Israel today, unmanned systems serve two broad purposes. First, they protect the individual soldier by providing ground units with enhanced tactical intelligence and awareness, delivering precision fire support, and entering situations extremely dangerous for a human. Second, they give Israeli commanders better location and response options against Hezbollah’s rocket attacks and hit-and-run operations.

Most important, integrating unmanned systems with Israeli ground units would protect the individual soldier. This would allow the long-term urban engagements that Israel must fight to defeat Hezbollah. Urban environments provide Hezbollah with many advantages. For example, by nullifying IDF maneuver forces and limiting the role of airstrikes, it can force Israeli infantry into close-range combat on nearly even terms. The value of Hezbollah’s approach has showed in every IDF urban engagement, particularly in Lebanon. In 2006, even elite units like the Paratroopers’ Brigade 101st Battalion and the Golani Brigade’s Egoz Battalion made little headway against Hezbollah fighters in urban areas. Unmanned systems can tip this balance.

Beginning at the fireteam level, small handheld drones can allow IDF soldiers to look around corners, through narrow streets, and in windows to identify enemy dispositions. The Black Hornet Nano, a half-ounce UAV employed by American, British, and Norwegian SOF in Afghanistan, exemplifies the UAV that could fill this role. Small enough to maneuver in hallways and through windows, and with a 20 minute flight time, a tool like the Black Hornet would give IDF units greatly increased battlefield situational awareness. British reconnaissance forces used the Black Hornet in Afghanistan to gather intelligence before combat operations, while the Black Hornet has also deployed with USMC special operations teams. The same logic applies to larger handheld drones, like the American RQ-11 Raven, which could be integrated at the squad level alongside miniature systems. Due to its cost, a super-miniature system like the Black Hornet would likely be restricted to Special Forces units, but Israel could use the already-produced, rotary-wing IAI Ghost in a similar role.

Unmanned systems would also widen Israeli ground forces offensive tactical options. Israeli soldiers could attach grenades or plastic explosives to a handheld, quad-copter UAV, fly it around an enemy position, and attack Hezbollah defenders from an unexpected angle prior to a conventional assault. Additionally, the IDF could use an Unmanned Ground Vehicle (UGV) like the Russian Uran 9, to attack fortified urban positions without exposing IDF soldiers to enemy fire. Larger traditional UAVs also play a clear offensive role – the Predator and Reaper drones are the clearest examples of this. Teaming a Reaper-style UAV with each infantry company or platoon would enable ground units to direct their own fire support – an idea that is gaining traction in the US military. Not only can UAVs remain on station for longer than manned aircraft, they are also better suited for the exacting and precise demands of urban operations. Rather than calling in an IAF F-15, a fireteam could rely on an IAI Heron or other MALE, or tactical, UAV to deliver converted mortar rounds on enemy positions.

Second, UAVs would give Israel a more effective response mechanism to rocket attacks and Hezbollah’s hit-and-run tactics. Hezbollah is rumored to have acquired an SA-17 missile system from Assad’s arsenal. Nevertheless, the terrorist group would need a much larger-scale anti-air network to counter Israel’s air superiority – capabilities significantly beyond what the Lebanese Armed Forces can provide, and what Iran is willing and able to transfer to its proxy. Instead, Hezbollah relies on tactical maneuver and relocation. Hezbollah’s rockets are generally deployable in improvised positions, enabling its operatives to fire off a salvo and escape before an IDF response. Hezbollah has also used light ground vehicles and its light infantry to attack Israeli infantry and armor on Lebanon’s hilly southern border.

Although many of these attacks are repulsed without significant damage to the IDF, Israel has been unable to eliminate the perpetrators, who melt away into the countryside. UAVs offer operational benefits to the IDF in answering both threats. If Israel can blanket relevant operational areas with on-station UAVs, armed with light ordinance, it can provide a swifter and more deadly answer to Hezbollah’s attacks against Israeli targets. The IDF’s ability to minimize rocket attacks would address the Israeli public’s legitimate concerns and thus facilitate Israel’s long-term strategic objectives in Lebanon. In addition, constant UAV presence can help the IDF respond to escaping Hezbollah fighters who retreat north following their attacks. This would also help Israel demolish Hezbollah more quickly.

The operational and tactical benefits of unmanned systems for the IDF are palpable. Two additional points bear mention. First, Israel is uniquely suited to augmenting its armed forces by producing and integrating drones, particularly UAVs. IAI is at the forefront of military drone production today, ranging from the MALE Heron family of UAVs to IAI Harpy (optimized for SEAD missions) and the Bird-Eye and Ghost mini-UAVs. Israel already has the industrial base for large-scale UAV production. Thus force integration, not research nor manufacturing, is the main obstacle to a substantially increased operational employment of drones. Second, Hezbollah has used drones in the past, and considering the experience of irregular groups in Iraq and Syria, has likely increased drone use since 2006. Israel is not only able to harness unmanned technologies, but will be confronted with them regardless of its ability to integrate them.

There is little reason to expect that significant American military forces would participate in a campaign against Hezbollah. The current U.S. political environment makes military operations in the Middle East less likely, while the the ongoing North Korean crisis could prompt a large-scale resource shift to Asia, ironically fulfilling President Obama’s “pivot.” At most, US Special Forces already operating in Syria could be used to help Israel interdict Hezbollah convoys passing into and out of Lebanon.

This does not mean the United States should be passive in such a conflict. From a military perspective, the US’ presence in the Eastern Mediterranean is invaluable to ensuring Israel’s freedom of maneuver. A successful Israeli offensive will be more difficult if Russia exerts maritime pressure in response to Israel’s attack on Iran’s proxy. Deterrence, rather than direct confrontation, is the wisest course.

America has lacked a Mediterranean presence commensurate with our interests since the 1980s. Israel’s future confrontation with Hezbollah, and proxy war with Iran more broadly, is but another reason for the US to reestablish its ability to shape events in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Technological and doctrinal coordination between IDF and US ground forces would also be beneficial. American special operations forces have pioneered the use of drones in small-unit operations. By working with Israel directly to integrate unmanned systems into its ground forces, the US would not only multiply Israeli combat power, but also gain valuable lessons for its own integration of unmanned platforms. The US can also use its political capital to shield Israel from the predictable European government outcry that will follow an intervention in Lebanon, leveraging its veto on the UN Security Council to bar punitive measures against the Jewish State. By protecting Israel from external political pressure, the US can help ensure that Israel has the freedom of action to destroy Hezbollah.

III. Unmanned Systems, Political Will, and Future Conflicts

Israel and Hezbollah are headed for another confrontation, whether under Netanyahu’s leadership or afterwards. The Jewish State cannot ignore the threat of advanced missiles raining down upon its population centers, nor would it deny the strategic advantage such capabilities would provide Iran in its regional hegemonic ambitions. Moreover, Israel cannot settle for a small set of retaliatory strikes. In this war, victory for Israel will be defined as destroying Hezbollah. As Hezbollah’s victory condition is simply survival and operational efficacy, Israel must develop a strategy to eliminate, at least in the short-term, Hezbollah’s rocket and missile capabilities, rather than allow for a political solution to halt rocket-fire, as occurred in 2006.

Unmanned systems offer Israel a chance to conduct the necessary ground campaign to neutralize Hezbollah, and respond to its rocket attacks quickly enough to degrade its arsenal. Combined with American technological, developmental, and political support, Israel can finally conduct the campaign needed to eliminate Hezbollah as an immediate threat.

The conflict will have clear geopolitical implications. Removing Iran’s Mediterranean foothold would be a significant setback to its hegemonic strategy, despite Russia’s retention of its naval base in Syria. By eliminating its most formidable opponent, Israel can also reassert its position as the region’s strong horse, and deter potential enemies, while preserving its loose entente with the Gulf Arabs.

However, this conflict could also mark the beginning of a change in the relationship between warfare and politics in the modern era. If Israel can successfully defeat Hezbollah by using unmanned systems as operational and tactical multipliers, the conflict will point the way toward integrating unmanned platforms into all levels of warfare. This would be of immeasurably valuable to the U.S. whose progress toward integrating unmanned platforms into its battle force has been evolutionary where it ought to be revolutionary.

Moreover, the unmanned revolution could change the nature of political calculations. Understanding national power is a difficult task for policymakers and political academics. Miscalculation and mis-assessment are frequent. States underestimate new rivals, overestimate old threats, and are slow to change their perception of the international environment. Nevertheless, all reasonable constructions of national power involve an element of politics and perception. Without effective leadership and public resolve, a large military, robust defense-industrial base, and vibrant economy are merely ornaments.

Long wars with unclear, limited political objectives are difficult for governments to justify, particularly in democratic societies. Decreasing the body count has become a major consideration for political leaders. This is true in and outside of Israel. President George W. Bush’s counterinsurgency-based strategy to combat Islamism faced significant domestic opposition, not in the least because of the body count it generated. President Obama’s more limited counterterrorism approach, which relied upon special operations forces, airpower, and intelligence provoked significantly less visceral backlash – opposition to that element of his foreign policy was restricted to the antiwar left, libertarian movement, and paleoconservative right.

However, policymakers will continue to run up against the intractable realities of conflict. Airpower proponents promised to deliver grand political results without the cost that a ground force commitment would incur. Events have proved these predictions wrong in the high stakes Iraq, Afghan, and Libyan campaigns, and the decidedly more politically restrained intervention against ISIS. No substitutes exist for ground forces.

By reducing casualties, unmanned systems can enable larger-scale ground force commitments. As fully autonomous platforms become more prevalent on the battlefield, they will compound this phenomenon. Modernized societies in Europe, Asia, and North America have become increasingly divorced from the effects of conflict, despite the growth of terrorism in the past 15 years. Unmanned and autonomous systems will reinforce this trend, decreasing the casualties that modernized states experience in conflict, and changing the political calculations that leaders undertake by mitigating the most psychologically damaging effects of conflict, potentially making states less risk averse, and changing how leaders and observers can measure national power and the balance of forces.

Of course, the growing mechanization of warfare could enable the opposite trend. Increased interconnectivity through cloud computing will transform urban environments, but they also create vulnerabilities. Triggering blackouts and water shortages, disrupting domestic communications, and even shutting down traffic lights will become possible in future conflicts. Only time will yield the results of these consequences at the political, economic, and social levels.

Israel’s experience in the struggle against Hezbollah will be a litmus test for the effects such changes have on armed conflict. Its democratic political structure, conscript military, and host of immediate and long-term threats amplify its wartime experience. Its upcoming confrontations, particularly with Hezbollah, will offer clues about the future of warfare. Israel has been an innovator in agriculture, information technology, and medicine. It needs to call on the same advances in warfare to defend itself against an enemy dedicated to its destruction.

About the author:
* Seth Cropsey, Director, Center for American Seapower. Senior Fellow Seth Cropsey began his career in government at the Defense Department as Assistant to the Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger and subsequently served as Deputy Undersecretary of the Navy in the Reagan and Bush administrations, where he was responsible for the Navy’s position on efforts to reorganize DoD, development of the maritime strategy, the Navy’s academic institutions, naval special operations, and burden-sharing with NATO allies.

Source:
This article was published by the Hudson Institute

By Nelli Babayan*

(FPRI) — For decades, the United States has been at the forefront of international engagement. It has settled disputes and advanced democracy through supporting elections, civil society development, and often through educational exchanges. Yet, today, America’s disengagement is in the headlines. America’s partners and adversaries discuss contentious travel bans, shaky relations with allies, constant turnover of high-level officials, and presidential twitter feuds with members of Congress and private citizens. The message received by the outside world is of internal disarray and America’s external disinterest. In the countries of the South Caucasus, the message is twofold. First, the increasingly isolationist United States is unlikely to get involved in local disputes. And second, other leaders can point to Donald Trump’s attacks on the U.S. media to justify their own crackdowns.

These observations encourage the discussion of a significantly different policy of engagement: the promotion of democracy abroad. More specifically, we must consider U.S. policies that directly engage with the citizens of democratizing countries. Granted, democracy promotion has not been particularly successful in establishing and consolidating democracy in recipient countries. It has, however, produced many long-standing partnerships and reinforced positive perceptions of the United States. American-sponsored education programs have played a critical role in this achievement. While traditional elements of democracy promotion, such as support for elections, sometimes only create the illusion of democratization, educational exchanges help to socialize a new generation of political leaders to the ideals of democratic governance. Support for such programs is thus imperative not only for continued democratization, but also for America. This is particularly important for the South Caucasus, where significant obstacles to democratization remain. Yet, the success of educational exchanges has already been proven.

The State of Democracy in the South Caucasus

Democratic backsliding in the South Caucasus can dissuade even the most enthusiastic advocates of democracy promotion. While the policy’s success has been limited in the South Caucasus, research shows that the meaningful civic engagement that accompanies democracy promotion can successfully mold political culture, both through targeted civil society trainings and by the virtue of example.

Conventional wisdom argues that by capitalizing on the economic troubles of the West, illiberal democracy has gained the upper hand and rendered democracy promotion both ineffective and unnecessary. When evaluating support for democracy, policy makers and scholars often look for quick outcomes, overemphasize elections, and omit the role of non-systemic actors. Yet, as the experience of post-Soviet countries shows, democratization is not just about elections, and it is not an overnight project. Democratization is perhaps more about creating a democratic political culture than consistently holding farce elections, as is the case in Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Although the political elites of the South Caucasus profess their commitment to democracy, various political freedom indices show that democracy has been steadily retreating in Armenia and Azerbaijan. The overarching unwillingness of Armenian politicians to comply with democratic reforms means that even should new democratic policies be adopted, the prospects for democratization remain low. This bleak political situation has in turn led to a fragmented opposition and an apathetic populace. In Azerbaijan, President Ilham Aliyev cemented his authoritarian rule after the presidential elections of 2003. Azerbaijan’s authorities then harshly cracked down on human rights through new legislation that restricts civil society and deprives the media of its watchdog function. That First Lady Mehriban Aliyeva became the country’s vice president in a “House of Cards” move in 2017 demonstrates the dearth of democratic norms in Azerbaijan. Compared to its neighbors, Georgia is the region’s clear democratic frontrunner. The peaceful transfer of power after the 2012 parliamentary elections further presented a positive sign for continuing democratization in Georgia.

When the benefits of adopting democratic norms outweigh the costs, democracy promotion is more likely to be effective. The changing behaviors of civil society and pro-democracy opposition parties illustrate this point clearly. As civil society increasingly strives to hold governments accountable via online exposés, political parties become less inclined to engage in electoral fraud. These transformations are more likely to occur when involved stakeholders have been socialized to the norms of open and democratic governance. This is where American democracy promotion policies come into play.

Why U.S. Educational Programs Matter

The United States’ policy of democracy promotion has suffered a number of drawbacks. Critics argue that it is both a one-size-fits-all approach that ignores regional particularities and that it is inconsistently enforced across the globe. Low credibility of American commitments and counteraction from non-democratic regimes further impede the policy’s chances of success.

However, research also shows that the outcomes of democracy promotion are nuanced. This nuance is especially visible when we take a closer look at the various levels and sectors of democracy promotion. This is where programs such as academic exchanges come into play: they are significantly less expensive, do not carry the burden of requiring immediate success, and are free of the damaging implications of a military operation.

Pouring financial resources into countries where corrupt elites thrive at the expense of their populations is not only wasteful, but is also counterproductive. The Trump administration’s proposed budget cuts aid to several such countries, even if perhaps not for democracy-related reasons. Yet, engaging with the population in an apolitical manner, often through educational opportunities, both improves the United States’ image abroad and is a cost-effective method for promoting cooperation with the U.S. regional policies.

International educational programs are a form of public diplomacy; they establish intercultural communication, diminish stereotypes, and build political partnerships premised on cultural understanding. This does not mean that any U.S. foreign policy approach will be viewed favorably, but it does increase the probability that individuals who have been immersed in these programs will have a more positive view of U.S. positions. The example of Mikheil Saakashvili in Georgia, who is an alumnus of a U.S.-sponsored graduate program, illustrates how an American-friendly political leader can spark democratization, transform a political culture, and set his country on the course to its first peaceful transition of power. As a bonus, his election also decidedly transformed the country’s foreign policy orientation towards the United States.

The United States understands the transformative power of education. It has spent many decades educating and cultivating the next generations of foreign leaders through government-funded programs. The U.S. Department of State runs these educational programs, which provide funding for at least two semesters of study at an American university to individuals selected through nation-wide competitions in their countries. Programs such as the Future Leaders Exchange (FLEX) for high school students, Global Ugrad for undergraduate students, and the Edmund S. Muskie Graduate Fellowship for graduate students have brought thousands of young people to U.S. universities with the condition they must return to their countries for at least two years to apply their newly acquired knowledge.

A round of interviews with Ugrad and Flex alumni conducted for this piece reveal that 90% of alumni return home having acquired an improved understanding of and a greater appreciation for America, even though their program did not entail any political messaging. Of course, the real impact of these programs on domestic politics and on relations with the United States is yet to be thoroughly researched and documented. Yet, anecdotal evidence is plentiful showing how these alumni create change by aspiring for more inclusive societies, improving education systems, or dispelling misconceptions about the United States in their home countries.

Recent studies show that “leaders educated at Western universities are more likely to democratize than other leaders.” When societal and political elites have already been socialized to the advantages of open and democratic governance, the implementation of democracy promotion projects is likely to have higher chances of success. The most telling illustration of the effect of these programs is the reaction of illiberal regimes. In 2012, Russia passed a “foreign agent” law that effectively expelled USAID and the American Councils, a U.S. education NGO that administers the FLEX program. Simultaneously, Russia reinvigorated its own youth-related initiatives.

Belief in the formative nature of education dates all the way back to Plato, who argued that education molds the soul. Research shows that Western education both socializes leaders to embrace democratic governance and creates transnational linkages that alter the strategic understanding of democratization. When societal or political elites have been socialized to the advantages of open governance, the process of democratization has a higher chance of overcoming pernicious obstacles. People who have participated in Western-sponsored educational programs often make the difference in democratic transitions. This is an area where the U.S. can make a meaningful impact with minimal costs.

Interviews for this piece were supported by the Institute of the Armenian Studies at the University of Southern California.

About the author:
*Nelli Babayan is a Black Sea Fellow at FPRI, a Fellow at the Transatlantic Academy in Washington, D.C., and Associate Fellow at the Center for Transnational, Foreign and Security Policy at Freie Universität Berlin

Source:
This article was published by FPRI.

By Jack Memolo*

After 13 days of an international search effort to find the missing Argentine submarine, the ARA San Juan, some discouraged families of crewmembers had begun to mourn. “At this point, the truth is I have no hope that they will come back” Maria Villareal, the mother of a crewmember told an Argentine local news source. Most of the pessimism erupted after an “abnormal sound” was detected roughly 30 miles north of the ARA San Juan’s last known location. According to the Associated Press, this sound was “singular, short, violent, and non-nuclear (…) consistent with an explosion.”^[i]

Even though search efforts formally continue despite 20-foot waves and wind speeds upwards of 50 miles per hour, the situation is almost hopeless.^[ii]

Although naval experts now believe that a battery short circuit, brought about by a water infiltration through the submarine’s snorkel mechanism, caused the tragedy, there is another dimension at play as well–that of gross negligence. “They sent a piece of crap out to navigate” said Itatí Leguizamon, another relative of a missing naval officer on board the submarine.^[iii]

Indeed, the shocking disappearance of the San Juan– a 34 year old diesel electric submarine — fits into a context of sustained military neglect directly tied to the stygian legacy of Argentina’s murderous armed forces — a legacy which is nothing less than praetorianism.

In both history and politics, the term “praetorianism”– derived from the infamous imperial bodyguards of ancient Rome– is defined as the excessive and abusive influence of a nation’s armed forces in its domestic political system. This phenomenon defined Argentine politics for almost half a century, and eventually led to Argentine politicians drastically reducing the power and capabilities of its armed forces.

For much of the 20th century, the Argentine military was indeed the “Praetorian Guard” of the country’s political leadership. Before the election of President Carlos Menem in 1989, the military had almost single-handedly picked over half of Argentina’s presidents since 1943. After a short period of democratic rule in the early 1970s, which saw the return of Juan Perón, the military intervened once again, overthrowing Perón’s wife and successor, Isabel, and establishing a brutal military dictatorship.^[iv] From 1974 to 1983, the military waged the “Dirty War,” kidnapping thousands of suspected “left-wing terrorists” and summarily imprisoning them without trial or due process. As a result, an estimated 30,000 Argentines were kidnapped, tortured, and executed. The military’s reputation darkened even further after the failure of the Falklands/Malvinas War– an unnecessary conflict in which over 600 Argentine conscripts lost their lives.

Despite the collapse of the military dictatorship and the formal return of democracy in the 1980s, Argentina’s civilian leadership remained paranoid of another potential coup. During the presidency of Raúl Alfonsin, the military attempted 3 coups, embittered at the President’s early attempts to prosecute indicted high level officials allegedly involved in the Dirty War.

After the failure of the Falklands/Malvinas campaign and the tragedy of the military dictatorship, the legacy of the Armed Forces continued to cast a dark and portentous shadow over the country. In the 1990s, President Carlos Menem took key steps to subordinate Argentina’s military to civilian control while planting the seeds of tragedy for the ARA San Juan. During his first term, Menem significantly reduced defense spending by nearly half, from roughly 4.2 billion to 2.1 billion.^[v] The Armed Forces also transitioned from an institution based on conscription to a small professional force. As a result, the total number of military personnel declined from about 200,000 in the 1970s to roughly 20,000. To appease the military brass, Menem also distanced himself from the haphazard prosecutorial attitude of the Alfonsin government and issued pardons to senior personnel who took part in the Dirty War.^[vi]

This trend of demilitarization continued with the presidencies of Nestor Kirchner and Cristina Kirchner. While revamping the prosecution various leaders involved in the dictatorship, the Kirchners further reduced military spending. This reduction was accelerated after 2006, when it was revealed that the Argentine Navy was surveilling political leaders, human rights organizations, and civilian activists. This scandal ultimately led to the purging of senior naval officers in 2012. What’s more, in 2005 a drug smuggling scandal involving the Air Force led to further purges. Both of these events served to significantly diminish the reputation of the Armed Forces in the eyes of the general public. By 2013, defense spending represented a meager .8 per cent of GDP.

Along with a minimal budget, the military spent only a small amount of their funds on equipment upgrades and technological renovations. Instead of investing more funds into military hardware, most of the appropriations went to salaries of personnel. An estimated 80 percent of all the Armed Forces’ budget are now going directly to the pockets of military staff, making the military little more than a jobs program.^[vii]

Many of these budgetary problems were also related to Argentina’s economic woes. In 2014 the country defaulted on its debt for the 8th time. This, in conjunction with the devaluation of the Argentine peso, made budgetary constraints on the Armed Forces even more precarious.^[viii]

In June of 2014, the Navy sought to refit the San Juan, a largely out-dated and obsolete TR-1700 class submarine commissioned in 1985. Ironically, just a few days after the “renovation” project was completed, the San Juan’s sister ship, another TR-1700 class submarine– the ARA Santa Cruz, accidently ran aground. After the incident, inspectors discovered that the Santa Cruz had a rotting hull before the accident, and should never have been underwater in the first place.^[ix] The military’s neglect for its naval assets was further illustrated in December of 2015, when the destroyer ARA Santisima Trinidad keeled over and sank due to a lack of proper maintenance dating back years. ^[x]

Within this historical narrative of drastic military cuts, purges, and a running anxiety of another coup dating back to the 1980s, the tragedy of the ARA San Juan fits into a context. Due in part to legitimate political anxieties with roots in the Argentine Dirty War, as well as budgetary constraints, the military has been reduced to one of its lowest states of combat readiness in the country’s modern history. This is not necessarily a bad thing, given the horrendous track record of human rights abuses shamelessly carried out by Argentine military institutions. There is no excuse, however, to so recklessly endanger the lives of soldiers. Although accidental, military officials must be held accountable for this senseless and avoidable loss of life. In the words of one grieving family member, “It is practically suicide to send them out in something so old.”^[xi]

*Jack Memolo, Extramural Contributor at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

Additional editorial support provided by Aline Piva, Assistant Deputy Director and Head of Brazil Unit, Jack Pannell, Research Fellow, and Tomas Bayas and Gavin Allman, Research Associates at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

^[i]Phillips, Kristine. “What we know about the Argentine submarine that went missing nine days ago.” The Washington Post. November 24, 2017. Accessed November 25, 2017.

^[ii] Schipani, Andres. “Argentina in despair over its lost submarine.” Financial Times, November 24, 2017. Accessed November 25, 2017. https://www.ft.com/content/ff0d3372-d12e-11e7-9dbb-291a884dd8c6.

^[iii] Schipani, Andres. “Argentina in despair over its lost submarine.” Financial Times, November 24, 2017 . Accessed November 25, 2017. https://www.ft.com/content/ff0d3372-d12e-11e7-9dbb-291a884dd8c6.

^[iv]Sims, Calvin. “Argentina Demotes Its Once-Powerful Armed Forces.” The New York Times. November 23, 1994. Accessed November 25, 2017. http://www.nytimes.com/1994/11/24/world/argentina-demotes-its-once-powerful-armed-forces.html.

^[v] Sims, Calvin. “Argentina Demotes Its Once-Powerful Armed Forces.” The New York Times. November 23, 1994. Accessed November 25, 2017. http://www.nytimes.com/1994/11/24/world/argentina-demotes-its-once-powerful-armed-forces.html.

^[vi]Allport, Rowan. “Argentina’s Declining Armed Forces.” Human Security Centre, November 11, 2014. Accessed November 25, 2017.

^[vii] Badri-Maharj, Sanjay . “Argentina’s Military Decline.” Argentina’s Military Decline | Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses. August 30, 2016. Accessed November 29, 2017

^[viii] Badri-Maharj, Sanjay . “Argentina’s Military Decline.” Argentina’s Military Decline | Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses. August 30, 2016. Accessed November 29, 2017

^[ix] Allport, Rowan. “Argentina’s Declining Armed Forces.” Human Security Centre, November 11, 2014. Accessed November 25, 2017 .

^[x] Beckhusen, Robert. “What Happened to Argentina’s Missing Attack Submarine?” The National Interest, November 20, 2017.

^[xi] Schipani, Andres. “Argentina in despair over its lost submarine.” Financial Times, November 24, 2017 . Accessed November 25, 2017. https://www.ft.com/content/ff0d3372-d12e-11e7-9dbb-291a884dd8c6.

By Jonathan Power*

Timing is everything. Dear Reader you’re right. If I was going to write on the conviction in a UN court of General Ratko Mladic I should have done it last week when the court sentenced him to life imprisonment for the mass murder of a significant part of Bosnia’s Muslim population during the civil wars in ex-Yugoslavia.

But does a week here or a week there matter when it has taken the ridiculous time of 22 years from the horrific event in Srebrenica, when 7,000 Muslim men were rounded up and slaughtered, to conviction? It was 16 years from the end of the war and 6 years from the date of his capture. The trial in Nuremberg of ex-Nazi leaders took only a year and took place immediately after the end of the Second World War.

The Yugoslav civil wars began in 1991 and ended in 2001. At wars’ end all the fugitives sought by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia were in “hiding”, apart from the president of Serbia himself, Slobodan Milosevic. That was what the U.S. and European governments mostly said. In fact the Tribunal claimed to have information on their whereabouts and journalists often came across them. But periodic police raids never caught anyone or rather said they did not.

NATO troops purposely turned a blind eye. British defence officials said that military action was unlikely to be successful in bringing Mladic and his boss Radovan Karadzic to trial. One winter’s day British UN troops carrying side arms were confronted by the general skiing down the piste at Sarajevo’s former Olympic skiing resort but made no move to arrest him. The soldiers decided to carry on skiing. Later NATO did send commandos to arrest various war crimes suspects, but Mladic simply went underground.

It came as a total surprise that Karadzic was arrested in Belgrade in July 2008, but police had been tracking him for months- Serbia badly wanted to enter the European Union and this was the price. They arrested him on a Belgrade tram. He was lightly disguised with a beard. He worked as a mystical psychiatrist.

Mladic, for his part, was described in court as “a casual sadist”. He would order attacks on civilians in Sarajevo by shouting “Raspameti” (Blow their heads off). He was filmed distributing chocolates to children but once the film crew had gone he recalled the chocolates. Then the children’s male relatives were murdered.

Until 2001 he had lived openly in Belgrade, attending football matches and restaurants.

In the end, after an intense amount of pressure had been brought to bear on the government of Serbia by the EU he was arrested in May 2011 at a cousin’s house in a village. His arrest was carried out by two dozen Serbian special police officers from the War Crimes Prosecutor’s Office. Mladic was not wearing a beard or any disguise.

So why the delays? Why six years from capture until conviction?

The Tribunal has had a big flaw. It proceeded at a snail’s pace, giving defendants too much leeway, granting delays, in particular to Milosevic, so he could research his case in more detail or because of illness (that did not incapacitate his mental facilities).

Richard Goldstone, the South African judge who was the Tribunal’s first prosecutor, described the atmosphere when he arrived in The Hague: “It had been established by the UN Security Council 15 months earlier yet investigations into war crimes had not yet begun. The judges, who had been appointed almost a year before, were frustrated and openly talked of resigning. The UN was facing its worst-ever financial crisis. The whole idea that Balkan leaders then pursuing genocidal wars would actually end up in the dock was, in many quarters, dismissed as a fantasy.”

Even that doesn’t explain why the Milosevic trial dragged on for four years until he died. It doesn’t explain the six-year delay with Mladic. It doesn’t explain why delay after delay meant that death saved from trial, according to the Court’s prosecutor, Carla del Ponte, the former Bosnian president, Alija Izetbegovic and the former Croatian president, Franco Tudjman.

Three things strike me, having sat in on the similar UN court in Cambodia during the trial of Khmer Rouge leaders. First, the collection of evidence went at an excruciatingly slow pace – at least in the eyes of a journalist whose profession demands he works fast. Second, the judges lent over too far backwards in an attempt to convince Serbian public opinion that justice was being done. But that was not found necessary in Germany. Third, the lawyers took advantage of this to spin things out, safe in the knowledge they would never be as well paid again.

The next indictments might be of Americans, Afghani Talibans, Colombians, Syrians and Burmese. Before that happens the International Criminal Court needs a good shake-up.

*Note: For 17 years Jonathan Power was a foreign affairs columnist and commentator for the International Herald Tribune – and a member of the Independent Commission on Disarmament, chaired by the prime minister of Sweden, Olof Palme. He is the author of a newly published book, “Ending War Crimes, Chasing the War Criminals” (Nijoff). He also authored “Like Water on Stone – the History of Amnesty International” (Penguin). He forwarded this and his previous Viewpoints for publication in IDN-INPS. Copyright: Jonathan Power

There is a huge selection of glass break detectors on the market. Although these detectors reliably trigger an alarm when window panes break, they do not register all other ways in which burglars can interfere with a pane. To counter this, Fraunhofer researchers have created a new type of alarm system that recognizes any attempt to manipulate the window. It registers temperature changes in real time as well as vibrations caused by external interference with the glass, leaving burglars with no chance.

The window panes of jewelry stores, art galleries and banks are protected by alarm and fitted with security glass. However, the pane or part thereof has to break before the alarm is triggered. Conventional security glass contains metal threads that tear in the event of mechanical damage, activating the alarm. If a cutting torch or a drill is used to damage the glass, conventional systems react either too late or not at all. Burglars exploit this weakness and use a drill or a blowtorch instead of a hammer. Researchers at the Fraunhofer Institute for Technological Trend Analysis INT and the Fraunhofer Institute for Photonic Microsystems IPMS have jointly developed a smart anti-burglary protection system that overcomes this problem. The new system quickly and dynamically records thermal and mechanical stresses from external causes. Even a gentle knock against the security glass or manipulation through the use of a flame is enough to trigger the alarm. The external force applied to the pane changes its mechanical characteristics, and the system detects this change. This method of monitoring glass panes is based on a glass break sensor built inside an optical fiber by means of fiber Bragg grating, that is, optical interference filters inscribed in optical waveguides. The fiber optics can be fitted in the corner of the windowpane or in other positions.

Light-assisted surveillance of glass panes

The sensor with the fiber Bragg grating is an optical sensor, which reflects a specific wavelength of light that is changed by deviations in temperature and/or elongation. “If somebody exercises pressure on the glass pane or heats it, the distance between the grating elements changes, which in turn alters the transmitted wavelength. Sensitive optical measuring devices are capable of recording these changes. If the changes are greater than a predefined threshold, signals are transmitted to the alarm system,” says Udo Weinand, engineer at Fraunhofer INT, explaining the functioning of this patented system. “We can adjust our system in a very fine-tuned, targeted manner. It can react to slight knocks and to strong ones. As a result, it can be adapted individually to the specific application,” adds Dr. Peter Reinig, scientist at Fraunhofer IPMS.

The innovative break-in protection consists of a Bragg grating, a fiber optic supply cable, an interface to the alarm system, and evaluation electronics, which contain the optical measuring device. In future, the evaluation unit, to which various fiber optics can be connected, is to be fitted in the window frames. In high-security zones, the evaluation unit can be located far away from the security glass. “Measurement with fiber optic sensors is a good solution for these requirements, because it uses light instead of electricity and widely available fiber optics instead of copper wires,” says Weinand.

Pattern recognition avoids false alarms

Another advantage of the Fraunhofer system is that fiber optics are resistant to electromagnetic interference. Electronics can be disturbed by things such as microwave emissions, whose pulses can incapacitate conventional alarm systems or cause an unwanted alarm. In addition, pattern recognition rules out the potential for false alarms triggered by everyday vibrations. “A football or a bird leave behind a different signature than a hammer or a baseball bat,” notes Reinig. The smart alarm system was rigorously tested in various attack scenarios on a wide range of different security glass panes involving hammers, baseball bats, drills, firearms, axes and heat guns to determine when the alarm is reliably triggered.

The effectiveness of the sensor with fiber Bragg grating has been demonstrated in numerous tests, including the VdS test by VdS Schadenverhütung GmbH in Cologne. The independent, notified and accredited testing and certification institute for fire protection and burglary prevention issues the VdS seal of approval, a well-known distinction in German industry.

The burglary protection system created by Fraunhofer researchers currently exists as a demonstrator. Measuring only 14x9x7 cm³, the evaluation electronics is a small box that can be further miniaturized if required. The system is able not only to protect jewelry stores and other objects liable to be burgled, but is also suitable for monitoring bridges, buildings, pipes, load-bearing structures in the aerospace industry, wind turbines, and much more.

By Ray Sherman

With a general election looming, a Malaysian government-commissioned inquiry is recommending that authorities investigate two opposition leaders – ex-Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad and his former deputy, Anwar Ibrahim – in connection with billions of dollars in central bank losses during the 1990s.

The recommendation is in a report by the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) that was made public on Thursday, days after the deputy prime minister said that the next general election would likely occur in the second half of February 2018, according to local media.

“The commission is of the opinion that the then-Minister of Finance had deliberately concealed facts and information and made misleading statements to the Cabinet,” the report said, referring to Anwar, who was also finance minister when the central bank absorbed 31.5 billion ringgit (U.S. $7.7 billion) in foreign exchange losses between 1992 and 1994.

“The commission is also of the opinion that the then-Prime Minister had condoned the actions of the Minister of Finance,” according to the commission’s 524-page report, which did not identify Mahathir and Anwar, who is now serving a prison sentence on a sodomy conviction, by name.

The report marks the first time that Mahathir, 92, and Anwar, 70, have been formally accused of potential criminal wrongdoing in connection with those losses by the central bank, formally known as Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM), more than 20 years ago.

It said that various government officials, including the prime minister and finance minister, may have committed criminal breach of trust or cheated, by carrying out speculative forex dealings and then concealing the losses.

Once bitter foes, Mahathir and Anwar recently joined forces to lead a new opposition coalition, Pakatan Harapan (Alliance of Hope), pitting itself against Prime Minister Najib Razak and his ruling United National Malays Organization (UMNO) party, which has controlled Malaysian politics throughout the country’s 60-year history.

Mahathir has been among Najib’s fiercest critics, leading calls for the current PM to resign over allegations implicating him in a corruption scandal tied to the sovereign state fund 1MDB. Najib has denied any wrongdoing in the 1MDB affair.

‘A political move’

The commission, a five-member panel appointed by Malaysia’s king, began its inquiry four months ago into allegations of massive foreign exchange (forex) trading losses incurred by the central bank in the 1990s. Twenty-five witnesses were summoned to testify before the panel, which also gathered and examined 42 related documents.

On Oct. 13, the royal commission handed its report to the king.

Although it was not listed on parliament’s agenda Thursday, the report, printed in Bahasa Malaysia and English, was placed on tables of parliamentarians.

Malaysian opposition members reacted by crying foul on the timing of the release – the last day of parliamentary deliberations this year.

“The report was ready and was sent to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong [Malaysian king] six weeks ago, it should have been given to us much earlier,” Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, Anwar’s wife and the current leader of his People’s Justice Party (PKR), told journalists at parliament.

“Today, when we asked to debate the findings, it was rejected. This shows that whatever we have assumed before has now become true, that it is a political move over an issue that was resurrected after so many years to implicate their political opponents,” Wan Azizah said.

Lim Guan Eng, the chief minister of Penang and secretary general of the opposition Democratic Action Party, said the report should be debated because it was significant.

“When I got up to ask that MPs be allowed to debate on the report, the minister said the decision would be made later,” he said.

‘Completely astounded’

Azalina Othman, the law minister who is in charge of parliamentarian affairs, asked the opposition to request in writing that the report be debated in the legislature.

“He has not written us a letter, so please give me time for this. I will inform the government and reply in writing,” she said, referring to Lim.

On Thursday, a lawyer for Mahathir accused the government of an “ambush” against his client by releasing the report to parliament without adequate public notice or providing him with a copy.

Attorney Haniff Khatri said he would comment on the report after having an opportunity to read it in full.

“[I] am completely astounded that there are references made in the Report to purported breaches of criminal law such as criminal breach of trust, when in fact the nature of the materials referred to by the RCI fell ridiculously short and [were] insufficient to reach such conclusions,” the lawyer said, citing media accounts of the contents of the report.

By Satish Misra

At last, the speculations over when Rahul Gandhi is taking over the presidentship of the party is over. Rahul, now the Vice President and a three-time Lok Sabha MP, is going to take over the charge of the country’s oldest political formation, the Indian National Congress, in the first week of December. It is time to have a close look at the impact of this development on the national politics.

Undoubtedly, Gandhi is assuming the charge at a time when party’s political fortunes are at the lowest ebb since it was founded on December 28, 1885. The party’s political base has been shrinking very fast. It has one of the lowest strength in the people’s house in Parliament as it was reduced to 44 MPs in the 2014 general elections.  It is in power only in five States –Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Mizoram and Meghalaya – while its main rival, the Bharatiya Jana Party (BJP) has its governments in 18 States.

Gandhi, 47, is going to be elected by the party’s electoral college. Most States and party organisations like the Indian Youth Congress have already passed unanimous resolutions urging him to take up the 132-years old party’s mantle.

The 47-year-old scion of the Nehru-Gandhi family had entered the politics in 2004 when he was first elected to the parliament from Amethi in Uttar Pradesh that has been sending Gandhis or their loyalists for many decades. Since, he has been in the Parliament for over 13 years.

Not only the Congress’s rapport with the people at large stands at a historic low, even Ra Ga’s own political persona does not evoke much confidence among people at large. He has been made an object of ridicule by the media, particularly by the social media. The RSS-BJP has been successful in portraying him as ‘Pappu’ in popular mind – as a total misfit to lead the Congress.

Undoubtedly, there are very few positives to his credit despite 13 years in active politics. But then, it has to be admitted that he suffered from many handicaps also.

Herein lies the challenge to Ra Ga. Is he ready to pick up the gauntlet and lead the Congress from the front or not?

The timing for his elevation seems to be perfect. The political stock of Prime Minister Narendra Modi is down. The PM’s personal credibility has begun to erode as more and more people have begun to question his performance and raise doubts over his promises.

The general people are upset that Modi’s developmental politics have been replaced by non-issues like rewriting of the country’s history, the Taj Mahal controversy, love jihad, cow slaughter, building of the Ram temple at Ayodhya. This has led to cracks in the Prime Minister’s Teflon image.

Social strife, use of violent means to settle political scores, intolerance, mutual distrust among different strata of society and fear among minorities, particularly among Muslims, is on the rise.

There is a general belief today that the Congress alone can take on the BJP. People are looking towards the Congress with hope. They expect the Congress to rise to the occasion to win people’s confidence.

The task for Rahul Gandhi is clearly cut out and he has to prove himself now by taking the old and young leaders along. By announcing the incumbent Chief Minister of Himachal Pradesh, Veerbhadra Singh, to be the party’s chief ministerial face in the recently concluded elections, Rahul Gandhi displayed political maturity and understanding. He has sent a signal that he is ready to work with the old guard and is prepared to accept the ground political reality.

In Gujarat too, which will be going to polls later this month, Rahul Gandhi has been able to evoke popular response during his recent tours to the State. This seems to have rattled and unnerved the BJP’s State and central leadership. Modi, who had been the Chief Minister before taking charge at the Centre, has visited the State four times in October alone. It is more than evident now that the Modi government has put pressure on the Election Commission to delay the dates of Assembly elections in Gujarat, reflecting the nervousness.

If the Congress is able to improve its electoral tally in Gujarat and come close to power, then it will be a huge boost for the Congress for the 2019 Lok Sabha elections. This may even influence outcomes of other Assembly elections next year. The credit for this obviously would go to Rahul Gandhi and his leadership will come to be accepted not only by his own party men and women but also by people at large.

Relatively positive outcomes in Himachal and Gujarat Assembly elections would set the stage for the Gandhi scion to establish his credentials but the road ahead is far more arduous and difficult. He would have to build the organization patiently, stock by stock, taking both old and new leaders together.

Assessing the party’s strengths and weaknesses, Rahul Gandhi would have to steer the party’s course on coalition politics. The new Congress chief would have to display resilience and understanding that he can take along like-minded political parties and is ready to share power. The task for Rahul Gandhi is huge, but not impossible.

By Andrea Vento*

The great hopes for a historical understanding to contain global warming in the wake of the proclamations of world leaders prior to the recent UN climate change conference in Bonn have evaporated.

The ‘climate’ of confidence surrounding the conference – held in Bonn from November 6 to 17, officially known as the 23rd session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 23) and presided over by Fiji – soon disappeared into thin air as environmental experts looked at what, if anything, had been achieved.

Criticism has centred on the failure to establish either a “compliance control committee” or a “sanctioning mechanism” against countries which do not respect the commitments they have entered into.

In practice, these are legally non-binding agreements, implementation of which is linked only to the environmental sensitivity and political determination of the various governments, but which are often however heavily influenced by enormous economic interests, primarily those of the multinationals in the energy and automotive industries.

The Bonn conference, which many believed should have accelerated action and set more stringent rules on measures to combat climate change, ended without any major decision, so that a kind “supplementary session” will now take place at the Paris summit in December.

This was a partially announced failure which was confirmed by the absence of the most important world leaders (except German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron) and the great international media circus, which largely deserted the event.

However, despite their low profile, four decisions were worthy of note:

• approval of a Gender Action Plan (certainly appreciable, but which does not contain significant relevance for climatic problems);
• recognition of the role of “indigenous peoples” (officially considered a resource, not an obstacle) in combating climate change, conserving biodiversity and protecting the environment;
• activation of the Food Safety and Agriculture Working Group (after six years of evanescent negotiations, it was recognised at COP23 that climate change aggravates the food insecurity of the most fragile populations and that, at the same time, today’s “agro-industrial” agricultural practices account for about 21 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions, necessitating a radical rethinking of the agrobusiness sector);
• sanctions for “exceeding” by local entities – regions, cities, municipalities, indigenous communities, etc. – on the official representations of States (the case of California is emblematic: despite US President Donald Trump ignoring the Paris Agreement, in Bonn its governor Jerry Brown announced that he would honour the commitments made).

For all the rest we are at a complete impasse.

In real terms, no significant decisions were made regarding the following:

• a compensation mechanism for loss and damage;
• funding of compensation measures designed to induce developing countries to reduce emissions;
• transparency of the funding to be granted for implementation of mitigation and adaptation measures.

Responsibility for failure is mainly due to the national selfishness of the most industrialised countries, which, although they claim to want to move forward regardless of Trump’s positions, have distinguished themselves by their absence or “vague” declarations. Take Merkel, for example, who first said that “the question of climate is a central challenge for the world, a question of humanity’s destiny” before carefully changing tack: “The closure of coal-fired power stations is a social problem to be dealt with calmly,” de facto postponing the decarbonisation of energy in her country to an unspecified date.

According to Merkel, doing so now would lead to an increase in the cost of energy.

The failure of the work of the climate conference is summarised in the concluding document, which explicitly calls on UN Secretary-General António Guterres to take care that Member States actually put in practice what has been decided.

The present state of the atmosphere

While the ritual comedy of ‘wait-and-see’ and inconsistency took to the stage in Germany, reports on the subject published by various research institutes were photographing an alarming evolution of both the chemical composition of the atmosphere and global weather and climate conditions.

According to the climate report issued at the end of October by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the concentration of CO2 (the main greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere has stabilised at well over four hundred parts per million – rising, in fact, from the 400 recorded in 2015 to 403.3 at the end of the following year.

This represents a structural overrun of the safety threshold set at 350, beyond which the possibilities of reduction become extremely complex.

Indeed, even if we were able to completely eliminate pollutant emissions today, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would continue to increase for a few decades – because of the inertia of the phenomenon – making it difficult to return to under this threshold.

This particularity, typical of complex systems, has been confirmed by the annual report of the Dutch Environmental Assessment Agency (NEAA), which shows that in 2016 – for the third consecutive year – global CO2 emissions remained unchanged, but this has not, however, served to contain the increase of concentration in the atmosphere.

To date, the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 145 percent compared with the pre-industrial era (1750), with an abrupt rise in the last half century, during which it rose by about eighty parts per million, rising from about 320 to the current 403.3 parts per million.

This is an unstoppable growth which, if not radically addressed, is likely to undermine the goals set out in the Paris Agreement: limiting the rise in the average terrestrial temperature – again compared with 1750 – to 2° C (possibly 1.5) from here up to the end of the century.

If we consider the peculiarities of the Earth system with regard to the CO2 absorption cycle and that, based on the WMO report, the average temperature of the oceans and the atmosphere has increased by 1.1° C compared with the pre-industrial period, the overall picture becomes dramatic.

In the absence of concrete measures aimed at reducing global emissions, according to scientific forecasts we are heading towards an average rise in terrestrial temperature of between 3 and 5° C, with catastrophic consequences on agriculture and on the very life of people.

Global warming and climate change

Alarming confirmations with respect to forecasts are reaching us on the climate values front.

The WMO report issued on the eve of COP23 states that “it is very likely that 2017 will be one of the three hottest years on record”, thus confirming the inexorable warming trend already established by the statistics: from the beginning of meteorological surveys (1880), 16 of the 17 hottest years – except for 1983 – were those from 2001 onwards.

Of course, the data disseminated by research institutes refer to the Earth as a whole, without taking into account the local implications of phenomena in progress, which unfortunately sometimes occur through dramatic meteorological abnormalities (resulting in devastating effects on the environment and people).

In recent years, in many terrestrial regions, there has been a significant increase in extreme climatic events such as hurricanes and catastrophic floods, water bombs and torrential rains, heat waves and record droughts, melting of polar ice caps and rises in ocean levels.

According to WMO data, the January-September 2017 interval was characterised by a global average temperature of about 1.1° C above the pre-industrial level.

Various areas of southern Europe, North Africa, East and South Africa, Asian Russia and China recorded unprecedented maximum temperatures.

North-western United States and western Canada, on the contrary, recorded lower temperatures than the average of the 1981-2010 period.

How can the course be reversed?

Global warming and climate change – coupled with a worrying rise in extreme weather events – are not just a matter of academic concern. They are phenomena of such seriousness that they damage the lives of ordinary citizens – for example, impacting on agricultural production, with life-threatening consequences for the farmers of the South of the world, who are increasingly forced to abandon their now parched lands to seek hope of survival elsewhere.

Migration due to climatic-environmental causes is dramatically rising, to the extent that 23.5 million people were involved in 2016. Faced with this human tide, the United Nations and international conventions, particularly that of Geneva, should finally recognise the status of “climatic refugees”, guaranteeing the possibility of requesting asylum to those who find refugee abroad.

The situation is progressively becoming more dramatic and intervention times are increasingly shrinking, so the continuous beating around the bush by world leaders finds no justification.

It is necessary to intervene quickly and with incisive actions aimed at overcoming the current development model – based on the infinite pursuit of growth and dependence on fossil sources – introducing new forms of production based on the circular economy, agroecology, decarbonisation and renewable energy sources, in the perspective of a transition to an ecosocialist society, the only one capable of assuring the rights of workers and of the environment, indissolubly linked to resistance to capitalism: climatic justice is also social justice.

It is necessary to act now without hesitation before it is too late and alteration of the Earth system becomes irreversible: at stake is not only the fate of the environment and the planet, but of humanity as a whole.

* Andrea Vento is a member of Gruppo Insegnanti di Geografia Autorganizzati (Self-organised Geography Teachers Group). This article was originally published in Italian under the title Una Conferenza sui Cambiamenti Climatici all’Insegna dell’Immobilismo in Utopia Rossa. Translated by Phil Harris. Views expressed in this article are those of the writer and not necessarily of IDN-INPS.