Worldwide filings for patents, trademarks and industrial designs reached record heights in 2016 amid soaring demand in China, which received more patent applications than the combined total of applications received by the United States, Japan, the Republic of Korea and the European Patent Office, the United Nations intellectual property agency said Wednesday.

Innovators around the world filed 3.1 million patent applications in 2016, up 8.3 per cent for a seventh straight yearly increase, according to the World Intellectual Property Office’s annual report.

China accounted for 98 per cent of total growth, receiving about 236,600 of the nearly 240,600 additional patent filings.

Trademark applications jumped by 16.4 per cent to about seven million, and worldwide industrial design applications grew by 10.4 per cent to almost one million – both also driven by growth in China.

“The latest figures charting a rise in demand for intellectual property rights confirm a decade-long trend, where developments in China increasingly leave their mark on the worldwide totals,” said WIPO Director General Francis Gurry. “China is increasingly amongst the leaders in global innovation and branding.”

Patents

China’s State Intellectual Property Office received the highest number of patent applications in 2016, a record total of 1.3 million. It was followed by the US Patent and Trademark Office at 605,571, the Japan Patent Office at 318,381, the Korean Intellectual Property Office at 208,830 and the European Patent Office at 159,358.

On a per-capita basis, patent filings in China ranked behind those in Germany, Japan, the Republic of Korea and the US.

Asia’s share of all applications filed worldwide has increased from 49.7 per cent in 2006 to 64.6 per cent in 2016, primarily driven by strong growth in filings in China. Offices located in Asia received just over 2 million applications.

Trademarks

An estimated 7 million trademark applications covering 9.77 million classes were filed worldwide in 2016, 16.4 per cent more applications than in 2015, marking the seventh consecutive year of growth.

“The number of trademarks being sought around the world has increased three-fold since 2001, reflecting the importance of protecting branding assets in today’s business environment,” said Mr. Gurry.

The office of China had the highest volume of filing activity with a class count of around 3.7 million, followed by the US at 545,587, Japan at 451,320, the European Union at 369,970 and India at 313,623.

Industrial designs

Global industrial design filing activity in 2016 grew by 10.4 per cent to an estimated 963,100 applications containing 1.2 million designs. Design counts worldwide grew by 8.3 per cent, driven primarily by strong growth in China.

The office of China received applications containing 650,344 designs in 2016, corresponding to 52 per cent of the world total, followed by the EU at 104,522, the Republic of Korea at 69,120, Germany at 56,188 and Turkey at 46,305.

Among the top 20 offices, the fastest growth in design counts occurred in Iran, a 34.8 per cent increase, followed by Ukraine’s 17.4 per cent growth, China’s 14.3 per cent increase and the US’s 12.1 per cent growth.

By Maria Alejandra Silva*

Since the beginning of the Trump administration, the United States’ focus on Colombia has not been based in supporting their transition from conflict, but in reducing the country’s coca cultivation, while playing lip service to problematic opposition leaders like Alvaro Uribe.

Given President Trump’s clear disdain for “experts” and “bureaucrats,” Senators Marco Rubio (R-Fl) and Bob Menendez (D-Nj), both members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, have become chief advisors on Colombia policy. Their influence is proving to be not only ill-advised for Colombia, but also for U.S.-Colombian relations.

Of particular concern is Rubio and Menendez’s close relationship with former Colombian President Alvaro Uribe. Publicly, Rubio has stated that he is, “a big fan of President Uribe,” and multiple sources confirm that Rubio and Uribe are in constant communication, while others confirm that Uribe is a frequent fixture in the U.S. Congress.

This support was evident last year when Uribe held a conference in Miami. During the event, Rubio, accompanied by Representatives Mario Diaz-Balart and Carlos Curbelo, applauded Uribe as, “a leader who stands up for democracy in Colombia and the threat of a possible leftist tyranny backed by Cuba and Venezuela.”[i]

This evaluation of him could not be further from the truth. Disregarding Uribe’s complicity in human rights abuses and corruption, it is clear that the ex-president is using his relationship with congress to position himself favourably in next year’s elections. By exploiting the fears of the Colombian people, Uribe intends to use falsehoods and U.S. pressure to undermine the Colombian Peace Process and impose his conservative hard-liner approach. According to Ann Tickner, professor of International Affairs at Rosario University, their strategy is “to get congress to hold back on funding to the government in order to gain leverage.”[ii]

Uribe also knows the right rhetoric to sell. He understands Marco Rubio’s disdain for “Castro-Chavismo” and in turn has said, “Colombia’s market economy is being seriously compromised by FARC’s recurrent call to impose their Marxist-Leninist agenda, following Venezuela’s model.” [iii]

In examining Rubio’s rhetoric concerning Colombia, Rubio almost identically repeats Uribe’s points. He has said that “I believe the United States should continue to support Colombia’s efforts to combat terrorism and narcotics, and secure and stabilize the country. In particular, we should encourage Colombian counternarcotics officials to resume aerial eradication operations to combat coca production and stem the tide of cocaine trafficking.I am concerned about shortcomings in the deal, which could allow FARC guerrillas to escape justice, and grant amnesty to those responsible for war crimes,” an almost identical position that Uribe consistently takes.[iv]

A key component of Uribe’s strategic alliance with the U.S. is his focus on the forced aerial fumigation of coca crops, a policy that was halted in 2015 due to the negative health effects. He echoes the false evaluation made by many policymakers like Marco Rubio and Menendez, citing that Colombia’s recent expansion of coca cultivation is largely due to the suspension of aerial fumigation. His focus on this topic is key, especially when it is clear that Washington’s main concern for Colombia is based on its coca cultivation. On this point, Menendez has been a critic of Colombia, stating, “I get a sense that the question of coca production is sort of like a wink and a nod and an, ‘Okay, we’ll deal with it,’ but it’s not a priority.”

Trump’s dependence on Marco Rubio for advice on Latin America and Rubio’s close relationship with Uribe has arguably played a big role in the recent rift in the traditionally strong Colombia-U.S. relationship. Since the beginning of the Trump Administration, threats and warnings to Colombia over its coca cultivation have become increasingly aggressive, reaching a critical point on September 13, 2017, when President Trump threatened to decertify Colombia and place it in the same category as Venezuela on the issue of narcotrafficking. U.S. ambassador Brownfield’s public and private pressure on Colombia to intensify its eradication efforts, advocating for more force against protesters has also been particularly troubling. Some experts have even said that it was this pressure that influenced Colombian government forces when they shot and murdered 7 campesino protesters in Tumaco in October.[v] There is no doubt that Rubio and therefore Uribe’s influence on President Trump has played a huge role in this heavy-handed foreign policy.

If the United States truly cares about its relationship with Colombia, it should stop pushing for counterproductive policies on Colombia and should be more careful about basing its policy decisions in congress instead of consulting with the NGOs, think tanks, and State Department experts. Furthermore, congress and more specifically Marco Rubio and Bob Menendez need to rethink their close friendship with Alvaro Uribe, a man that had proven to be a dangerous influence on Colombia.

*Maria Alejandra Silva, Research Associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

Additional editorial support provided by R.O Niederstrasser, Research Associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

Notes:
[i] Chardy, Alfonso. “Colombia could Become Another Venezuela without Changes, former leader says.” miamiherald.com. Last modified October 23, 2016.

[ii] Ordoñez, Franco, and Anita Kumar. “How could Trump meet with 2 ex-presidents and have no one know? Mar-a-Lago.” mcclatchydc.com. Last modified april 20, 2017.

[iii] Politica. “Washington, nuevo escenario en la disputa entre Santos y Uribe” [Washington. New scene in the feud between Santos and Uribe]. eltiempo.com. Last modified April 17, 2017.

[iv]Rubio, Marco. “Keep America’s Bonds with Colombia Strong.” miamiherald.com. Last modified May 16, 2017.

[v] Orozco, Cecilia. “‘Colombia no sabe a cuál Trump tendrá que enfrentar’: Adam Isacson” [“Colombia doesn’t know what Trump it will have to face”: Adam Isacson]. Elespectador.com. Last modified October 28, 2017.

By Taryn Fransen and Kelly Levin

Over its first year, the Trump administration has taken extreme steps to unravel progress on U.S. climate action domestically. Last month, President Trump’s administration reiterated its intention to abandon the Paris Agreement, isolating the United States internationally.

Now that Syria has formally joined the Paris Agreement, the United States is the only country not on board with the global accord. And in July at the G20 Summit President Trump indicated the United States would “immediately cease implementation of its current nationally-determined contribution.”

The administration has followed through by holding a hearing on its proposal to repeal the Clean Power Plan – former President Barack Obama’s signature plan to curb climate-warming emissions in the electric sector.

The administration has also taken steps to revisit rules that would limit emissions from new fossil fuel plants, light-, medium-, and heavy-duty-) vehicles, and methane sources like new oil and natural gas equipment. At the same time, the administration has also moved forward with rules to support baseload coal generation and orders to increase oil and gas production on public and tribal lands.

If the administration continues with these plans, it could significantly compromise the United States’ ability to deliver on its Paris Agreement pledge (known as a nationally determined contribution, or NDC) to reduce emissions by 26 to 28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025.

Much of the trajectory for U.S. emissions depends on how quickly policies are reversed or revised, and what will replace them. In addition, many states, cities and companies have stepped up in response to Trump’s announcement on the Paris Agreement with their own statements of “We Are Still In,” pledging to support the agreement and to take action on climate change.

A recent report from America’s Pledge has documented the scope and scale of non-federal action, showing that more than 2,500 non-federal actors, representing more than half of the U.S. economy, have pledged support for the Paris Agreement goals. The report was released by Gov. Jerry Brown of California and UN Special Envoy on Climate and Cities Mike Bloomberg, with analysis by our colleagues at WRI, the Rocky Mountain Institute and CDP.

The U.S. emissions trajectory of the next several years will depend in part on what impact these subnational and corporate actions will have and how much market forces will continue to drive decarbonization. At the global level, it is also too early to tell whether other countries will step up and make up for the lack of U.S. climate action.

In the wake of these changes to federal climate policies, we have sought to explore two questions: (1) How might policy rollbacks increase emissions? and (2) To what extent might action by states, cities, and others counteract such an increase?

We reviewed recent studies from seven organizations to review and synthesize their assumptions and findings to date. The America’s Pledge initiative will also dig deeper into these issues in the months ahead by aggregating and quantifying the full range of potential U.S. non-federal action and what that means for future U.S. emissions.

On the first question, we looked at seven studies by Climate Action Tracker, Climate Advisers, Climate Interactive, National Center for Climate Change Strategy and International Cooperation (NCSC), Resources for the Future, and Rhodium Group.

These studies examine different scenarios of Trump administration impacts on US greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2025, and estimate what emissions levels would have been under Obama’s policies.

Besides U.S. emissions, Climate Interactive examines global emissions and global temperature under Trump administration policies. On the second question, we reviewed studies by the Carbon Brief and the Sierra Club, which evaluate the potential of states and other actors to offset Trump’s policies.

Potential impact of policy rollbacks

Taken together, the first seven studies suggest that if Trump’s policies are put into effect, U.S. emissions in 2025 will range from 5.6 to 6.8 Gt carbon dioxide equivalent (CO_2e). Under Obama’s policies, estimates suggest emissions would have ranged from about 5.0 to 6.6 GtCO_2e.

Scenarios that consider Obama’s policies without the Clean Power Plan find a range of 5.1 to 6.8 GtCO_2e. All these scenarios show emissions in 2025 higher than the U.S. target of 4.8 to 4.9 GtCO_2e. Most are also higher than 2015 emissions of 5.8 GtCO_2e, which reflects that additional actions would have been necessary between now and 2025 to achieve the U.S. NDC even if the full suite of Obama’s policies had been enacted. Unsurprisingly, the studies find that the United States would have come closer to hitting its NDC target under Obama’s policies than under Trump administration proposals.

Climate Interactive also assesses what global emissions would rise to if the U.S. does not make any efforts to meet its NDC and finds that emissions in 2025 would be 57.3 GtCO_2e, in contrast to 55.8 had the NDC been achieved.

The same study finds that the US NDC alone would have resulted in 0.3 degrees C (0.5 degrees F) less warming (3.3 degrees C (5.9 degrees F) versus 3.6 degrees C (6.5 degrees F)) without it, not accounting for Paris Agreement mechanisms to ramp up ambition over time – a significant contribution towards the Paris goal of limiting warming to 1.5 to 2 degrees C (2.7 to 3.6 degrees F).

Each organization approached the analysis differently. Three main factors were largely responsible for the differences among the studies:

1. Which policy rollbacks were included in the analyses

There is considerable uncertainty regarding which policies Trump might ultimately roll back (court decisions will have a significant role). Studies examine different combinations of policies that the Trump administration might diminish.

All the Trump scenarios envision eliminating the Clean Power Plan, which accounts for the majority of emissions reductions under Obama’s Climate Action Plan. However, scenarios examine a range of possibilities for policies such as those affecting methane, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and vehicle standards:

2. Treatment of market forces

Only some of the analyses explicitly consider the extent to which market forces will influence US emissions. Resources for the Future uses the Biennial Report (BR), updated to reflect the 2017 GHG inventory, as its basis for projections, with no consideration of reductions resulting from market forces beyond those captured in the biennial report and updated inventory.

The Rhodium Group’s Trump’s Regulatory Rollback Begins analysis held macroeconomic and energy price assumptions constant and aligned them with EIA’s 2017 Annual Energy Outlook forecast. The Rhodium Group’s Taking Stock report includes an examination of uncertainties based on the interactive effects of multiple market forces and quantifies the impacts of a variety of related assumptions.

3. Treatment of land sector emissions

Groups differed in how they estimated land sector removals and specifically how significant a carbon sink the U.S. would have in the future. For example, the Rhodium Group’s Trump’s Regulatory Rollback Begins analysis considers a range of projections for land sector sequestration. In contrast, Climate Interactive’s analysis excluded land sector emissions altogether.

Can States, Companies and Market Forces Counteract the Trump Effect?

As already noted, Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement has been met by a loud backlash among states, cities, businesses and others. Over 2,500 governors, mayors and others have joined the We Are Still In campaign.

While future America’s Pledge analysis will examine how these actions can affect future emissions, we reviewed two existing studies that explored how states and other sub-national actors can close the emissions gap left by Trump administration rollbacks to achieve the U.S. Paris Agreement target.

First, a Sierra Club analysis quantifies the potential for three categories of action to achieve the US target: accelerated replacement of coal with clean energy resources like wind and solar; defense of existing policies including the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard, vehicle standards and HCFC rules; and local action by businesses and local elected officials to embrace clean energy and transition away from fossil fuels. Collectively, Sierra Club’s research finds that if these actions are achieved they could reduce emissions by almost 4.5 GtCO_2e in 2025.

Second, an analysis by Carbon Brief identifies the share of US carbon dioxide emissions from states that are members of the U.S. Climate Alliance, other states that have GHG emission reduction targets and states that lack such controls on GHG emissions. It explores the levers states can use to control emissions from electricity, transport and on-site sources. The Carbon Brief concludes that if states find the political will to use these levers, they could meet the U.S. climate commitment

Maintaining International Momentum

The Trump administration’s actions to reverse actions to reduce GHG emissions isolates the United States and will likely slow this country’s progress on tackling climate change and advancing clean energy.

How much emissions and global temperatures will rise as a result has yet to be fully determined, and will depend in large measure how subnational action in the United States, such as the We Are Still In campaign, market forces and international efforts can sustain momentum in the coming years.

The recommitment to the Paris Agreement by world leaders other than Trump at the G20 summit, and progress at COP23, shows their intent to demonstrate the opportunities offered in working toward a low-carbon future. Many U.S. cities, states, regions and companies are already joining other countries in taking the helm on climate and clean energy action and pointing the way toward a low-carbon future.

This article was originally published by the World Resources Institute (WRI)

Sri Lanka has continued to receive a number of achievements for its recognition as a compact travel destination across the globe, and received another endorsement recently becoming one of the emerging destinations and one of the most popular global destinations from the key findings of the 2018 Virtuoso Luxe- Australian edition report.

In parallel to this achievement, Sri Lanka Tourism completed a successful series of road shows and a consumer fair in the major cities of Perth, Melbourne and Sydney. Sri Lanka has bagged several awards as an upcoming destination this year, as Asia’s leading adventure tourism destination, Asia’s leading destination at the World Travel Awards, becoming the best long – haul destination at the family traveler awards held in UK, and also was voted as finalist for culture and holiday destination category at the travel bulletin star awards which was held recently in London.

According to Virtuoso’s Asia Pacific Managing Director, Michael Londregan, “Australians always have a robust bucket list and start each year ready to explore the world. This year it seems that many are drilling down the list beyond the perennial favorites’ to exotic cultures and natural wonders’’.

“It’s clear that 2018 will be a year of exploration and immersion. Perhaps it’s the geopolitical climate, but there is no doubting the trend for destinations that were once warm, are now hot’’.

Sri Lanka was named in the Virtuoso’s bucket list of emerging destinations among Japan, Iceland, Portugal and Norway, while the other categories included most popular global destinations, most popular global destinations, Most popular US destinations and Most popular family destinations. The Virtuoso Company also has its own magazines and also expands its services to cruises, hotels and tours.

These were a few of the endorsements that Sri Lanka won for its uniqueness and holiday friendly atmosphere in par with the ongoing peace process in the country, which has been declared as a safe country to travel. Sri Lanka also has been featured on the National Geographic channel, Lonely Planet and many other international channels and also on social media platforms.

Virtuoso is the World’s leading network of luxury travel experts, revealing the top trends, destinations and motivations for upscale Australian travelers as they head towards the new year, with ‘’ticking items off the bucket list’’ the No. 01 motivation for people travelling in 2018.

By Tom Balmforth

(RFE/RL) — The first appearance was in front of throngs of euphoric young people. The second was before cheering workers at a car manufacturing plant in a regional city. Vladimir Putin has finally announced what few had doubted: He will seek reelection as Russia’s president in the March vote.

But if Putin’s decision was all but predicted, the strategy he and his advisers will use in the coming campaign has so far been unknown. The staggered December 6 announcement came in two grand, highly choreographed TV appearances and offered the first indications of the optics and tactics the Kremlin will use to help coast Putin to victory.

In his first appearance in Moscow, the 65-year-old Putin, wearing a suit and a purple tie, swaggered onto a stage in front of a huge hall of beaming young activist volunteers — some wearing glowing wristbands and recording with smartphones. There, he dropped his biggest hint yet that he would seek to extend his rule until 2024, saying he would make his decision “soon.”

Soon came just a few hours later, when Putin appeared at a second event, this time in the Volga region industrial city of Nizhny Novgorod. Standing on a stage at the GAZ auto manufacturing plant, which makes boxy Volga sedans and GAZ light trucks, Putin, sporting a navy tie this time and surrounded by workmen in slacks, announced his intention to run.

“I will put forth my candidacy for the post of president of the Russian Federation,” Putin said on live TV.

Asked whether he would run for reelection by a GAZ workman — who later insisted that his question hadn’t been scripted — Putin said that he couldn’t “think of a better time or place to announce it,” after which the crowd erupted in chants of “GAZ is for you!”

Valentina Buzmakova, a political analyst in Nizhny Novgorod, said the Kremlin is hoping to invigorate Putin’s image through his proximity to young people and predicted he will continue to do so throughout his campaign.

She called the auto factory a “postcard enterprise.”

“They needed a postcard and a workers’ collective, and against this backdrop, Mr. Putin, the servant of the people, the candidate of the people, announced his participation in the election,” she told RFE/RL’s Russian Service.

“He is now going to undoubtedly choose a young audience so that there are as many smiling young faces around him to make him look younger. This is all calculated and he’s been doing this for a long time,” she said.

Putin has courted younger voters at a series of youth forums and events organized by authorities in recent months.

These events, all of which are covered extensively on state TV and elsewhere, suggested a Kremlin concern about a lack of support from younger Russians, who may be drawn to Kremlin gadfly and anticorruption campaigner Aleksei Navalny.

Despite being blacklisted from opinion-shaping national TV, Navalny has twice this year brought thousands of his supporters onto the streets in the capital and across the country in anti-Kremlin protests. He’s harnessed social media like Twitter and in particular YouTube to attract young supporters.

Last December, Navalny, 41, announced his intention to take part in the election in March and has since set up scores of campaign offices and met voters across the country. However, he is likely to be barred outright from taking part because of a criminal conviction on charges he says were trumped up to keep him off the ballot.

Speaking to RFE/RL’s Russian Service on December 4, Navalny ally Vladimir Milov said it is wrong to expect Navalny’s campaign to give up and throw in the towel if or when he is officially barred from running.

“That will only be the start of it,” Milov said, claiming they will dispute the decision in court and “fight for Navalny’s registration until March 18,” the scheduled date of the election, and beyond.

Writing on Twitter on December 6, Navalny noted how Putin’s presidential announcement was made not far from where Navalny’s campaign manager, Leonid Volkov, is being held on a 30-day jail sentence.

Volkov was jailed for organizing a rally in Nizhny Novgorod that authorities said he did not have permission to hold. He insists he did have permission.

“The best illustration of how elections work in Russia is that Putin announced his candidacy in Nizhny Novgorod, and 1 kilometer away from him is the cell containing Leonid Volkov, the head of my campaign headquarters. He was arrested for conducting an election campaign.”

In an opinion piece for Novaya Gazeta, the newspaper’s chief political editor, Kirill Martynov, argues that the optics of the announcement — Putin flanked by blue-collar automotive workers — appears to pave the way for an ultraconservative campaign.

“The format of the announcement was maximally conservative, which definitely will influence the onward course of the campaign and its results. The details speak for themselves,” Martynov wrote.

The last time Putin announced that he would stand again for president was in September 2011 when he declared he would return to the Kremlin after a four-year stint as prime minister.

The constitution prevents presidents from serving more than two consecutive terms, and Putin honored this rule, stepping aside for four years as Dmitry Medvedev served as president from 2008-12. The constitution was later amended, however, by Medvedev to allow presidents to serve for six-year terms.

The 2011 announcement that Putin would return riled a swathe of Russians, particularly in the capital and in big cities. Thousands took to the streets months later to protest against alleged fraud during parliamentary elections in December 2011.

Putin weathered those protests, making a conservative pivot in his politics and making overtures to blue-collar workers. After his reelection, he appointed Igor Kholmanskikh, a tank factory foreman, as his special presidential envoy to the Urals region.

There were echoes of this in his December 6 announcement at the car factory, though with Putin’s genuine popularity and the Kremlin’s tight grip on both media and the levers of power, some analysts played down the significance of the location.

“Of course, it is interesting that he chose a big factory to demonstrate his proximity to the people,” said Dmitry Oreshkin, head of the Moscow-based Mercator think tank. “But who would doubt this? He could have done it, for instance, somewhere in a remote village and it wouldn’t have looked bad.”

Owing to the political scenario of Pakistan it is generally anticipated and expected that Imran Khan could win the 2018 General Elections and become the prime minister of Pakistan. But why would one want Imran Khan to be the next PM of Pakistan? The answer is simple: Expectations.

One would want see Imran Khan as PM because he promised that he would make Pakistan a kind of a country that Qaid-E-Azam envisioned. That would be a progressive Muslim State where people’s rights would be protected and exclusion and discrimination of all sorts would be eliminated. Merit would prevail over privilege. It is evident in many of his policies in KP. Reservation of quota for women and minorities and introduction of merit in recruitment to public sector jobs, mainstreaming madrasahs by providing funds for building colleges and schools in madrasahs and affiliating them with boards of intermediate and secondary education and devolution of developmental funds to district and village councils are some of the examples of such policies.

Qaid-E-Azam wanted Pakistan to be a country where the civil and military establishments are subordinate to the political executives. Owing to the history of establishment’s dominance in Pakistani politics, many are not confident enough that Imran Khan would prevail over the establishment. On the other hand, Imran Khan claims that he would convince the establishment to opt for better policy alternatives.

Many want him to be next PM because he talks and cares about environment. Pakistan is among the ten countries that are most vulnerable to climatic disasters. Pakistan is far behind the minimum forest cover and needs extensive reforestation program. By planting one billion trees and taking steps to stop deforestation in KP, he demonstrated his ability to work for the protection and improvement of environment.

What seems good to many is that he talks about cultivating strong civilian institutions. He talks about strengthening of police, FIA, FBR and NAB. Strong civilian institutions would reclaim the space that they had conceded to other non-civilian institutions and judiciary. His commitment to building institutions is reflected in KP Police Act which is democratic and in keeping with the modern policing in the developed world. His commitment for strengthening of civilian institutions would restore institutional balance and bring social, political and economic stability to Pakistan.

However, many complain that he does not talk about strengthening of the Parliament. It is unknown that how he would free the Parliament from the clutches of undemocratic influences. For the last several years, Parliament is being used as a rubber stamp for approving of undemocratic laws. One such example is the passage of the Electoral Reforms Bill which allowed a person disqualified by the Supreme Court to become the president of a political party. The purpose of the bill was to pave the way for Nawaz Sharif, who is recently disqualified for concealing his assets by the Supreme Court from holding any public office, to become the president of PML-N.

Khan talks about welfare state. A welfare state is one that cares about its citizens. That would need social security programmes. He introduced Sehat Insaf Cards to provide for free medical care to those residents of KP who lack the resources to bear the cost of their healthcare. The results of the initiative are encouraging as many people are treated for ailments, without any cost, which they would be unable to bear the cost without the card.

What is more important that he talks about is the alleviation of poverty from Pakistan. He promised time and again to alleviate the poverty from the country and that makes sense among those who lack resources to arrange for meal three times a day. However, it is not clear that how he would bring an end to the menace of poverty. He has not disclosed yet his strategies for alleviating the poverty.

Khan talks about quality education and access to healthcare for all. His government in KP allocated sufficient resources to health and education. He introduced several reforms to improve governance and service delivery in the two sectors. His government recruited more than 40000 qualified teachers and more the 3500 doctors in KP. The KP government issued health insurance cards to the less resourceful people of the province and established insulin banks in all the districts of KP to provide for insulin free of cost to diabetic patients.

Khan talks about equality and justice. He has a clear programme for ensuring equality and justice through ‘rule of law’ and ‘good governance’. A monitoring report issued by PILDAT showed that his government in KP has showed significant improvements on the indicators of ‘rule of law’ and ‘good governance’. He depoliticized police in KP. He introduced merit into recruitment to the public sector in order to ensure justice for the people and bring efficiency to the government institutions. He passed Right to Information Act through KP Assembly to bring transparency to the government business.

Peace and stability in Afghanistan are necessary for Pakistan’s progress. Imran Khan, being a sportsman, always talks about peace and abhors war. As a member of opposition, he severely criticized US intervention in Afghanistan and emphasized US forces’ withdrawal from Afghanistan. For many, however, the withdrawal would be the collapse of state authority in Afghanistan and would lead to chaos and anarchy. The Afghan problem needs extensive political and military engagements. Imran Khan needs to come up with an explicit and clear Afghan policy. As a PM, it would be a difficult challenge for him. It is unclear as how he would engage the different stakeholders of the Afghan problem and how he would win over the security establishment of Pakistan in this matter.

*Farhad Khan, Research Student at Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, Islamabad, Pakistan.

Palestinians observed a general strike on Thursday, shuttering businesses and institutions en masse in protest of US President Donald Trump’s announcement recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

Palestinian national factions released a joint statement shortly after Trump’s announcement on Wednesday calling for a general strike and widespread marches and protests, that as of late Thursday afternoon have seen over 50 Palestinians injured by Israeli forces.

Palestinian universities, schools, and educational institutions also declared a strike after instruction from the Palestinian Ministry of Education.

The Greek Orthodox Church of Bethlehem declared Thursday as a day of mourning and rang bells of the church at 11:00 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. in mourning and condemnation of the decision.

In the northern occupied West Bank city of Nablus, governor Akram Rjoub said in a speech that “Trump’s decision is just ink on paper, but the faith of Palestinians in Jerusalem is bigger and stronger than the US decision.”

About 15 million Americans will have either Alzheimer’s dementia or mild cognitive impairment by 2060, up from approximately 6.08 million this year, according to a new study by researchers at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health.

The findings highlight the need to develop measures that could slow the progression of the disease in people who have indications of neuropathological changes that could eventually lead to Alzheimer’s dementia, said Ron Brookmeyer, professor of biostatistics at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health and the study’s lead author. The country’s population is aging and with it comes a growing number of people with Alzheimer’s disease.

The study was published today in the peer-reviewed Alzheimer’s and Dementia: The Journal of the Alzheimer’s Association. The study is the first of its kind that has estimated the numbers of Americans with preclinical Alzheimer’s disease or mild cognitive impairment.

“There are about 47 million people in the U.S. today who have some evidence of preclinical Alzheimer’s, which means they have either a build-up of protein fragments called beta-amyloid or neurodegeneration of the brain but don’t yet have symptoms,” Brookmeyer said. “Many of them will not progress to Alzheimer’s dementia in their lifetimes. We need to have improved methods to identify which persons will progress to clinical symptoms, and develop interventions for them that could slow the progression of the disease, if not stop it all together.”

The researchers examined the largest studies available on rates of progression of Alzheimer’s disease and used that information in a computer model they built that took into account the aging of the U.S population. The model projected the numbers of people in preclinical and clinical disease states.

They found that by 2060 about 5.7 million Americans will have mild cognitive impairment and another 9.3 million will have dementia due to Alzheimer’s. Of the latter group, about 4 million Americans will need an intensive level of care similar to that provided by nursing homes. Mild cognitive impairment is an intermediate clinical stage that does not yet meet the threshold for dementia. Brookmeyer estimates that today about 2.4 million Americans are living with mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer’s disease.

“Estimates by disease state and severity are important because the resources needed to care for patients vary so much over the course of the illness,” Brookmeyer said.

There are some sources of uncertainty in the findings. Participants in the studies the researchers examined may not represent all demographics. Also, there are other types of dementia, such as vascular dementia, that were not examined but could have an impact on these numbers.

Whenever one hears the word ‘refugee’, there are many things that come to mind instantly which includes ‘human rights’, ‘mass exodus’, ‘violence’, ‘threat’, ‘national security’, etc.

A refugee is defined as “a person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it”.

This definition is given by the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees which is a very crucial treaty in international refugee law. The treaty entered into force 50 years ago on 4rth October 1967 and 146 countries are parties to the Protocol.

India in its 70 years of journey as an independent nation-state has seen fair share of refugee problem. It started at the time of partition of itself. Though, those people who crossed boundaries from erstwhile Pakistan either by choice or forcibly didn’t lose their nationalities but were forced to live the lives of a refugee. A lot of refugee camps across north India served as homes of people who faced the horrors of partition.

Since these refugees didn’t lose their nationalities and were automatically the citizens of newly independent India, the question of a threat to national security due to their presence in Indian Territory was out of question. But at this juncture when India was just trying to stand on its feet and provide the basic amenities like food, clothing and shelter to the refugees, India was attacked in 1948 by Pakistan, sensing the delicate situation especially in northern India which was filled with refugees.

Though indirectly, the national security of India was challenged. Food security and economic security was another major concern of the government because after the partition, the population of the country increased. This is precisely because more people came to India after partition than those who chose to leave India.

The next major movement of refugees towards India happened in 1959 when the Dalai Lama along with more than hundred thousand of his followers came to India to seek political asylum. Granting political asylum to them on humanitarian grounds proved costly to India as China was highly irked by this step of India. Chinese wanted to crush every Tibetan voice after their uprising in 1959 in Lhasa, but since India gave asylum to Dalai Lama along with his followers, Sino-Indian relations took a major hit.

The border issues between the two countries and Chinese encroachment of Indian Territory started to come out more openly after India’s decision to give asylum to Tibetan refugees. The 1962 war with China proved very costly to India as India lost the war badly. Though, there were many reasons for India-China conflict leading to war, but granting political asylum to Tibetans was certainly one of the triggers to irk Chinese authorities leading to war.

The next major refugee crisis happened during the Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971 when millions of refugees migrated from Bangladesh to avoid rapes and Genocide by Pakistani Army. This led to a population outburst suddenly and it became pretty difficult for the then government of India to ensure food security to a sudden rise in population. The other which happened was the constant tussle between the local communities and refugees which often took a violent turn, often ending up in killing people.

This kind of tussle was seen many a times in India’s north east. Since Bangladesh is surrounded by India from three sides, many refugees took shelter in Indian states like Assam, Tripura and Manipur. The local communities and tribal groups in India’s north east have alleged that refugees from Bangladesh and the continuous flow of illegal immigrants have led to a change in the social demography of that area, thereby making the tribal communities a minority in their own homeland. This was one of the primary reasons behind the Kokrajhar riots in Assam in 2012.

The other large sections of refugees in India are Sri Lankan Tamils who were forced to move out from Sri Lanka. This was due to the active discriminatory policies by successive Sri Lankan governments, events like Black July Riots of 1983 and the bloody Sri Lankan civil wars that over a million Sri Lankan Tamils were forced to seek refuge in India.

Apart from these major refugee groups, a small chunk of Afghan refugees also took shelter in India after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. Though, small groups of Afghan refugees kept coming to India in subsequent years. Some Pakistani Hindu families are also trying to seek Indian citizenship and are currently living as refugees in India.

Both the World Bank and UNHCR reports suggest that currently India has more than 2 lakh refugees living in its territory. The debate over refugees escalated earlier this year after 40 thousand Rohingya Muslims escaped Myanmar to take shelter in India. The office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) issued identity cards to about 16,500 Rohingya in India, which it says helps “prevent harassment, arbitrary arrests, detention and deportation” of refugees. Although, the government of India sees Rohingyas as ‘illegal immigrants’ and wishes to deport them back.

To conclude, over the years India has seen waves of mass refugees from most of its neighboring countries. Whenever a major conflict has arisen in the Indian neighbourhood, people from those territories took asylum in India. As a responsible nation state, India has generally followed the principle of “non-refoulement” which means-not sending back refugees to a place where they face danger. But the larger question that still persists is that how long can India keep granting asylum to refugee seekers on humanitarian grounds and sustain its already oversized population?

*Martand Jha is a student of International Relations, an observer of Indian media.

A couple of months ago, I felt that we had entered an important moment in the history of this country. We were finally beginning to listen to women about the ways in which men’s actions affect them. That moment was long overdue. I was excited for that conversation, and hopeful that it would result in real change that made life better for women all across the country and in every part of our society.

Then, the conversation turned to me. Over the last few weeks, a number of women have come forward to talk about how they felt my actions had affected them. I was shocked. I was upset. But in responding to their claims, I also wanted to be respectful of that broader conversation, because all women deserve to be heard, and their experiences taken seriously.

I think that was the right thing to do. I also think it gave some people the false impression that I was admitting to doing things that, in fact, I haven’t done. Some of the allegations against me are simply not true. Others, I remember very differently.

I said at the outset that the Ethics Committee was the right venue for these allegations to be heard, and investigated, and evaluated on their merits. That I was prepared to cooperate fully. And that I was confident in the outcome.

You know, an important part of the conversation we’ve been having the last few months has been about how men abuse their power and privilege to hurt women.

I am proud that, during my time in the Senate, I have used my power to be a champion for women – and that I have earned a reputation as someone who respects the women I work alongside every day. I know there’s been a very different picture of me painted over the last few weeks. But I know who I really am.

Serving in the United States Senate has been the great honor of my life. I know in my heart that nothing I have done as a Senator – nothing – has brought dishonor on this institution. And I am confident that the Ethics Committee would agree.

Nevertheless, today I am announcing that, in the coming weeks, I will be resigning as a member of the United States Senate.

I, of all people, am aware that there is some irony in the fact that I am leaving while a man who has bragged on tape about his history of sexual assault sits in the Oval Office, and a man who has repeatedly preyed on young girls campaigns for the Senate with the full support of his party.

But this decision is not about me. It’s about the people of Minnesota. And it’s become clear that I can’t both pursue the Ethics Committee process and, at the same time, remain an effective Senator for them.

Let me be clear. I may be resigning my seat, but I am not giving up my voice. I will continue to stand up for the things I believe in as a citizen, and as an activist.

But Minnesotans deserve a Senator who can focus with all her energy on addressing the challenges they face every day.

There is a big part of me that will always regret having to walk away from this job with so much work left to be done. But I have faith that the work will continue, because I have faith in the people who have helped me do it.

I have faith in the dedicated, funny, selfless young men and women on my staff. They have so much more to contribute to our country. And I hope that, as disappointed as they may feel today, everyone who has ever worked for me knows how much I admire and respect them.

I have faith in my colleagues, especially my senior Senator, Amy Klobuchar. I would not have been able to do this job without her guidance and wisdom. And I have faith – or, at least, hope – that members of this Senate will find the political courage necessary to keep asking the tough questions, hold this administration accountable, and stand up for the truth.

I have faith in the activists who organized to help me win my first campaign and who have kept on organizing to help fight for the people who needed us: kids facing bullying, seniors worried about the price of prescription drugs, Native Americans who have been overlooked for far too long, working people who have been taking it on the chin for a generation – everyone in the middle class and everyone aspiring to join it.

I have faith in the proud legacy of progressive advocacy that I have had the privilege to be a part of. I think I’ve probably repeated these words ten thousand times over the years, Paul Wellstone’s famous quote: “The future belongs to those who are passionate and work hard.” It is still true. It will always be true.

And, most of all, I have faith in Minnesota. A big part of this job is going around the state and listening to what people need from Washington. But, more often than not, when I’m home, I’m blown away by how much Minnesota has to offer the entire country and the entire world. The people I have had the honor of representing are brilliant, and creative, and hard-working. And whoever holds this seat next will inherit the challenge I’ve enjoyed for the last eight and a half years: being as good as the people you serve.

This has been a tough few weeks for me. But I am a very, very lucky man. I have a beautiful, healthy family that I love, and that loves me very much. I am going to be just fine.

I’d just like to end with one last thing.

I did not grow up wanting to be a politician. I came to this relatively late in life. I had to learn a lot on the fly. It wasn’t easy. And it wasn’t always fun.

I’m not just talking about today. This is a hard thing to do with your life. There are a lot of long hours and late nights and hard lessons, and there is no guarantee that all your work and sacrifice will ever pay off. I won my first election by 312 votes – it could have easily gone the other way. And even when you win, progress is far from inevitable. Paul Wellstone spent his whole life working for mental health parity, and it didn’t pass into law until six years after he died.

This year, a lot of people who didn’t grow up imagining they’d ever get involved in politics have done just that. They’ve gone to their first protest march, or made their first call to a member of Congress, or maybe even taken the leap and put their name on a ballot for the first time.

It can be such a rush, to look around at a room full of people ready to fight alongside you, to feel that energy, to imagine that better things are possible. But you, too, will experience setbacks and defeats and disappointments. There will be days when you will wonder whether it’s worth it.

What I want you to know is that, even today, even on the worst day of my political life, I feel like it’s all been worth it. “Politics,” Paul Wellstone told us, “is about the improvement of people’s lives.” I know that the work I’ve been able to do has improved people’s lives. I would do it all over again in a heartbeat.

For a decade now, every time I would get tired, or discouraged, or frustrated, I would think about the people I was doing this for, and it would get me back up on my feet. I know the same will be true for everyone who decides to pursue a politics that is about improving people’s lives. And I hope you know that I will be right there fighting alongside you, every step of the way.

With that, M. President, I yield the floor.

Source: Office of Sen. Al Franken

By Michael Bowman

U.S. Senator Al Franken announced he will resign amid a growing firestorm stemming from sexual misconduct allegationsthe second Democratic lawmaker to announce a departure this week under a cloud of moral impropriety.

“Today I am announcing that in the coming weeks I will be resigning as a member of the United States Senate,” said Franken, who has represented Minnesota since 2009, speaking Thursday on the Senate floor.

More than two-dozen fellow Democratic senators had called on Franken to resign after a news media report quoted a former congressional aide as saying Franken forcibly tried to kiss her in 2006.

In recent weeks, several other women accused Franken of groping them, including a Los Angeles radio host who posted a picture of a smiling Franken posing with his hands over her breasts while she slept on a flight during a 2006 tour to entertain U.S. troops in the Middle East.

“Some of the allegations against me are simply not true. Others I remember very differently. I have used my power to be a champion of women,” Franken said, adding, “I may be resigning my seat, but I am not giving up my voice. I will continue to stand up for the things I believe in as a citizen and as an activist.”

The senator also took aim at President Donald Trump and Alabama Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore. Moore has been accused of making sexual advances toward teenage girls and young adult women.

“I of all people am aware that there is some irony in the fact that I am leaving, while a man who has bragged on tape about his history of sexual assault sits in the Oval Office, and a man who has repeatedly preyed on young girls campaigns for the Senate with the full support of his party,” Franken said.

The senator’s colleagues praised his decision to resign.

“This is the right decision,” Senator Amy Klobuchar, a fellow Minnesota Democrat, said in a statement. “Nothing is easy or pleasant about this, but we all must recognize that our workplace cultures — and the way we treat each other as human beings — must change.”

“Senator Franken made the right decision today, but the Senate has so much more work to do … to foster safe work environments and ensure harassers are held accountable,” Democrat Tim Kaine of Virginia wrote on Twitter. “Let’s get to work.”

On Tuesday, the longest-serving member of the House of Representatives, Michigan Democrat John Conyers, quit in the face of sexual misconduct allegations against him. House leaders of both parties had called for his resignation after several women who worked for Conyers accused him of unwanted sexual advances spanning several years.

Allegations of sexual misconduct have roiled the United States for weeks, with dozens of powerful men in the world of politics, business, entertainment and the media losing their jobs after women came forward with graphic allegations of abuse.

A report in The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics, describes a new simple molecular test to detect chromosomal abnormalities — biomarkers known as telomere fusions–in pancreatic tumor specimens and pancreatic cyst fluids. This assay may help predict the presence of high-grade or invasive pancreatic cancers requiring surgical intervention.

More sophisticated imaging of the pancreas has led to increased detection of presymptomatic lesions. The detection of telomere fusions has the potential to help physicians determine whether these lesions have a high likelihood of developing into pancreatic cancer requiring surgical resection or are more likely to be benign and can be followed by “watchful waiting.”

“Clinicians rely on international consensus guidelines to help manage patients with pancreatic cancer precursor lesions such as intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs). These guidelines are useful but pancreatic imaging does not provide sufficient information about the neoplastic nature of a pancreatic cyst. Better characterization of pancreatic cysts could allow more patients with worrisome cysts to continue with surveillance, avoiding the morbidity and risks related to pancreatic surgery,” explained Michael Goggins, MD, Sol Goldman Professor of Pancreatic Cancer Research, Departments of Pathology, Surgery, and Oncology, Sol Goldman Pancreatic Cancer Research Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine (Baltimore).

Telomeres are regions of repetitive nucleotide sequences found at the ends of chromosomes that, under normal circumstances, keep the chromosome intact. When telomeres lose most or all of their telomere repeat sequences, the ends can fuse, leading to cell death or chromosomal instability. “This is a major mechanism that contributes to the progression of many precancerous neoplasms to invasive cancers,” said Dr. Goggins. “Telomere fusions can serve as a marker for predicting the presence of high-grade dysplasia and/or invasive cancer.”

In this report, investigators describe a PCR-based assay to detect telomere fusions in samples of pancreatic tumor or cyst fluid. The assay incorporates two rounds of PCR with the second round using a telomere repeat probe to detect the fusions.

The researchers analyzed tissues from IPMN tumor samples taken from patients undergoing resection, surgical cyst fluid samples, and normal pancreas. IPMNs are the most common type of pancreatic neoplastic cysts. They are characterized by the papillary proliferation of mucin-producing epithelial cells and cystic dilatation of the main or branch pancreatic duct.

This telomere fusion assay was able to identify telomere fusions in more than half of the pancreatic cell lines. Telomere fusions were often detected in tumors with high-grade dysplasia (containing more abnormal cells). Telomere fusions were not found in normal pancreas or samples with low-grade dysplasia.

Similar findings were seen in analyses of cyst fluid, in which the presence of telomere fusions raised the likelihood of high-grade dysplasia or invasive cancer six fold. The telomere fusion events were found to be associated with high telomerase activity (an enzyme that lengthens telomeres) and shortened telomere length.

“We have developed a simple molecular test to detect telomere fusions. This telomere fusion detection assay is a cheaper method for evaluating pancreatic cyst fluid than many next-generation sequencing approaches that are being evaluated for this purpose,” noted Dr. Goggins.

“The authors succeed in showing the presence of shortened telomeres, sporadic telomeric fusions, and increased telomerase activity in a modest proportion of pancreatic lesions,” commented Loren Joseph, MD, of the Department of Pathology at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School (Boston), in an accompanying editorial. He added that the techniques used to detect fusions from cyst DNA and to measure telomere length and telomerase activity are within the scope of many molecular diagnostic laboratories.

Around 15,000 years ago, the Natufian culture appeared in what is today’s Middle East. This culture, which straddled the border between nomadic and settled lifestyles, had diverse, complex origins – much more than researchers have assumed. This finding arises from new research by a team of scientists and archaeologists from the Weizmann Institute of Science and the University of Copenhagen.

The hunter-gatherers of the Natufian culture were spread over modern-day Israel, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria around 14,500 – 11,500 years ago. They were some of the first people to build permanent houses and tend to edible plants. These innovations were most likely crucial to the subsequent emergence of agriculture during the Neolithic era. Previous research had suggested that the center of this culture was the Mount Carmel and Galilee region, and that it had spread from there to other parts of the region. The new study by the Copenhagen-Weizmann team, published in Scientific Reports, challenges this “core region” theory.

The new paper is based on evidence from a Natufian site located in Jordan, some 150 km northeast of Amman. The site, called Shubayqa 1, was excavated by a University of Copenhagen team led by Dr. Tobias Richter from 2012-2015. The excavations uncovered a well-preserved Natufian site, which included, among other things, a large assemblage of charred plant remains. These kinds of botanical remains, which are rare in many Natufian sites in the region, enabled the Weizmann-Copenhagen team to obtain the largest number of dates for any Natufian site yet in Israel or Jordan. The dating was undertaken by Prof. Elisabetta Boaretto at the Weizmann Institute of Science using Accelerator Mass Spectrometry, or AMS, dating. Boaretto is head of the Dangoor Research Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (D-REAMS) lab in the Weizmann Institute. This is one of the few labs in the world that works with the technology and methods that can analyze even the smallest organic remains from a site and precisely date them. With the lab’s specially designed mass spectrometer, Boaretto is able to reveal the amount of carbon-14 in a sample down to the single atom. Based on the half-life of the radioactive carbon-14 atoms, the dating done in her lab is accurate to around 50 years, plus or minus. To ensure the highest accuracy, the team selected only samples from short-lived plant species or their parts – for example, seeds or twigs – to obtain the dates.

Over twenty samples from different layers of the site were dated, making it one of the best and most accurately dated Natufian sites anywhere. The dates showed, among other things, that the site was first settled not long after the earliest dates obtained for northern Israel. Either Natufians expanded very rapidly into the region (which is the less-likely explanation), or the settlement patterns emerged more or less simultaneously in different parts of the region.

“The early date of Shubayqa 1 shows that Natufian hunter-gatherers were more versatile than previously thought. Past research had linked the emergence of Natufian culture to the rich habitat of the Mediterranean woodland zone. But the early dates from Shubayqa show that these late Pleistocene hunter-gatherers were also able to live quite comfortably in more open parkland steppe zones further east,” says Richter. Some of their subsistence appears to have relied heavily on the exploitation of club rush tubers, as well as other wild plants and the hunting of birds, gazelle and other animals.

These new dates do not always jibe with the idea that climate change was the main driver of abandonment or resettlement, although it clearly played a role.

Boaretto says that the “core area” theory may have come about, in part, because the Mt. Carmel sites have been the best preserved and studied, until now. In addition to calling into question the idea of the Natufian beginning in one settlement and spreading outwards, the study suggests that the hunter-gatherers who lived 15,000 to 12,000 years ago were ingenious and resourceful. They learned to make use of numerous plants and animals where ever they were, and to tend them in a way that led to early settlement. The authors say that this supports a view in which there were many pathways to agriculture and “the ‘Neolithic way of life’ was a highly variable and complex process that cannot be explained on the basis of single-cause models.”

Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte has brought back the national police to his anti-narcotics war, two months after suspending the force from the campaign that has killed thousands of mostly poor Filipinos.

Duterte directed the Philippine National Police on Dec. 5 to provide “active support” to all drug-related operations.

He had previously removed the force from the campaign amid reports of police committing gross rights violations.

Presidential spokesman Harry Roque said the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency “remains the overall lead agency” in conducting the campaign.

He said the president was responding to a “public clamor” to bring the national police back to the anti-narcotics campaign.

There has been “a notable resurgence in illegal drug activities and crimes” since the national police and other law enforcement agencies were barred from participating in operations, Roque said.

This decision “signals more deaths of innocent civilians and more human rights violations,” Faith-based group Rise Up told ucanews.com.

“We have documented various human rights violations in the war on drugs,” said Rubylin Litao, spokesperson of the group.

Rise Up is helping families of victims file charge against police. Litao said they are currently readying a new set of criminal and administrative cases.

At least two Catholic bishops said reintroducing the national police to the war on drugs is a “bad decision.”

Manila Auxiliary Bishop Broderick Pabillo said Duterte’s decision “shows the manner of his fickle-minded rule.”

Retired bishop Teodoro Bacani of Novaliches said Duterte was “more interested in body counts” instead of implementing “significant reforms” in law enforcement.

By Elise Harris

Christians leaders in Jerusalem have voiced fear over the repercussions of America’s recognition of the city as Israel’s capital, asking that international law be respected in the interest of maintaining peace.

According to Fr. David Neuhaus, a priest in the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem and former Parochial Vicar for Hebrew-speaking Catholics in the city, the first reaction to the decision was fear.

“You touch Jerusalem, things explode,” he said, explaining that for people on the ground, there are three primary concerns over the move, the first of which is “how many people are going to die? … To what extent is there going to be violence and loss of life?”

Speaking to CNA over the phone from Jerusalem, he said on a second level, there is also concern over the fact that the U.S. has strayed from a position that has been a widely accepted in international law, and to which the Holy See has also “very, very strenuously and strictly” stuck.

“The Holy See has remained very strictly within that discourse, and the kind of upset that it causes now to think that one of the strongest countries in the world doesn’t seem willing to stay within a discourse that we have been using and that has been very useful in trying to find a solution to the problem of Jerusalem,” is concerning, Neuhaus said.

A third immediate concern, which the Church itself has taken a particular interest in, is over the character of Jerusalem itself, he said, explaining that to drag the city into a contentions political debate “is endangering the character of the city as a holy city.”

There is real concern not just for the preservation of the holy sites in Jerusalem – which holds special religious significance for Jews, Christians and Muslims – but also for the people who visit them, the priest said.

The people, he said, “always kind of vanish from this kind of politicized discourse, because we talk about protecting stones, and our fear is yes, you can wonderfully keep a museum, but there aren’t people there anymore.”

“If violence breaks out, pilgrimages will stop and pilgrims will be in danger because when countries take positions like this, which seem to be positions that exclude someone else, yes the people are in danger,” he said, adding that this concern is also just as valid for the people who live in the city.

Jerusalem is a place where certain groups of people “feel more and more alienated” and excluded, and who feel “that one narrative is being preferred over other narratives, one religious tradition is triumphing over others,” he said, so in this sense, the Trump decision could alter the character of the city itself.

While right-wing Israelis have been celebrating the decision, likening it to the 1917 Balfour declaration announcing British support for the establishment of a “national home for the Jewish people,” for Palistinians, both Christian and Muslim, “there is despair.”

In general, Neuhaus said the feeling is that the move betrays what had previously been decided by the international community, who recognized the “special status” of Jerusalem and tried to protect it from becoming the center of conflict.

However, rather than doing this, the Trump administration’s announcement “is very clearly putting Jerusalem right in the middle,” the priest said, adding that there is also confusion over what this will mean in the long run.

Trump never said what Jerusalem is, so in terms of a two-state solution, which has been supported by the U.N. and the wider international community, “what are these two states?”

Neuhaus said the “bravado” with which Trump made the announcement was “kind of spitting in the face of the rest of the world, which is saying this might not be the most prudent thing to do.”

“This kind of discourse does not prevent division it provokes division,” he said, and while they are hoping for the best, the future is unclear.

Many Israelis, he said, are asking themselves the question: “is Israel going to have to pay a price for this American gift? … Is this part of something bigger that we can’t see right now?”

“These things will become clear in the months to come,” he said, but noted that “something has changed, and that change is not going to be for the good.”

Neuhaus’ concerns echoed those of the patriarchs and heads of Churches and ecclesial communities in Jerusalem.

On Dec. 6, 13 of these leaders signed an open letter to Trump saying they have followed the news of his decision “with concern.”

“Jerusalem, the city of God, is a city of peace for us and for the world,” however, unfortunately, “our holy land with Jerusalem the Holy city, is today a land of conflict.”

Recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, they said, will only lead to “increased hatred, conflict, violence and suffering in Jerusalem and the Holy Land, moving us father from the goal of unity and deeper toward destructive division.”

Peace in the area “cannot be reached without Jerusalem being for all,” the signatories said, and urged the United States “to continue recognizing the present international status of Jerusalem.”

“Any sudden changes would cause irreparable harm,” they said, and voiced their confidence that with adequate support, both Israelis and Palestinians “can work towards negotiating a sustainable and just peace” that is beneficial for all sides.

“The Holy City can be shared and fully enjoyed once a political process helps liberate the hearts of all people that live within it from the conditions of conflict and destructiveness that they are experiencing,” they said, and asked that as Christmas approaches, Trump would join them in their quest to build “a just, inclusive peace for all the peoples of this unique and Holy City.”

The 13 signatories of the letter included six Catholic officials, as well as representatives of Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, and Lutheranism.

Israel has traditionally recognized Jerusalem as its capital. However, Palestinians claim East Jerusalem for the capital of the Palestinian state. In recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, the U.S. is the first country to do so since the state was established in 1948. East Jerusalem was annexed by Israel after is victory in the Six Day War of 1967.

Debate on this particular issue has in many ways been the crux of the conflict between Israel and Palestine, which is backed by Arab leaders and the wider Islamic world.

According to the 1993 Israel-Palestinian peace accords, the final status of Jerusalem is to be discussed in the late stages of peace talks. Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem has never been recognized by the international community, and all countries with diplomatic relations have their embassies in Tel Aviv. However, under Trump’s new plan, the U.S. embassy is to be relocated from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

Recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, then, is likely to increase tension, particularly in regards to the 200,000-some settlements Israel has built in East Jerusalem, which are considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this stance.

After news of the decision broke, Pope Francis during his general audience also voiced “deep concern” over the move, and issued a “heartfelt appeal” to the international community to ensure that “everyone is committed to respecting the status quo of the city, in accordance with the relevant Resolutions of the United Nations.”

More than 30 Palestinians have been injured in clashes across the West Bank and the Gaza Strip amid protests against Trump’s decision.

The position of the U.N. on the Jerusalem issue is that East Jerusalem is occupied Palestinian territory, and that the city should eventually become the capital of the two states of Israel and Palestine.

The Vatican has long supported a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and on a diplomatic level recognizes and refers to both “the State of Israel” and “the State of Palestine.”

The patriarchs and heads of local churches in Jerusalem sent a letter to U.S. President Donald Trump, addressing concerns about the status of Jerusalem. The full text is below.

Dear Mr. President,

We are fully aware and appreciative of how you are dedicating special attention to the status of Jerusalem in these days. We are following with attentiveness and we see that it is our duty to address this letter to Your Excellency. On July 17, 2000, we addressed a similar letter to the leaders who met in Camp David to decide the status of Jerusalem. They kindly took our letter into consideration. Today, Mr. President, we are confident that you too will take our viewpoint into consideration on the very important status of Jerusalem.

Our land is called to be a land of peace. Jerusalem, the city of God, is a city of peace for us and for the world. Unfortunately, though, our holy land with Jerusalem the Holy city, is today a land of conflict.

Those who love Jerusalem have every will to work and make it a land and a city of peace, life and dignity for all its inhabitants. The prayers of all believers in it — the three religions and two peoples who belong to this city — rise to God and ask for peace, as the Psalmist says: “Return to us, God Almighty! Look down from heaven and see!” (80.14). Inspire our leaders, and fill their minds and hearts with justice and peace.

Mr. President, we have been following, with concern, the reports about the possibility of changing how the United States understands and deals with the status of Jerusalem. We are certain that such steps will yield increased hatred, conflict, violence and suffering in Jerusalem and the Holy Land, moving us farther from the goal of unity and deeper toward destructive division. We ask from you Mr. President to help us all walk towards more love and a definitive peace, which cannot be reached without Jerusalem being for all.

Our solemn advice and plea is for the United States to continue recognizing the present international status of Jerusalem. Any sudden changes would cause irreparable harm. We are confident that, with strong support from our friends, Israelis and Palestinians can work towards negotiating a sustainable and just peace, benefiting all who long for the Holy City of Jerusalem to fulfill its destiny. The Holy City can be shared and fully enjoyed once a political process helps liberate the hearts of all people, that live within it, from the conditions of conflict and destructiveness that they are experiencing.

Christmas is upon us soon. It is a feast of peace. The Angels have sung in our sky: Glory to God in the highest, and peace on earth to the people of good will. In this coming Christmas, we plea for Jerusalem not to be deprived from peace, we ask you Mr. President to help us listen to the song of the angels. As the Christian leaders of Jerusalem, we invite you to walk with us in hope as we build a just, inclusive peace for all the peoples of this unique and Holy City.

With our best regards, and best wishes for a Merry Christmas.

Patriarchs and Heads of Churches in Jerusalem
+Patriarch Theophilos III, Greek Orthodox Patriarchate
+Patriarch Nourhan Manougian, Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Patriarchate
+Archbishop Pierbattista Pizzaballa, Apostolic Administrator, Latin Patriarchate
+Fr. Francesco Patton, ofm, Custos of the Holy Land
+Archbishop Anba Antonious, Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate, Jerusalem
+Archbishop Swerios Malki Murad, Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate
+Archbishop Aba Embakob, Ethiopian Orthodox Patriarchate
+Archbishop Joseph-Jules Zerey, Greek-Melkite-Catholic Patriarchate
+Archbishop Mosa El-Hage, Maronite Patriarchal Exarchate
+Archbishop Suheil Dawani, Episcopal Church of Jerusalem and the Middle East
+Bishop Munib Younan, Evangelical Lutheran Church in Jordan and the Holy Land
+Bishop Pierre Malki, Syrian Catholic Patriarchal Exarchate
+Msgr. Georges Dankaye’, Armenian Catholic Patriarchal Exarchate

Engineers at the University of California San Diego have developed a smartphone case and app that could make it easier for patients to record and track their blood glucose readings, whether they’re at home or on the go.

Currently, checking blood sugar levels can be a hassle for people with diabetes, especially when they have to pack their glucose monitoring kits around with them every time they leave the house.

“Integrating blood glucose sensing into a smartphone would eliminate the need for patients to carry a separate device,” said Patrick Mercier, a professor of electrical and computer engineering at UC San Diego. “An added benefit is the ability to autonomously store, process and send blood glucose readings from the phone to a care provider or cloud service.”

The device, called GPhone, is a new proof-of-concept portable glucose sensing system developed by Mercier, nanoengineering professor Joseph Wang, and their colleagues at the UC San Diego Jacobs School of Engineering. Wang and Mercier are the director and co-director, respectively, of the Center for Wearable Sensors at UC San Diego. Their team published the work in Biosensors and Bioelectronics.

GPhone has two main parts. One is a slim, 3D printed case that fits over a smartphone and has a permanent, reusable sensor on one corner. The second part consists of small, one-time use, enzyme-packed pellets that magnetically attach to the sensor. The pellets are housed inside a 3D printed stylus attached to the side of the smartphone case.

To run a test, the user would first take the stylus and dispense a pellet onto the sensor–this step activates the sensor. The user would then drop a blood sample on top. The sensor measures the blood glucose concentration, then wirelessly transmits the data via Bluetooth to a custom-designed Android app that displays the numbers on the smartphone screen. The test takes about 20 seconds. Afterwards, the used pellet is discarded, deactivating the sensor until the next test. The stylus holds enough pellets for 30 tests before it needs to be refilled. A printed circuit board enables the whole system to run off a smartphone battery.

The pellets contain an enzyme called glucose oxidase that reacts with glucose. This reaction generates an electrical signal that can be measured by the sensor’s electrodes. The greater the signal, the higher the glucose concentration. The team tested the system on different solutions of known glucose concentrations. The results were accurate throughout multiple tests.

A key innovation in this design is the reusable sensor. In previous glucose sensors developed by the team, the enzymes were permanently built in on top of the electrodes. The problem was that the enzymes wore out after several uses. The sensor would no longer work and had to be completely replaced. Keeping the enzymes in separate pellets resolved this issue.

“This system is versatile and can be easily modified to detect other substances for use in healthcare, environmental and defense applications,” Wang said. The system stores a considerable amount of data so that users can track their readings over long time periods. However, there is a trade-off in price. While the reusable glucose sensor and 3D printed parts are inexpensive, refill pellets may be slightly more costly than test strips in today’s glucose monitoring kits.

The team envisions one day integrating glucose sensing directly into a smartphone rather than a case. The work is currently at the proof-of-concept stage. Some next steps include testing on actual blood samples and minimizing sample volumes–the current prototype uses at least a dozen drops of sample per test, so researchers aim to cut that down to an amount that’s normally extracted from a finger prick. They also plan to include a function in the app that sends phone alerts reminding users to check their blood sugar.

For years, policymakers have relied upon surveys and census data to track and respond to extreme poverty.

While effective, assembling this information is costly and time-consuming, and it often lacks detail that aid organizations and governments need in order to best deploy their resources.

That could soon change.

A new mapping technique, described in the Nov. 14 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences, shows how researchers are developing computational tools that combine cellphone records with data from satellites and geographic information systems to create timely and incredibly detailed poverty maps.

“Despite much progress in recent decades, there are still more than 1 billion people worldwide lacking food, shelter and other basic human necessities,” says Neeti Pokhriyal, one of the study’s co-lead authors, and a PhD candidate in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at the University at Buffalo.

The study is titled “Combining Disparate Data Sources for Improved Poverty Prediction and Mapping.”

Some organizations define extreme poverty as a severe lack of food, health care, education and other basic needs. Others relate it to income; for example, the World Bank says people living on less than $1.25 per day (2005 prices) are extremely impoverished.

While declining in most areas of the world, roughly 1.2 billion people still live in extreme poverty. Most are in Asia, sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean. Aid organizations and governmental agencies say that timely and accurate data are vital to ending extreme poverty.

The study focuses on Senegal, a sub-Saharan country with a high poverty rate.

The first data set are 11 billion calls and texts from more than 9 million Senegalese mobile phone users. All information is anonymous and it captures how, when, where and with whom people communicate with.

The second data set comes from satellite imagery, geographic information systems and weather stations. It offers insight into food security, economic activity and accessibility to services and other indicators of poverty. This can be gleaned from the presence of electricity, paved roads, agriculture and other signs of development.

The two datasets are combined using a machine learning-based framework.

Using the framework, the researchers created maps detailing the poverty levels of 552 communities in Senegal. Current poverty maps divide the nation in four regions. The framework also can help predict certain dimensions of poverty such as deprivations in education, standard of living and health.

Unlike surveys or censuses, which can take years and cost millions of dollars, these maps can be generated quickly and cost-efficiently. And they can be updated as often as the data sources are updated. Plus, their diagnostic nature can help assist policymakers in designing better interventions to fight poverty.

Pokhriyal, who began work on the project in 2015 and has travelled to Senegal, says the goal is not to replace census and surveys but to supplement these sources of information in between cycles. The approach could also prove useful in areas of war and conflict, as well as remote regions.

The Mexican Senate should reject legislation that would enshrine the role of the Mexican armed forces in law enforcement activities, Human Rights Watch said today.

On November 30, 2017, Mexico’s Chamber of Deputies approved the Law of Internal Security, which authorizes military involvement in domestic law enforcement activities. But the bill does nothing to increase the transparency of the military operations or accountability for military personnel who commit abuses. The Senate could vote on the bill as early as this week.

“Mexico has relied heavily on its armed forces to fight organized crime for more than a decade, and the results have been disastrous,” said Daniel Wilkinson, Americas managing director at Human Rights Watch. “The country desperately needs to improve its law enforcement capabilities, but turning the job over to a military with a terrible human rights record is not the answer.”

Between 2006 and 2016, Mexico’s National Human Rights Commission received almost 10,000 complaints of abuse by the military—including more than 2,000 during the current administration. Human Rights Watch and other rights advocates have also documented numerous cases in which military personal ostensibly involved in law enforcement activities were implicated in extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, torture, and sexual violence. Impunity remains the norm for these abuses.

Since Mexico launched its “war on drugs” in 2006—with major deployments of the armed forces to fight organized crime—more than 100,000 people have been killed and more than 30,000 have gone missing. Homicide rates dropped in 2014 and 2015, but have climbed steadily since, with 2017 on track to be the deadliest year in Mexico in two decades.

The proposed law grants the Mexican military broad authority to engage in “internal security,” including in gathering intelligence “by any legal means possible.” The National Human Rights Commission has said that the law’s vague definitions and lack of objective criteria for what constitutes “internal security” mean that the law can apply to “any” situation. For example, the military would be authorized to engage in crime prevention and investigation.

The proposed law does not include measures to strengthen civilian police institutions, nor an exit strategy for ending the use of the armed forces in law enforcement. The law also includes no measures to ensure independent civilian control and oversight of military operations, or to ensure that civilian authorities properly investigate and prosecute military abuses.

“There needs to be a much more serious debate about security issues in Mexico,” Wilkinson said. “It’s remarkable that after more than 10 years of terrible and tragic results, the Mexican Congress wants to double down on a militarized law enforcement strategy that has proven to be such a costly failure.”

By Rajeesh Kumar*

The re-election of Justice Dalveer Bhandari to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is historic in many ways. For India, as many observers have claimed, it was not only an impressive diplomatic success but a symbolic victory against its former colonial master, Britain, as well. The fiercely-fought election reflected the changing global order and major powers’ reluctance to acknowledge this emergent reality. This is the first time in the 71-year history of the ICJ that Britain, one of the five permanent members (P-5) of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), has no judge on the bench. Bhandari’s election also endorsed the multilateral diplomacy based on realpolitik that India has been practicing in recent years. However, the whole process of the election kindled some grave concerns as well. Indian policymakers need to seriously think as to why Justice Bhandari could not secure an absolute majority in the Security Council during the first eleven rounds of voting. And, the en bloc opposition by the P-5 states raises doubts about their oft professed support for India’s UNSC bid as well.

ICJ and the Game of Numbers

The ICJ is the primary judicial organ of the United Nations. It has a total of 15 judges, five of whom are elected triennially for a nine-year term. To be elected, the candidate must receive an absolute majority in both the General Assembly and the Security Council. Voting takes place in both houses simultaneously but separately. The seats are distributed on the basis of geographical regions which correspond to the membership of the Security Council. As per the current configuration, three seats are allotted to Africa, three to Asia, two to Latin America and the Caribbean, five to Western Europe and two to Eastern Europe.

Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf (Somalia), Cancado Trindade (Brazil), Christopher Greenwood (UK), Dalveer Bhandari (India), Nawaf Salam (Lebanon), and Ronny Abraham (France) were the six candidates for the nine-year term beginning in February 2018. All except Nawaf Salam are currently serving judges and contested for re-election. Out of the six, four (Ronny Abraham, Cancado Trindade, Ahmed Yusuf, and Nawaf Salam) were elected in the fifth round of voting. This placed Bhandari and Greenwood in a fierce fight, which extended to six more rounds of voting and ended only with the withdrawal of the latter and election of the former as the fifth judge to the bench.

Diplomatic Victory

The re-election of Justice Bhandari was a great diplomatic victory for India, especially since the opponent was a P-5 nation. It highlighted the success of India’s multilateral diplomatic outreach. For the past few months, India put great efforts into campaigning for Bhandari and exercised its diplomatic muscle to ensure that its candidate gets re-elected. From lobbying at various capitals by the highest officials including the Prime Minister and External Affairs Minister to the creation of a separate cell at the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) for coordinating the campaign, the government invested a great deal to ensure Bhandari’s victory. Sources with inputs from MEA officials note that India reached out to 176 nations and raised the issue at various global forums, including at the UN General Assembly Meeting, the G-20, and BRICS Summits. Prime Minister Modi personally made a few calls to world leaders while External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj made more than 60 calls to her counterparts for soliciting support.1 To ensure an absolute majority in the Security Council, Minister of State for External Affairs, M.J. Akbar, visited many capitals as the Special Envoy of the Prime Minister. During his visits to Egypt and Senegal, two non-permanent members of the Security Council, Akbar handed over Letters of Thanks from Modi for supporting Bhandari’s candidature.2

Bhandari’s win reiterated the huge backing that India enjoys in the General Assembly. He got 115 votes against 76 for Greenwood in the sixth round of voting held on November 9. In the next five rounds of voting on November 13, Bhandari received 121 votes. This voting record also highlighted the displeasure of the majority of the UN member states against the approach of the P-5, particularly on issues such as UN reforms. P-5 stable position explains their unwillingness to surrender any of the privileges they enjoy, including the tradition of holding the ICJ seats. European resentment against Britain after Brexit and India’s wide acceptability among the developing and underdeveloped countries also worked in the numbers game in the General Assembly.

Faults to Rectify

The election, however, compels us to rethink ties with some of the countries that India considers as close friends. For instance, in the Security Council, all the P-5 members and the non-permanent members such as Japan, Italy, Sweden, and Ukraine voted against the Indian candidate. Only Kazakhstan, Egypt, Ethiopia, Bolivia and Senegal voted in favour of India. Uruguay had voted in favour of India in the first rounds but abstained later.3 The voting pattern in the first eleven rounds in the Security Council unveiled how steadfastly the P-5 members rejected India’s candidate. Surprisingly, Japan, one of the G-4 countries and a front-runner for the Security Council seat with India, also voted against Bhandari.

Many in New Delhi hold the view that Japan is a good friend of India and an India-Japan-US alliance can balance rising China. In September 2017, External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj met Rex Tillerson, US Secretary of State and Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs Taro Kono on the side-lines of the UN General Assembly in New York. It was a part of the India-Japan-US Ministerial level trilateral dialogue to strengthen ties between the three countries. Moreover, Prime Minister Narendra Modi also hosted Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in India recently. Nonetheless, India failed to translate the warmth of its relationship with Japan as a vote in favour of Bhandari in the Security Council. India was also unable to solicit support from its trusted friend Russia.

Further, though it is remarkable that India fought and won a seat that is allotted for ‘Western Europe and Other’ category, policymakers need to ponder over the failure to secure the seat reserved for Asia. India contested in the ‘Europe and Other ‘ category because the Asian position was filled by the Lebanese candidate during the very first round of the election. How did a smaller state like Lebanon manage to mobilize an absolute majority in the Security Council when an emerging power like India could not? This was partly because of India’s very late announcement of Bhandari’s candidacy, only four months back. In contrast, Lebanon had been campaigning for the last two years and managed to get the backing of both houses. This points to the possibility that some of the members of the Security Council including the P-5 had endorsed their support to the Lebanese candidate even before India announced its candidate. This could have happened in the case of the Security Council’s support for Justice Greenwood as well. A longer term strategy and preparation would help to minimize similar occurrences in future.

ICJ Win and Prospects for Security Council Seat

Many analysts have observed that Justice Bhandari’s victory is vital for two reasons. First, since India is campaigning for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council, the ICJ election is a litmus test indicating the quantum of support for New Delhi in the world body. Second is the assumption that Justice Bhandari’s win will be a big boost for India in dealing with the Kulbhushan Jadhav case. But both these assumptions are unfounded. Security Council reform and ICJ election are entirely different matters with unique methods and processes. One will not ensure the other. In contrast to the ICJ election process, in the case of Security Council reform, the P-5 enjoy veto power to block any decision that hurts their interests. The position of the P-5 during the voting and their responses after the election show that nothing has changed in this regard. For instance, while congratulating Justice Bhandari, a State Department Spokesperson echoed the US’ opposition to any alteration or expansion of the veto.4

As for the second argument, once elected, a member of the ICJ cannot act as a delegate of any government or state. Members of the court are independent judges obliged to act impartially and conscientiously and not as representatives of their parent country. It is true that the Kulbhushan Jadhav case had influenced India’s steadfast campaign and its commitment to remain in the contest even after eleven rounds of voting. Nonetheless, legally or morally, Justice Bhandari’s re-election will not bring any advantage to India and its position in this case. Even in the context of voting to settle the final verdict, it is not possible for a government or state to instruct a judge on how he/she should vote. Moreover, there have been many cases in which judges voted contrary to the submissions of their respective countries.5 The only privilege therefore is the prestige of having an Indian judge on the ICJ bench.

The final takeaway of the ICJ election is that it is a triumph of India’s multilateral diplomatic outreach. The pragmatic multi-lateral diplomacy worked well for India in the General Assembly. It is India’s massive support in the Assembly that eventually resulted in the withdrawal of British candidate. Therefore, to ensure such victories in future in global multilateral forums, India should continue to focus on its relationship with small and middle powers and not neglect them in the process of pursuing what could turn out to be unproductive relationships with the great powers, at least in multilateral forums.

Views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IDSA or of the Government of India.

About the author:
*Rajeesh Kumar is Associate Fellow at Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi.

Source:
This article was published by IDSA

Notes:

• 1. http://indianexpress.com/article/india/how-focussed-diplomacy-won-india-… http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/how-india-s-3-way-plan-led-to-d…
• 2. http://mea.gov.in/press-releases.htm?dtl/28950/Visit_of_M_J_Akbar_Minist…
• 3. http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/icj-voting-at-un-india-braces… 20560030.ece; https://thewire.in/198639/britain-india-judge-international-court-justic…
• 4. http://www.uniindia.com/us-congrats-bhandari-on-re-election-to-icj/world…
• 5. For further details see, Stephen M. Schwebel, Justice in International Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011, pp. 25-41.