By Harsh V. Pant

In an age where disruption is the new normal, this one surely gets the cake. The US President Donald Trump, overturning decades of carefully calibrated American diplomatic posturing over the last seven decades, has formally declared Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. With this, an already volatile Middle East is set to explode once again. In a region where certitudes of the past were already under pressure, this move by the Trump administration can have a really far-reaching impact on how regional politics will evolve in the coming years.

While announcing his decision to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, a move which will take years to operationalise, the US President said he was casting aside the “failed strategies of the past.” Defying global warnings Trump said he “judged this course of action to be in the best interest of the US and the pursuit of peace between Israel and the Palestinians.” “We cannot solve our problems by making the same failed assumptions and repeating the same failed strategies of the past,” Trump argued as he officially recognised Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Trump underlined his administration’s support for a two-state solution to the longstanding Israeli-Palestinian conflict, if approved by both sides, which would essentially see the creation of an independent Palestinian state living alongside Israel.

The reactions have been equally strident. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said it was a historic day, and Israel was profoundly grateful to President Trump. Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, on the other hand reaffirmed that Jerusalem was the “eternal capital of the state of Palestine”. He made it clear that “these condemned and unacceptable measures are a deliberate undermining of all efforts exerted to achieve peace and represent a declaration of the United States’s withdrawal from undertaking the role it has played over the past decades in sponsoring the peace process.” Calling for Muslims across the Middle East to rise up against US interests, Hamas, which controls the Gaza strip, accused Trump of “flagrant aggression.”

American allies too have spoken against the decision. European Union foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini criticised this decision to move the US embassy to Jerusalem during her talks with the US Secretary of State who is on a tour of Europe. British Prime Minister Theresa May openly disagreed with the US decision, which she argued was “unhelpful in terms of prospects for peace in the region.” And French President Emmanuel Macron also did not support the move. Eight of the 15 members of the United Nations Security Council have called for an urgent meeting on the US decision by the end of the week.

What is perhaps more interesting is that the US government doesn’t seem all that united behind this decision. The Pentagon and State Department have refused to wholeheartedly back the decision. State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert declined to fully back the move, saying only “the issue rests with the President.” The Pentagon is gearing up for growing military threats with contingency plans in place, in the event that violence breaks out. Additional teams of US Marines have been dispatched to several US embassies in the Middle East as a precaution.

The history behind this decision remains as complicated as ever and that was the reason why successive US administrations kept away from disturbing the status quo. The status of Jerusalem, which contains sites sacred to the three major monotheistic faiths — Judaism, Islam and Christianity — is one of the most sensitive issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For the Palestinian leadership, setting up their own capital in East Jerusalem is central to a potential peace settlement. East Jerusalem was annexed by Israel after the Six Day War of 1967, but is not internationally recognised as part of Israel. All countries have been maintaining their embassies in Tel Aviv.

Despite the US Congress passing the Jerusalem Embassy Act in 1995 which required the US to move the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem by a set deadline, successive US Presidents kept on signing a six-monthly waiver deemed necessary “to protect the national security interests of the United States.” Trump has changed all that. For him, this is a fulfillment of his campaign promise to his conservative and evangelical base. Though he has underscored his administration’s commitment to a two-state solution, he has made it contingent on an agreement by both sides. For America, this can significantly weaken its position as neutral broker in the peace process. China and Russia might rush in to fill the void.

At the broader regional level, Saudi Arabia’s King Salman has said that the move “would constitute a flagrant provocation of Muslims, all over the world.” It is not readily evident if this would mark a rupture in Saudi-US ties. In the past, America’s Arab allies in the region have had either official or covert ties with Israel. Today, a Saudi-Israeli-American equation has been emerging to counter a perceived threat from a resurgent Iran. Despite their rhetoric, the Palestinian cause has never been a priority for the Arab world. They will milk it to satisfy their domestic anger but beyond that are unlikely to do anything significant. They have bigger problems at hand. The reaction from the Arab street is an entirely different matter.

After this decision, New Delhi will face its own set of challenges as it moves in crafting a policy that responds to its converging strategic interests with Israel as well as its support for the aspirations of the Palestinians.

This article originally appeared in DNA.

By Michael Lelyveld

China’s dependence on foreign oil is growing and is likely to keep rising for decades to come, experts say.

Despite increases in international oil prices this year, China’s domestic crude production has continued to slide.

Asian oil prices have jumped nearly 40 percent from their low point in June to a high in November. But China’s crude output has dropped 4.1 percent through October after plunging 6.9 percent last year.

China’s state-owned oil giants have yet to respond to higher prices with increased production, although prices have already climbed past the range of U.S. $45-55 (297-363 yuan) per barrel, which would cover their presumed production costs.

In October, domestic output dipped below 3.8 million barrels per day (bpd) from the average rate of 4 million bpd for all of last year, according to the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS).

The October level was near a low set in August, a record since the NBS began publishing data in 2011.

While production is lagging, imports are rising to meet China’s growing demand.

In September, crude imports soared 12 percent from a year earlier to a near-record of 9 million bpd. Imports have averaged 8.4 million bpd so far this year, according to customs figures.

Month-to-month changes have been attributed to a host of variables, including government-set quotas for imports by independent refiners. But the longer-term growth of imports over domestic production has been a consistent trend.

This year’s spread between rising imports and falling production has already surpassed China’s forecasts for 2020 under its Five-Year Energy Plan, released by the National Energy Administration (NEA) and the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) in January.

Falling investment at China’s major oilfields, like the decades-old and now depleted Daqing field in Heilongjiang province, is likely to extend last year’s drop in output through 2017.

China’s import dependence first reached 50 percent in 2008, gradually rising to 64.5 percent last year. This year’s pace has put China’s reliance on track to reach 69 percent.

As fast as the proportion is rising, a recent study by the International Energy Agency (IEA) found no signs that it will slow down.

By 2040, China’s import dependence will hit 80 percent, the Paris-based IEA said last month in its annual World Energy Outlook.

In a rare official comment on rising import dependence, a Ministry of Land and Resources research center said Saturday that China is “likely” to keep the import ratio within 70 percent until 2035, the official Xinhua news agency reported.

Over the long term, the decline in China’s oil output will prove “difficult to reverse” due to complex geological conditions at oilfields that “struggle to break even at (U.S.) $40-50 (264-330 yuan) per barrel,” the IEA study said.

Even taking new “tight oil” and offshore resources into account, production is forecast to slip to 3.1 million bpd, while demand will rise 35 percent to 15.5 million bpd, including bunker supplies for marine and aviation fuels.

Huge appetite for oil

China will become the world’s leading oil consumer sometime soon after 2030, according to the IEA forecast.

In 2040, China’s net imports are expected to rise to 13 million bpd, taking up nearly 30 percent of all internationally traded oil.

China’s annual costs for imported oil will grow more than fourfold from about U.S. $110 billion (727 billion yuan) now to U.S. $460 billion (3.0 trillion yuan) by 2040, the IEA said.

China has taken a series of steps aimed at reducing the risks to its energy security, including diversifying its sources and increasing its overland supplies with pipelines through Russia, Kazakhstan, and Myanmar.

But limitations of production and logistics will make these only partial solutions.

“This means that, in our projections, China has little alternative but to turn to its existing main suppliers in the Middle East for an additional 1.6 million bpd of supply,” the IEA said. “This in turn would increase its reliance on trade via the Straits of Hormuz and the Strait of Malacca, two potential strategic chokepoints in global trade,” the IEA said.

Mikkal Herberg, energy security research director for the Seattle-based National Bureau of Asian Research, said that prospects for a turnaround in China’s oil output due to this year’s higher prices appear remote.

“The notion that they might somehow suddenly increase domestic oil production seems extremely implausible,” said Herberg.

“Even if they can keep it flat, they’re still headed toward 80-percent import dependence,” he said.

While pipeline deliveries may mitigate some of China’s vulnerability to supply disruptions, an estimated 80 percent of its oil imports will still come by sea.

“The 80-percent oil import dependence plus the 80 percent of that coming through the sea lanes will have pretty profound strategic implications for China,” Herberg said.

The IEA estimates that the Middle East will provide about half of China’s oil supply in 2040, while China will consume about a quarter of the region’s oil exports.

The estimates may understate China’s reliance on the Middle East for the grades of crude that it needs to refine into lower-pollution fuels.

Second pipeline from Russia

China recently completed a second pipeline from the Russian border to its petroleum center at Daqing, doubling the route’s import capacity to 600,000 bpd.

Russia has been China’s leading supplier for nine months in a row, but it has been struggling to stem the rising sulfur content of the crude that it has available.

In October, Interfax reported that Russia is bound by contract under an intergovernmental agreement to supply China with scarce low-sulfur oil, forcing it to raise the sulfur content of oil to its other export customers in Europe.

“The sulfur content of crude (for China) must not exceed 0.65 percent, according to agreements with Chinese partners, but it could take a year and a half to implement these measures,” Interfax said.

The sulfur content of oil available at some of Russia’s western export terminals could rise to 1.8 percent next year as a result, the news agency said.

China’s growing reliance on imports is a crucial reason for its heavy investment in its twin trade and infrastructure initiatives — the Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road, known as “One Belt, One Road,” or OBOR, Herberg said.

These are likely to become linked through port development with growing naval access and support facilities to help protect China’s energy security.

“I think it adds a very powerful driver to China’s blue water naval development and power projection capacity through the Indian Ocean, and developing a whole set of strong diplomatic ties with the littoral Indian Ocean countries,” Herberg said.

Herberg sees the potential for rising tensions not only with the United States over China’s increased presence, but also with Japan, which depends on the same maritime routes for its energy supplies.

“To turn over those vital sea lanes to the tender mercies of the Chinese navy will put the hair up on the backs of the Japanese strategic planners,” he said.

India is also greatly concerned by the implications of a Chinese buildup in the region.

“They see this as part of the Chinese encirclement of India,” Herberg said.

Despite the potential consequences of China’s rapidly rising reliance, the government has said little in recent years about the risks of import dependence, leaving it unclear whether it is a motive or a pretext for expanding naval power.

“It’s not just about oil,” Herberg said.

A ceramic membrane developed by a Spanish, Norwegian and American team of researchers makes it possible to produce compressed hydrogen from methane with near-zero energy loss

Researchers from the Institute of Chemical Technology (ITQ), Valencia’s Polytechnic University (UPV) and the Superior Council of Scientific Investigations (CSIC) have developed ceramic membranes which make it possible to produce compressed hydrogen from methane in a cleaner, cheaper way. Results of the investigation have numerous uses in the field of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles as well as the chemical industry, as this new method is capable of generating hydrogen from methane gas and electricity in just one step and with near-zero energy loss.

Hydrogen is an excellent fuel which, due to its high energetic density and zero greenhouse gas emission, is essential in a great number of industrial processes. Its combination with oxygen in the atmosphere produces energy and water as its sole by-product, making it one of the main candidates to substitute fossil fuels as a source of energy for the transport sector.

CSIC research professor and head of the investigation José Manuel Serra explained that ‘the development and introduction in the market of hybrid and electric cars will allow us to reduce the impact of transport in CO2 emissions in coming years, and as a result, the greenhouse effect on the planet. The next natural step, as proven by the investment made by large automotive industry brands, is the implementation of hydrogen-fuelled vehicles, which have greater autonomy and charge faster than electric ones’.

Researchers at the ITQ have developed a gas separation membrane reactor which is operated electronically and allows for the endothermic production of hydrogen with a near-zero energy loss.

“Our investigations show that it is possible to generate compressed hydrogen in just one step with high efficiency from electricity and methane gas or biogas and, simultaneously, isolate the CO2 and not release it into the atmosphere. Our method allows for the hydrogen to be produced at high pressure in a distributed manner, which means it could be produced in petrol stations, residential areas, garages or farms. By using electricity from renewable sources, our system allows us to generate hydrogen with a very low carbon footprint. We can also store the leftover renewable energy in the form of compressed hydrogen for a later use when the electrical demand is higher, or as fuel for vehicles”, Serra added.

The work of investigators at the ITQ, developed together with the University of Oslo and American multinational company CoorsTek, will make it so that vehicles with a hydrogen fuel cell can be recharged with an energetic efficiency and simplicity similar to that of a battery electric vehicle. Due to methane gas, as a primary energy source, having a noticeably lower cost than electricity, hydrogen could be a cheaper fuel for vehicles than electricity.

Thousands of researchers at the CERN research centre are looking for particles and phenomena that standard physics cannot explain. Aalto University doctoral student Juska Pekkanen is part of a group working with the highest collision energies ever achieved.

The work at the CERN research centre in Switzerland became widely known when the 2013 Nobel-prize-winning discovery of the Higgs boson completed the standard model of particle physics. What Pekkanen and thousands of other physicists at CERN do now, is explore phenomena that fall beyond the current understanding of the sub-atomic world.

For instance, only 15 per cent of the mass of the entire universe can be accounted for now with normal visible matter, the rest is dark matter of which there’s very little knowledge. An equally shrouded mystery is dark energy that makes the universe expand and pushes celestial bodies away from each other.

”Because these and many other unanswered questions still remain, we must try to take them on and understand phenomena that have no explanation in current physics,” said Pekkanen.

One way to do this, is to make protons – the nuclei of hydrogen atoms – collide at tremendously high speeds and energies, and study what comes out of the crashes. Pekkanen and his colleagues have focused on particle bursts called ‘jets’ that are born when protons collide. These events could contain faint signs of completely new particles.

Autopsies for millions of particle bursts

The study of jets at the particle level has become a nascent field in physics, dubbed by Pekkanen and his colleagues at the CERN Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS) experiment as ‘jet particology’. They record the collisions in the CERN Large Hadron Collider and measure their aftermath. Virtually every collision produces jets, or bursts of tens of particles that consist of quarks and gluons. Researchers count the total energy in the jets and measure how their energy is carried by different kinds of particles.

“We are trying to get as detailed an understanding as possible of the jets with the millions of sensors in our 20-metre long, 15-thousand-ton detector. The more accurate we get with our measurements, the easier it becomes to discover new particles,” said Pekkanen.

The thousands of signals that some of the millions of sensors pick up have to be sorted with complex algorithms. By recreating the events with computer simulations, the sensors can be fine-tuned.

Jets could, according to Pekkanen, also be key in finding new massive particles. He has focused on events where a collision of particles produces two jets that burst into opposite directions.

“These events could be the point where an unknown particle is first born and then instantly decays into other particles. We analyse billions of these collisions and see if we spot any abnormalities that could be a sign of revolutionary new particle,” explained Pekkanen.

The study makes use of the highest energy level ever achieved in the Large Hadron Collider: 13 teraelectronvolts. For a single proton that’s quite a lot, roughly the kinetic energy of a mosquito flying. Count all the proton energies together: enough to fly a jumbo jet.

The experiments will continue: by the end of 2022, the physicists expect to collect up to ten times more data.

“So far we haven’t found the next new massive particle. This means there’s a need for designing the next generation of hadron colliders and detectors to reach even higher energies – and hopefully long-awaited new physics.”

Protecting business networks is getting more and more important. But how well do firewalls actually do in protecting sensitive and confidential information? Configuring firewalls can be complicated, even for system administrators, and that can lead to security risks and opportunities for intruders.

Today, almost every company and their systems are connected to the Internet, thereby they are exposed to a huge number of threats. For example, it can lead to confidential data theft, service disruption and financial losses. One of the most important aspects to protect the network and systems connected to it, is to use correctly configured firewalls in order to restrain intruders by controlling the incoming and outgoing traffic.

In his licentiate thesis Artem Voronkov, PhD student in Computer Science at Karlstad University, investigated how firewall configuration can be made more user friendly to help businesses to protect their networks.

“By interviewing system administrators, we have looked at the difficulties they experience when configuring firewalls”, said Artem Voronkov. “Using the interviews as a basis, we have also studied other research in this field to classify the problems and look for possible solutions.”

Firewalls filter network traffic based on a set of rules. These sets of rules have a specific structure that makes them hard to understand. Challenging problems occur when a rule needs to be added or deleted because of the order dependency of rules in rule sets.

“To classify the problem and find solutions we propose a set of usability metrics which we also mathematically formalized. We show that there is a strong correlation between our metrics and how system administrators perceive usability.”

On November 27 Artem Voronkov presented his licentiate thesis. Now he will continue his PhD research study by further investigating solutions on how to improve usability on firewall configuration.

By no means are only elderly people at risk from heart diseases. Physically active individuals can also be affected, for example if a seemingly harmless flu bug spreads to the heart muscle. Should this remain undetected and if, for example, a builder continues with his strenuous job or an athlete carries on training, this can lead to chronic inflammation and in the worst case even to sudden death. The latest issue of the “Forschung Frankfurt” journal describes how modern non-invasive examinations using state-of-the-art imaging technology can reduce such risks.

Professor Eike Nagel and his 12 coworkers at the Institute for Experimental and Translational Cardio Vascular Imaging of Goethe University Frankfurt are developing better ways to predict and diagnose heart diseases. In recent years, the researchers have taken the lead in the development of a procedure that is still very new in heart scans.

Nagel explained the advantages: “With the help of magnetic resonance imaging, we can look right inside the heart muscle.” Blood flow to the heart muscle is visualized and shows whether there are any constrictions of the arteries supplying the heart. Experts can also spot whether the heart muscle is scarred, inflamed or displays any other anomalies.

The comparatively fast method makes it possible to examine patients at an early stage and may prevent cardiac insufficiency or even a heart attack.

“Diseases such as HIV, kidney damage, rheumatic diseases or tumours often affect the heart either directly or as a side effect of therapy,” said Nagel, describing groups potentially at risk. The cardiologist is convinced: “Nowadays we can treat or even cure so many diseases, but the heart suffers too and this should be carefully monitored as it mostly remains undetected.”

MRI is a non-invasive and gentle examination technique, which is less risky but just as efficient as an examination using a conventional heart catheter, where a thin tube is pushed in the direction of the heart through an artery. Nagel’s research group was recently able to demonstrate this in a large international multi-centre study that was met with international acclaim.

The Institute for Experimental and Translational Cardio Vascular Imaging also has state-of-the-art computer tomography equipment at its disposal that can produce three-dimensional images of the heart. These especially reveal calcium deposits and plaques in the artery walls which could rupture and trigger a sudden heart attack. “This allows us to determine the risk of a heart attack and the need for therapy fast and at an early stage, which can then be non-invasive,” said Nagel. Which technique is best for which patient is one of the research topics Nagel’s group is evaluating. In some patients, both may be needed and the Institute is optimally equipped to answer most aspects of heart disease thanks to its deep insight into the heart.

Nagel finds these rapid advances in imaging over the last decades fascinating: “Nowadays we can spot the slightest changes and literally get a clear picture of the heart’s condition.”

Researchers from Queen’s University have launched findings from a research study examining the everyday life experiences of asylum seekers and refugees in Northern Ireland.

The research report, which was launched at an event yesterday (Thursday 7 December), was carried out by researchers from the Senator George J. Mitchell Institute for Global Peace, Security and Justice at Queen’s for The Executive Office (TEO), with the aim of supporting the development of a refugee integration strategy.

Northern Ireland is a relatively new host to asylum seekers and refugees, and currently does not have a refugee integration strategy in place.

Dr Fiona Murphy, Project Lead and Research Fellow at the Senator George J. Mitchell Institute for Global Peace, Security and Justice at Queen’s University Belfast, said: “The research focuses on asylum seekers and refugees, and hopes to support better integration for newcomers into society. This study found that a refugee integration strategy is urgently needed in order to improve pathways to integration into Northern Ireland’s society.

“A number of issues that are highly complex due to Northern Ireland’s unique historical and cultural experiences as a society were identified in the research, as well as issues such as housing, legal support and lack of opportunities for asylum seekers and refugees in society.

“How we address the issue of asylum seekers and refugees living in our society is now imperative given the refugee crisis in Europe.”

The study also found that Northern Ireland would benefit from one overarching organisation like a refugee council to support the integration of asylum seekers and refugees into society.

Dr Ulrike M. Vieten, Research Fellow at the Senator George J. Mitchell Institute for Global Peace, Security and Justice at Queen’s University Belfast, commented: “We found that focusing on better services and supports for asylum seekers and refugees, Northern Ireland’s society as a whole should benefit.

“There are a number of examples in our report which highlight this-one example being at present in Northern Ireland there is poor support for those refugees and asylum seekers who have survived trauma or torture.”

A participant who took part in the research study, Makhosi Sigabade from Zimbabwe, moved to Northern Ireland in 2015. Makhosi, said: “I came to Northern Ireland from Zimbabwe as an asylum seeker, fleeing persecution by the government due to my activism against human rights violations. Since then it has become my adopted home and I have settled well into life here.

“There has been support available to me, but I have also had my fair share of difficulties and challenges, and I also miss my family who are still in Zimbabwe, which is hard. I think this report highlights the difficulties and challenges faced by asylum seekers and refugees coming to Northern Ireland, and suggests how things can be improved to make integration easier for everyone.”

Dr Mark Browne from TEO, said: “TEO welcome the launch of this important piece of research. TEO commissioned this research to fill the knowledge gap in our understanding of the lives of asylum seekers and refugees. While asylum policy is made in Westminster, the Executive has powers to address some of the problems faced by asylum seekers and refugees here. It has exercised these powers in the past to place very positive initiatives in important areas like education, health and helping people in crisis. This research will now help us develop a refugee integration strategy.”

The research, which engaged with asylum seekers, refugees, civil sector organisations and services in health, education, labour and housing, will support the development of a number of key integration strategies for asylum seekers and refugees in Northern Ireland’s Society.

So just how and when did Iran acquire three North Korea nuclear weapons in addition to a suspected ‘dirty bomb’ freebee for Hezbollah?

It is widely agreed that Pyongyang has dramatically deepened its partnership with Tehran’s ‘Axis of Resistance.’ This according to the 16 agency US Intelligence Community as well as some Asian powers. All are said to believe that the DRNK-IROI partnership seeks the ability to launch nuclear weapons into their perceived enemies. Another recent report has it that North Korea has been benefiting from technical assistance from Russia and Pakistan and sharing some of it with Iran while committing about 25 percent of North Korea’s entire gross domestic product to its nuclear weapons program and much of that to missiles.

It’s likely not the case that either Pyongyang or Tehran is anxious to start a nuclear war which would pulverize both countries. Rather both seek ‘respect’ as a member of Iran’s Parliament recently explained to this observer. In practical terms ‘respect’ comes from the ability to launch nuclear weapons globally such that no country is able to challenge North Korean or Iranian geo-strategic goals, the key pillars of which are a united Korea administered from Pyongyang and a return to “Persian Empire” quality regional hegemony. The Parliamentarian from Tehran did not publicly agree with my definition of “respect.”

The deliveries of the nuclear warheads have been a while coming. A brief overview:

More than thirteen years ago, in January 2004, the director of North Korea’s Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center handed an American visitor from Oregon a sealed glass jar tightly packed with plutonium, apparently to convince the skeptical fellow that his country possessed a nuclear deterrent but only to be used if threatened.
In December 2012, North Korea completed its first successful launch of a long-range ballistic missile, confirming American fears that the so-called hermit kingdom had finally acquired the technology to pose a threat to American shores. Critically, according to Asian policy experts, “North Korea’s sudden success on December 12th was not the result of good fortune but rather was the fruition of its increasing instructional cooperation with Iran.”

In 2013, the Washington Free Beacon reported that Iranian missile technicians from the Shahid Hemmat Industrial Group traveled to Pyongyang to work on an 80-ton rocket booster. According to the report, “The booster is believed by U.S. intelligence agencies to be intended for a new long-range missile or space launch vehicle that could be used to carry nuclear warheads, and could be exported to Iran in the future.” Were Iran to acquire this technology, its ballistic missile program would be transformed from a regional into a global threat.

To make the same point last week, Pyongyang lofted a missile 2,800 miles into space and declared it had a nuclear-tipped missile that could destroy much of the United States so please back off and show us some “respect”. Within 90 minutes, countless Iranian basij and IRGC types surfaced in Tehran’s central Azadi Square and chanted, what else? “Death to America the Great Satan!”

The Pentagon estimates that the DRNK has approximately 200 launchers able to fire on short notice a variety of short-, medium- and intermediate-range missiles. According to the Washington Post, citing the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) Kim’s arsenal likely includes as 80 nuclear weapons. But other IC and Asian intelligence agencies believe his number of nuclear weapons is likely higher. But as of today, Kim cannot deliver them with the precision he seeks and is preassembly aware after the first one is fired that his country will largely cease to exist. Ditto Iran.

Iran is currently in negotiations to acquire North Korea’s longest-range ICBM’s to counter Israeli and American threats. This, as pressure mounts given mixed signals emanating from other nuclear arsenals, which given the right cash incentive, may well cooperate with the growing number of Iranian detractors, Arabs, and Sunni Muslims globally among others. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has reportedly rejected DRNK offers to sell Iran older varieties like the SCUD missile, which have a range of 200 to 600 miles, or the No Dong missile which can reach as far as 800 miles.

Rather, what Iran urgently wants to buy are the Musudan and KN-11, which have a range of approximately 2,000 miles. In addition, Iran wants Kim Joun Un sell it the intercontinental ballistic missile that was tested successfully twice last month, the Hwasong-14 and 15 (based on the Soviet Rd-250 missile) which western intelligence agencies including NATO specialists and Asian allies believe puts Israel in very close “we can’t miss” range.

North Korea also claims that both intercontinental ballistic missiles, the Hwasong-14 and 15, when topped with a “super-large heavy warhead,” can strike the US mainland. The country’s state media made the announcement hours after leader Kim Jong Un last month ordered the launch of the Hwasong-15 missile, which reached the highest altitude ever recorded by a North Korean missile. State news agency KCNA called its newest missile “the most powerful ICBM” and said it “meets the goal of the completion of the rocket weaponry system development. After the launch, Kim announced that North Korea had “finally realized the great historic cause of completing the state nuclear force.” The US IC reportedly agrees that the DRNK has reached a major milestone in its nuclear program by creating a miniaturized nuclear warhead which the Hwasong-14 and Hwasong-15 can carry and accurately target selected localities.

Any probative evidence of DRNK-IROI partnership to achieve nuclear arsenals?

A few points. With respect to Iran’s continuing involvement with North Korea’s nuclear program, there is growing speculation based partly on the recent occurrences noted below. U.S. intelligence agencies, according to US Senate Intelligence sources, have photographs and tapes of scores of Iranian defense officials living for weeks at a time in Pyongyang. It is suspected that these Iranian visitors along with their hosts are jointly working on nuclear technological advances. These increasing contacts are cause for alarm according to a Senate Intelligence Committee because they suggest that Iran is indeed racing to develop nuclear weapons– but mainly inside Korea not in Iran– due to UN oversight of Iran.

According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), it was back in the late 2000s, the CIA intensified its monitoring of North Korean cooperation with Iran’s ballistic missile programs labeling them, “ongoing and significant.” The CRS concluded that while Iran had likely exceeded North Korea’s ability to develop, test, and build ballistic missiles, Tehran still relies, despite its denials, on Pyongyang for certain materials for producing Iranian ballistic missiles despite Iran’s denials.

Retired Adm. James Stavridis, a former NATO supreme allied commander, in an interview on 12/17/2017, argued to AM 970 Radio host John Catsimtidis in New York that “North Korea is likely receiving outside help from Iran as it races to develop its weapons arsenal, given how fast it’s moving.  “There is also much cooperation between Iran and North Korea, which we know has occurred in this nuclear warhead race.”

The three DRNK Nuclear warheads and the ‘dirty bomb’ deliveries to Iran allegedly took place during the Spring of 2017. They were transported under heavy guard from Pyongyang’s Sunan International Airport on four separate North Korean regularly scheduled passenger flights of its Air Koryo airline to Iran Air at Russia’s Vladivostok airport in Russia. Whether anyone in Russa knew what the cargo bays held is weak speculation. The U.S. Treasury Department had sanctioned Air Koryo in December 2016 for financially aiding the Kim regime and its ballistic missile program. According to the IC, the Nuclear warheads were then forwarded to Tehran via Russia’s state carrier, Aeroflot, flying through Chinese airspace. All events being egregious violation of U.N. sanctions that prohibited Iran at the time from “any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons,” and North Korea from “exporting nuclear and missile technology.”

After the claimed nuclear warheads transfer, reports have documented that both countries have increased the holding of “high-level meetings,” to expand the “depth” of their military ties and exploring further “military cooperation.” This August, Kim reiterated his support for working with Iran, stating, “Iran and North Korea share a mutual enemy, the United States. We firmly support Iran on its (Iran’s) stance on missile development.”

Mr. Daniel Coats, US Director of National Intelligence testified before Congress on 5/11/2017, shortly after the claimed nuclear transfer, that “North Korea’s export of ballistic missiles and associated materials to Iran and Syria, and its assistance to Syria’s construction of a nuclear reactor, destroyed in 2007, illustrate its willingness to proliferate dangerous technologies.” Not long after, Iran’s President  Rouhani threatened that Tehran could restart its nuclear program within a matter of hours. His statement was chimed in with the IRGC claim that it may “expand and continue with more speed” its ballistic missile program. Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran´s Supreme Leader, claims to have earlier set the maximum range of the Iran’s missiles as 2000 kilometers. This includes Israel as part of the Middle East region where Iran’s perceived enemies are located, including American military bases.

Several of the 16-member US Intelligence agencies allege that senior Iranian regime officials have been flooding into North Korea to observe its six nuclear warhead tests. Chief among these officials, is Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, an Iranian general whom the UN has accused of working closely with Fereydoun Abbasi-Davani on secret nuclear weapons research. Current and former U.S. intelligence officials say these accusations cannot be ruled out, so all known contacts between the two regimes need to be scrutinized closely.

Many of the increasing numbers of North Koreans visiting Iran are from defense industries or secretive financial bodies that report directly to Kim Jong-un, including Offices 39 and 99 of the ruling Workers’ Party of North Korea.

In late 2016 U.S. authorities reported that missile technicians from one of Iran’s largest defense companies, the Shahid Hemmat Industrial Group, had traveled to North Korea to help develop an eighty-ton rocket booster for ballistic missiles. One of the company’s top officials, Sayyed Javad Musavi, has allegedly worked in tandem with the Korea Mining Development Trading Corp. (KOMID), which the United States and UN have sanctioned for being a central player in procuring equipment for Pyongyang’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs. For example, Shahid Hemmat is claimed to have illegally shipped valves, electronics, and measuring equipment to KOMID for use in ground testing of space-launch vehicles and liquid-propellant ballistic missiles.

Early last August, Kim Yong-nam, North Korea’s number two political leader and head of its legislature, flew from Pyongyang to Tehran supposedly for a few days to attend the inauguration of President Hassan Rouhani What alarmed Washington and NATO was the length of Kim Yong-nam’s visit. North Korean state media claimed he was only in Iran for three days, but Iranian state media claimed two weeks, and that Kim was accompanied by a large delegation of Korean scientists. Kim had last visited Tehran in 2012 to attend the Non-Aligned Movement Conference. But did not attend the events associated with that conference, instead focusing on signing a bilateral scientific cooperation agreement with Iran’s then President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

According to U.S. intelligence officials, that agreement was identical to the one Pyongyang inked with Syria in 2002. Israel bombed a building in eastern Syria that the United States and UN believe was a nearly operational North Korean-built nuclear reactor for Iran’s use. One of the Iranian officials who attended the 2012 gathering with Kim was Atomic Energy Organization chief Fereydoun Abbasi-Davani, who was sanctioned by Washington and the UN for his alleged role in nuclear weapons development. Kim also held a string of bilateral meetings with foreign leaders, many from countries that have been significant buyers of North Korean weapons in recent decades, including Zimbabwe, Cuba, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Namibia.

This past September at the request of the CIA and key Congressional leaders, the White House ordered an urgent intensive search for any potential North Korea-Iran bilateral nuclear collaboration. This is years after officials in Washington, Asia, and the Middle East who track the relationship indicate that Pyongyang and Tehran already announced plans to jointly develop their ballistic missile systems and other military/scientific programs.

Certain DRNK-IROI meetings that have gone unreported in state media are of even more concern to Washington and its allies. even more worrisome for allied governments. U.S. and South Korean intelligence have documented a study and increasing number of Iranian and North Korean officials visiting each other seeking to jointly develop their nuclear arsenal and ICBM delivery systems as quickly as possible.

Over the same period, U.S. intelligence agencies have spotted dozens of Iranian defense officials spending weeks at a time in Pyongyang, raising the specter that they are sharing nuclear technological advances with each other. “All of these contacts need to be better understood” a Senate Intelligence Committee staffer opined that Iran is indeed reaching to develop nuclear weapons, but in Korea not in Iran due to NATO and UN oversight in the IROI.

North Korea has become a critical partner in Iran’s “Axis of Resistance,” which Tehran developed to replace US influence in the Middle East. Pyongyang is also Iran’s main arms partner in Syria as an important supplier of arms and equipment to Iran’s most important Arab ally, Syria’s Assad regime. According to current and former U.S. officials, Iranian funded Houthi have also been supplied with weapons from North Korea as it seeks to replace the current government in Yemen.

Several of the 16-member US Intelligence agencies allege that senior Iranian regime officials have frequently visited North Korea to observe and discuss with their counterparts, its six recent nuclear weapons tests. Chief among these officials, is Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, an Iranian general whom the UN has accused of working closely with Fereydoun Abbasi-Davani on secret nuclear weapons research. Current and former U.S. intelligence officials say these accusations cannot be ruled out, so all known contacts between the two regimes need to be scrutinized closely.

Meanwhile, this week, Mark S. Kirk, a former U.S. senator from Illinois, has joined in a new campaign by the pro-Israel group, United Against Nuclear Iran and is urging President Trump, whose ear he is said to have, to get tough with Iran and North Korea. Kirk and his friends are arguing to the White House and Congress that both must follow through on Trump’s promise to impose further sanctions on those found to have helped Iran and North Korea share military technology. According to United Against a Nuclear Iran, the administration must also order the Pentagon to intercept and destroy ICBMs fired from either country in the direction of the U.S. or our allies in the Western Hemisphere.

Wrote Kirk recently, “It’s time for America to show that our rhetoric in response to rogue states is matched with concrete action.”

By Raghida Dergham*

Reading between the lines of US President Donald Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital reveals a deliberate ambiguity, leaving the door open to having the west and east of the city as the capitals of Israel and Palestine, respectively. The symbolism of the change in the official US position is important, while measures taken to transfer its embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in two years will transform the symbolism into action.

More seriously, Trump has introduced what he called reality and facts on the ground to international legitimacy — which had accompanied decades-long efforts regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict — upending fundamental principles in international relations and law. This requires a response that goes beyond slogans, protests, threats, lamentations, censures and one-upmanship regarding the central status of Jerusalem to Arab and Muslim nations.

The first step is to scrutinize Trump’s remarks. He did not talk of an undivided Jerusalem when he recognized the city as Israel’s capital, meaning that he has managed to avoid falling into the Israeli narrative of a “unified Jerusalem.”

Trump claimed his move “is nothing more, or less, than a recognition of reality.” But he left it vague by not distinguishing between West Jerusalem, Israel’s de-facto capital where its government is located, and East Jerusalem, which the Palestinians want as the capital of their future state, despite Israel’s categorical refusal.

So it is important to capitalize on the ambiguity in Trump’s announcement to fill in the blanks, and to push for recognition of the reality on the ground with West Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and East Jerusalem as Palestine’s. More importantly, Arab parties must stop pretending to have been caught off guard, and change their approach of always reacting after it is too late.

A plan is in the works — purportedly to be revealed in 2018 — for an incomplete peace deal between the Palestinians and Israelis based on a non-contiguous, fragmented, demilitarized Palestinian mini-state with limited sovereignty and temporary borders, whose capital would be in Abu Dis, a village near Jerusalem. Its economy would be based on aid and financial consolation packages.

Israel is involved in this plan, and reports suggest Arab governments are too. So let the response be practical, realistic and honest to avoid missing anymore opportunities due to stubborn denial. Otherwise, pragmatism will come in the form of a Palestinian coffin carried on American and Arab shoulders.

Some voices denouncing Trump’s Jerusalem move have appealed to the US to return to playing the role of “honest broker” between Israel and Palestine. But this characterization has always been disingenuous and false. The US and Israel have a strategic alliance and an organic relationship that prevents Washington from being an honest broker.

When Trump said on the campaign trail that he wanted the US to be “unbiased” in the conflict, there was a huge backlash, especially from his Jewish supporters. He has since adjusted his position, entrusting his son-in-law Jared Kushner with the miraculous task of finding a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Kushner believes that the key to a solution lies with the Sunni Arab bloc led by Saudi Arabia, whereby a Palestinian-Israeli peace deal would be part of a regional and international settlement. He is thinking of financial inducements to persuade the Palestinians to accept an incomplete state with provisional borders, and of economic sanctions should they refuse.

Kushner’s ideas are nothing revolutionary in terms of US policy. Rather, they are a logical progression in the context of the steady retreats made by previous administrations since former President Jimmy Carter’s. Since then, the US has gradually but consistently walked away from its own principles, including former President George W. Bush’s endorsement of a historic US-proposed UN Security Council resolution enshrining the two-state solution.

This was the last serious achievement of US policy on the conflict. Former President Barack Obama entered the White House with a slew of promises to achieve an equitable solution, but left eight years later with nothing except a weak resolution that declared Israeli settlement-building unconducive to peace. He even rejected a proposal for an important Security Council resolution that would have laid down a firm grounding for an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal.

The idea of a provisional Palestinian state, or a state with provisional borders, is not new. When I interviewed former US Secretary of State Colin Powell, he proposed this notion, triggering worldwide debate.

The idea of tackling the Palestinian issue via economic and financial packages, without giving Palestinians sovereignty, is also nothing new. It was suggested by former US Secretary of State George Schultz, who served under George H.W. Bush. The same applies to Israel considering Gaza the foundation of a Palestinian state, while rejecting contiguity with the West Bank.

But there are two new things in the Trump’s administration approach: The principle of a grand bargain between Israel and the Sunni bloc, covering the Palestinian issue; and the boldness to relaunch efforts from the thorniest knot in the conflict — that of Jerusalem — which previous efforts had made the last stop.

US Vice President Mike Pence is one of the strongest backers of Trump’s bid, and he believes Jerusalem is Israel’s eternal capital. Pence is flying to meet Middle Eastern leaders soon, and intends to address the Israeli Parliament, but he wanted to have recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in his pocket first.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s opposition to the move does not concern the White House, which considers him a fleeting presence at this juncture. The views of Defense Secretary James Mattis also do not much concern senior White House officials, who are confident the so-called Arab and Muslim streets will not rise up.

They are also confident that a third Palestinian uprising will not come, that it would not last if it came, or that if it lasted, it could be used by Israel to justify further deportations of Palestinians — the only practical solution to the demographic problem in Israel’s thinking.

This could only further undermine the two-state solution, which Israel was not convinced of from the get-go, but was imposed on it by the US and the international community. Closing the curtain on the two-state solution remains an Israeli strategy, which thus includes any measures that escalate anger.

The Security Council previously issued resolutions adopting the two-state solution and rejecting unilateral measures, especially in Jerusalem. But the US envoy to the UN, Nikki Haley, was clear in her support for Israel and recognition of Jerusalem as its capital.

It is important to now monitor how US positions in the Security Council, the General Assembly and UN agencies evolve on the basis of accepting facts on the ground rather than international legitimacy, a battle promised by Haley in support of Israel at the UN.

The Palestinian Authority (PA) has missed one opportunity after another, including in regards to suing Israel at the International Criminal Court, as it had pledged to do before backtracking on several occasions.

The PA had also threatened to dissolve itself to stop serving as a safety valve for Israel. But it backed down after realizing it was the Oslo Accords that established it, and there are no agreements in place that would allow it to return to power if it walked away from the accords.

Hamas remains the biggest factor that has helped Israel capitalize on Palestinian division. It serves as a hidden weapon in Israel’s hands should it need to justify the forcible transfer and deportation of Palestinians when the time comes.

The biggest winner after Trump’s announcement is Israel, but Israel wants him to go further and recognize “undivided” Jerusalem as its capital. This will remain ambiguous until more is known of Kushner’s plan.

Claims that Iran is set to benefit are premature because Tehran is required to prove itself a real opposition to compromises over Jerusalem, beyond lip service. Meanwhile, Russia’s one-upmanship is almost laughable. If it is truly determined to prevent the fall of all of Jerusalem to Israel, it must do more.

Turkey’s hands are bound while its tongue is loose. Its strategic considerations continue to come ahead of any real measures, so its objections will remain superficial. Arab countries — especially Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan — are the forefront, either through unprecedented opportunities that will come from plans for a regional settlement, or via developments that could drag them to a reckoning because of the American faux pas.

• Raghida Dergham is the founder and executive chairwoman of the Beirut Institute. She served as a columnist, senior diplomatic correspondent and New York bureau chief for the London-based Al-Hayat daily for 28 years. She is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and an honorary fellow at the Foreign Policy Association, and has served on the International Media Council of the World Economic Forum. Twitter: @RaghidaDergham

By Jaya Ramachandran

Against the backdrop of growing estrangement between the European Union (EU) and the United States with Donald Trump at the helm of affairs, 23 member states of the European Union (EU) signed up on November 13 for the permanent structured cooperation (PESCO) on defence.

In spite of persisting differences, some three weeks later, Foreign Ministers of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the EU have agreed to step up the U.S.-led Alliance’s cooperation with the EU. Explaining the move, EU High Representative and Vice President Federica Mogherini, told journalists on December 5 that the European Union comprises 28 democracies that maintain with the United States “not a relationship of alliance but of partnership and friendship”. NATO, said Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, is “an alliance of 29 different nations, democracies,” with “very often different views on different issues”.

The new areas of NATO-EU cooperation will include: military mobility, information sharing in the fight against terrorism, and promoting women’s role in peace and security. “We are taking cooperation between NATO and the EU to a new level,” Stoltenberg told journalists.

“So we are taking cooperation between NATO and the EU to a new level. This is more important than ever, as the EU looks to strengthen European defence, through Permanent Structured Cooperation and the European Defence Fund,” he said.

“To ensure these efforts complement what NATO does, we must keep in mind some key principles: EU and NATO capability development must be coherent. Because we cannot present conflicting requirements and priorities to our nations. Forces and capabilities must be available for both EU and NATO. And non-EU Allies need to be involved to the fullest extent possible. Because they play an important role in European security,” Stoltenberg added.

At the PESCO signing ceremony on November 13, Mogherini said: “This is a historic moment in European defence, which just one year ago, most of us and most of the rest of the world considered impossible to achieve.” “Today 23 Member States are engaging to work jointly both on defence capabilities and operational steps, and more may wish to join at a later stage.”

She said she would work to ensure the Council decision launching the PESCO by the end of the year. It will allow those member states willing and able to jointly develop defence capabilities, invest in shared projects, or enhance the operational readiness and contribution of their armed forces.

The member states who signed the joint notification are: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden. It is possible for other member states to join at a later stage.

The joint notification on European defence is the first formal step to set up the PESCO. It sets out:

– The principles of the PESCO, in particular underlining that the “PESCO is an ambitious, binding and inclusive European legal framework for investments in the security and defence of the EU’s territory and its citizens”

– The list of “ambitious and more binding common commitments” the member states have agreed to undertake, including “regularly increasing defence budgets in real terms in order to reach agreed objectives”, and

– Proposals on PESCO governance, with an overarching level maintaining the coherence and the ambition of the PESCO, complemented by specific governance procedures at projects level.

On taking cooperation between the Brussels-based North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the EU to a new level, Stoltenberg explained, the “NATO has ensured European peace and security for almost seventy years. And remains the cornerstone of our collective defence,” adding: “At the same time, we are determined to further strengthen our cooperation with the EU.”

Stolenberg and Mogherini were asked what they made out of the German Foreign minister Sigmar Gabriel’s “comments that U.S. leadership is crumbling, that the U.S. seems to see Europe as a competitor rather than a partner sometimes and is pursuing policies that might be hurting its allies rather than helping.”

Stoltenberg said: “Well, Minister Sigmar Gabriel also stated very clearly that he doesn’t see European defence as an alternative to NATO. He’s strongly in favour of a strong transatlantic bond, and that’s exactly the message from Federica [Mogherini] and from me. This is not about creating something which is going to compete with NATO but this is something that is going to be complementary and to strengthen NATO.”

He added, despite disagreements also about issues related to foreign policy, environment, trade, and many other issues, “the strength of NATO is that we have been able again and again to prove that despite of these differences we are always able to agree on the core task of NATO, and that is that we are there to protect each other, that our collective defence is the best way to ensure peace, and Article 5, the collective defence clause, that an attack on one ally will trigger a response from the whole alliance. And I know that Sigmar Gabriel is very clear on this, as is all other allies.”

The NATO Secretary General added that the United States is actually increasing their presence in Europe. “We have more troops, we have more equipment, we have more U.S. exercises now. After years of decline after the Cold War the U.S. has started to increase their presence and they’re also increasing funding for the European Deterrence Initiative to close to US $5 billion.”

So the United States “is not leaving Europe, actually it’s coming back to Europe, also with Canada, and I welcome the leadership of the United States in the alliance, and . . . Secretary Tillerson . . . reiterated his ironclad commitment to the alliance – the U.S. ironclad commitment to the alliance . . . we are an alliance of 29 democracies, sometimes there are different views, but we agree on the core task that we are there to protect each other,” concluded Stoltenberg.

EU High Representative Mogherini accentuated: “On the European Union side obviously we are in a different position because we are a political union of 28 also democracies and we have with the United States not a relationship of alliance but of partnership and friendship. And this is a common basis that unites us not only for our history but also for the future perspectives of trying to handle together some of the challenges the world is facing and trying to get some of the opportunities the world is offering. And this is still the solid basis of the transatlantic friendship and partnership between the European Union and the United States.”

Mogherini added: “There are many issues on which we [EU and NATO] work together and if we were not working together the security situation in large parts of the world would be much worse than the one we’re facing today. If you think of DPRK, if you think of Afghanistan, if you think of Syria, and I could continue, Libya, some crisis in Africa, and again I could continue a long list, counterterrorism, anti-Daesh, Ukraine, and again the list is long, there are many files on which our cooperation is vital and is achieving results.”

There are other areas on which the European Union and the United States have different positions on foreign policy, Mogherini admitted. One is the nuclear deal with Iran where the European Union and its member states have made very clear that for them “it’s a strategic priority that matters to our security, a nuclear deal that is working and that has been certified nine times by the IAEA as working, needs to be preserved – especially as we’re facing another nuclear proliferation crisis further east.”

It’s a strategic priority also for the overall credibility of international negotiations and agreements. “And the message was heard I think loud and clear in Washington, and I think that today we are in a better place when it comes to the commitment to stay compliant with the agreement and work together to keep Iran compliant with the agreement, which is our major common work to be done.”

Migherini added: “We have a difference of views when it comes to multilateralism and in particular the UN system. We are as the European Union the strongest supporters of the UN system and a rules-based global order that includes investment in UN peacekeeping, something we share by the way with another transatlantic partner that is also very much a friend, Canada, but also for us this involves trade and the upcoming WTO ministerial next week in Argentina will also be a test for the way in which we see international relations.

“This was evident on the climate change agreement. Well, I was personally saddened, and this was also shared today [December 5] by other European Union member states’ ministers, that the United States decided to leave the Global Compact of the United Nations on Migration and Refugees, we believe and we invest in multilateral mechanisms and systems and we wish to do this more and more with the United States. This is the way we take to foreign policy and security policy as well.”

Referring to another issue of difference, Mogherini said: “we in Europe believe that the only perspective for peace and security for Israel and Palestine is the two-state solution, not [out] of idealism but out of experience.

“We believe this is the only realistic option for both and the for the region, and we are in good company in believing that, and namely the Arab Peace Initiative that we still believe is a useful framework for finding a solution to the crisis, to the conflict, is still a very useful framework, as we believe that any move that could derail the possibility of re-launching talks, for instance moves around Jerusalem, would be detrimental in immediate terms and in the perspective of reopening a diplomatic process in the Middle East.”

By Samuel Oakford*

At least 14 UN peacekeepers were killed and more than 50 wounded when armed men attacked their base in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, the UN mission, known as MONUSCO, said on Friday.

The attack on the troops in Semuliki, in North Kivu’s Beni region, began at dusk on Thursday and lasted several hours.

At least 12 of the peacekeepers killed were Tanzanian soldiers. Five Congolese soldiers were also killed, and the Congolese army put the number of rebel deaths at 72. UN officials said the toll could still rise as some peacekeepers were still missing and others gravely injured.

UN officials said it was likely that the attack was perpetrated by members of the shadowy Allied Democratic Forces, which has been active in the area for years. The ADF, which originated in Uganda, has not claimed responsibility.

Peacekeeping chief Jean-Pierre Lacroix said the UN would “get to the bottom of this”.

The Tanzanian troops were part of the UN’s Force Intervention Brigade – the specialised contingent authorised in 2013 by the Security Council to target and disarm rebel groups in the country.

Lacroix said the incident was a response “to our increasingly robust posture in that region”. The Tanzanian unit is believed to be among the UN’s most effective troops in the region.

Ian Sinclair, director of the United Nations Operations and Crisis Centre, said the attack was the third aimed at Tanzanian soldiers in the same area over the past several months.

Who did it?

Sinclair said the base is situated on the “fringes” of the forest and positioned to obstruct routes used by groups, including the ADF, into the Beni area.

But analyst Christoph Vogel believes it is too early to draw firm conclusions that the ADF, an Islamist rebel group, was responsible for this attack.

Over the past 15 years, the ADF’s main military camps have been in the Rwenzori Mountains and in the Semuliki Valley. It is a highly secretive organisation with strong historical ties to other armed groups in the area and local customary chiefs.

They are known to cooperate with other local militia and there is also enough evidence to suggest that some attacks attributed to the ADF in the past were in fact conducted by the Congolese army.

“It’s quite possible that the ADF is involved but there is no proof,” concluded Vogel. “It’s absolutely possible that the ADF teamed up with other militia or more mysterious actors.”

Attacks in the region are often attributed to “suspected ADF rebels” with little in the way of proof.

Recent incidents include the killing of 26 civilians a few weeks ago, which led to the closure of the main road back to the city of Beni. In late October, the Congolese commander in Beni survived an ambush when a rocket hit his jeep, killing another soldier.

The shock of this attack, though, is the scale of it, involving scores of heavily armed attackers and lasting several hours.

It will have significant humanitarian repercussions in a region where mounting violence involving several armed groups and the Congolese army has displaced a million people in the first half of this year, on top of 922,000 in 2016.

As a result of the ongoing fighting, Congo was declared a Level 3 emergency by the UN in October, its highest level of crisis.

“The immediate impact [of this attack] is that MONUSCO will turn inwards,” said Vogel. “There will be less patrolling, and less armed escorts available to humanitarians who rely on them to help provide access.”

The attack is likely the second deadliest ever on UN blue helmets — the highest toll since 26 Pakistani peacekeepers were killed in Somalia in 1993. Last year, that many peacekeepers were killed across all UN operations.

“This is the worst attack on UN peacekeepers in the organisation’s recent history,” said UN Secretary-General António Guterres. “These deliberate attacks against UN peacekeepers are unacceptable and constitute a war crime.”

There is a perception that the changing nature of peacekeeping, epitomised by the offensive-minded Force Intervention Brigade, has increased the risks for blue helmets.

They are increasingly deployed in situations where there is no peace to keep, serving in areas where violent extremist groups operate, and where they are expected to “take sides”. UN peacekeepers are also mandated to execute more ambitious tasks, including the protection of civilians.

Are operations becoming deadlier?

But the evidence suggests that overall UN fatalities are not substantively on the rise.

Between 1948 and 2015, 3,561 peacekeepers lost their lives – although combat accounted for just 923 of those fatalities: accident and illness both being the more likely cause of death.

Before this incident, since the beginning of this year, 67 peacekeepers had died.

Historically, the heaviest death tolls as a result of combat action had been the 1960 UN Operation in Congo, the UN’s mission in Somalia, and the 39-year-long UN’s deployment in Lebanon.

But in recent times, Mali stands out. There have been 140 deaths since the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali, MINUSMA, was established in 2013 – by far the UN’s riskiest current deployment.

MONUSCO, however, is the UN’s largest peacekeeping mission, both in terms of personnel and cost. In March, the Security Council voted to drop the mission’s troop ceiling from 19,815 to 16,215 soldiers.

About the author:
* Samuel Oakford, Freelance journalist based in New York, and regular IRIN contributor. Addditional reporting by IRIN Africa Editor Obi Anyadike in Nairobi)

Source:
This article was published by IRIN

By Eugenia Rosales Matienzo*

Two full days had passed after the disappearance of the submarine ARA San Juan before Argentine naval spokesman Enrique Balbi offered the first press conference to the nation and, even then, the public was not properly served with any hand information regarding the missing ship. Balbi said he would not talk about a missing ship: “To talk about something missing first we have to seek and not find it,” he said, clinging to protocol in front of the disbelieving gaze of friends and relatives of the 44 missing crew members.

The submarine had disappeared mysteriously in the Gulf of San Jorge, on its way to the naval base at Mar del Plata after departing from Ushuaia, in the southern most part of the country. Its last reported position was 432 kilometers off the Argentine coast. The crew on board consisted of 43 men and one woman.

The Argentine Defense Minister had not been adequately informed of the dire situation by army personnel and was only made aware of the situation after it had become a huge story in mass media.[i] Upon its release, President Mauricio Macri immediately attempted to distance himself from the armed forces’ operations in order to avoid any entanglement with such a controversial institution.

Macri did not hide his anger with how the naval military leadership handled the case. The Ministry of Defense is currently investigating whether there was negligence and “hidden” information on the part of the Navy. In order to relieve commanders and admirals from their elevated positions, the government first needs some certainty about the whereabouts of the San Juan and its crew.

It is now known that the navy’s high command elected not to share some critical information that they had with the government, mass media, and all members of society. They had known from the beginning that there had been a fatal damage to the ship’s batteries and that this flaw caused a short circuit.[ii]

The submarine ARA San Juan sent out its last communication to authorities on Wednesday, November 15 transmitting the following message: “Seawater coming through ventilation system to the tank battery # 3 caused short circuit and started a fire on the balcony bar battery. Bow batteries are now out of service. At the moment in immersion propelling with split circuit. No news from crew. I will keep staff informed.” [iii]

Ever since the information regarding the electric failure became public a week ago, an unprecedented search operation has taken place, involving more than a dozen countries, with a total of 14 naval units who have been frantically searching for the submarine. Six of those ships were tasked with conducting a “sweep” of the ocean floor in the area where the submarine last established contact.

The Navy has known from the beginning that there was a fire involving the sub, but denied it for 12 days. Navy spokesman, Balbi, refrained from using military jargon when he originally said he did not know “where the rumor” about a fire on the submarine came from. Later that same day, it came out that the fire had been reported by the submarine’s captain himself. Still, for the Navy, the information about the fire only “appeared” 12 days later.[iv]

Argentina is currently one of the countries with the lowest percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) earmarked for the Army, which has no doubt affected the conditions of its weaponry and other equipment including the navy’s submarines. The disappearance of ARA San Juan opens up the debate about what the state should do in regards to equipping and updating the Armed Forces. Criticism from some of the relatives of the missing crew pointed to the deterioration of the submarine, and the resounding silence of the political authorities, including the Defense Minister and even the President. Years ago, Macri himself had been critical of investment in the development of a nuclear engine for Navy ships. “I’m terrified,” Macri said at the time, describing such investment as a “squandering of budget”.[v]

The Argentine military forces are a constant reminder to society of the obscurantism surrounding of one of the bloodiest epochs in Argentine history, when they were responsible for the torture and murder of over 30,000 Argentines of all ages. Since the country’s return to democracy in 1983, sealing the gap between the army and civil society has been an impossible task, but a national obsession.

When Néstor Kirchner took office in 2003 the democratic system was young, barely 20 years old. From the first day of his presidency, he pointed to the army and adopted a set of high-impact measures in the military field aimed at reforming it. The ‘progresista’ government not only decided to intervene legally and symbolically regarding the military dictatorship, but also meddled in the privacy of military institutions.

The current Chief of Staff, Marcos Peña, warned the President about “the obscure past” of the army and the public perception that “so far the security forces were as suspect as criminals are.”[vi] Macri was recently surprised to notice that the security forces of the naval Prefecture had called the Ministry of Security to request permission to use their weapons. This request was subsequently approved and resulted in a fatality during an eviction in a land occupation by the Mapuche community in the southern Argentina on November 26th.

Until 2015, the Argentine security forces had been prohibited from using firearms to dislodge or break up demonstrations. Instead they had to use guns with rubber or paint projectiles. Now, Macri, in an attempt to “shift that cultural line” is not only providing weapons to the forces but is giving them the capacity to perform intelligence tasks. This approach of empowering and giving space to the military is reflected in the secrecy and impunity as witnessed throughout the recent search for the missing submarine.

*Eugenia Rosales Matienzo, Research Associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

Additional editorial support provided by John Stolle-MacAllister, Senior Research Fellow, Jack Pannel Research Fellow, and Gavin Allman and Tomas Bayas, Research Associates at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

Notes:
[i] “The Navy had hidden information on the conditions of the ARA San Juan and its crew on board”. Argentine newspaper Infobae. November, 21.

[ii] “The submarine ARA San Juan reported a failure in the batteries before disappearing”. Infobae. November, 20.

[iii] The last ARA San Juan submarine message before missing. Argentine Newspaper Infobae, November 27.

[iv] Submarine ARA San Juan: show the last message before the disappearance. Argentine Newspaper Clarin, 27 November.

[v] Argentine Newspaper Página 12 November 24.

[vi] A Mapuche died during a confrontation with Prefectura force, Argentina newspaper La Nación. November, 26.

By Conor Quinn*

(EurActiv) — Theresa May has completed a last-minute ‘divorce settlement’ on the EU’s Brexit priority issues – the exit bill, citizens’ rights, and the status of Northern Ireland.

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Sunday declared the U.S. recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital “null and void.”

Speaking at a meeting of the ruling Justice and Development (AK) Party in Sivas, central Turkey, Erdogan said: “Trump’s declaration of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is null and void for us in any case.

“Declaring it as a capital and relocating the embassy has no validity for us.”

Erdogan has called an extraordinary summit of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation on Wednesday in Istanbul.

The president said it would draw up a roadmap for Muslim countries to follow as they opposed the U.S. decision. He added that Turkey would oppose the plan within international law and democratic principles.

Later, Erdogan told an audience at an opening ceremony in Sivas that Israel was a “terrorist” state.

“Palestine has been under occupation since 1947,” he said. “Israel is an occupying state, a terrorist state.”

He added that the U.S. declaration was an attempt to damage peace and security in the region. Erdogan also said the decision ignored a 1980 UN Security Council resolution signed by the U.S. that condemned the Israeli annexation of Jerusalem.

Resolution 478 called on member states to withdraw diplomatic missions from Jerusalem and described East Jerusalem as “under occupation.”

By Suadad Al-Salhy

A number of armed Shiite factions that fought Daesh alongside Iraqi government forces have voluntarily announced their dissolution and placed their fighters under the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, Iraqi officials and Shiite leaders told Arab News on Sunday.

Iraqi Prime Minister Haider Abadi, commander-in-chief of the armed forces, announced on Saturday the liberation of all Iraqi territories and the end of the three-year war against Daesh, which seized almost a third of the territories in the west and north in summer 2014.

“At least four (armed) factions have voluntarily decided to disband their troops and gave the prime minister full authority to determine the fate of their fighters,” a senior security Iraqi official told Arab News on condition of anonymity.

“The procedures for disbanding these forces and the implementation mechanisms have not yet been decided, but 90 percent of them are likely to be disbanded and the remainder will be appointed to be a part of the regular security services,” the official said.

“No weapon will remain in the hands of anyone outside the control of the state. The decision to disarm the irregular armed factions will be issued in a few weeks and those who refuse to hand over their weapons will be considered outlaw,” he added.

Some of these details have been confirmed to Arab News by Karim Al-Nuri, a member of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) and a senior Badr Brigade leader; Aws Al-Khafaji, the head of the Abu Fadhal Al-Abbas armed faction; and Hisham Al-Hashimi, a security expert and one of the national security advisers.

In a statement on Saturday, Al-Khafaji said: “After the final and big victory against Daesh, we are putting all these troops (Abu Fadhal Al-Abass troops) — which are a part of the PMF — fully under the command of the commander in chief of the armed forces.”

Shiite armed factions have played a vital role in the fighting against Daesh. They had been fighting under the umbrella of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) which was established by Nuri Al-Maliki, the former Iraqi prime minister, in June 2014, to cover the armed factions who volunteered to fight Daesh alongside the government. More than 120,000 is the number of fighters officially registered in the payroll of the PMF.

Saraya Al-Salam, or the Battalions of Peace, the biggest Shiite armed faction linked to the powerful Shiite cleric Muqtada Al-Sadr; Kataib Al-Imam Ali and the Battalions of Imam Ali, which is linked to the Shiite clergymen in Najaf, led by Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani, are among these factions, officials said.

“To restrict the arms at the hand of the state and limit the unjustified militarization of the society, Sadr has called to legalize all the armed factions in Iraq, including the Popular Mobilization Forces,” Safa’a Al-Timimi, the spokesman of Saraya Al-Salam, told Arab News.

“Of course we are included in this (Sadr’s) call,” Al-Timimi said.

“We have already begun discussions with the ministers of defense and interior weeks ago to put in place a mechanism to include a number of our fighters in their formations,” he added.

Saraya Al-Salam has 6,000 fighters who are formally registered within the PMF, and they have been deployed in northwestern Karbala, central Samarra, Balad and Ishaqi, Al-Timimi said.

“Our call is clear and explicit. The weapons have to be exclusively in the hands of the government and no one but the disciplined fighters will be included within the regular security services,” Al-Timimi said.

By Baria Alamuddin*

Ignore the ridiculous platitudes about peace and unity in Donald Trump’s Jerusalem speech, his decision perhaps permanently wrecks Trump’s own stated ambition of a grand peace deal between Israelis and Palestinians. Given that Palestinians and world leaders told this to the president in no uncertain terms, Trump’s administration knows they have wilfully demolished their own Middle Eastern agenda through this self-defeating decision, which threatens to engulf the region in flames.

This Jerusalem declaration had nothing to do with the interests of either the Palestinians or Israelis. American commentators conclude that this was simply a cheap tactic for satisfying Trump’s core evangelical supporters after so many other lunatic campaign promises were dashed to pieces upon the hard rocks of reality. It also conveniently diverted attention from looming investigations into Trump’s collusion with Russia.

Trump loves to appear strong and decisive; repeatedly asserting that his predecessors weren’t sufficiently “brave” to take the Jerusalem decision.

Among the most articulate critics of this reckless decision are moderate Jews themselves. They recognize that, beyond handing Benjamin Netanyahu a cheap propaganda victory, this vacuous announcement changes nothing, while massively complicating efforts toward a lasting peace. It is their grandchildren who will suffer as a result of our generation’s stupidity in fanning the flames of hatred and injustice.

There has long been consensus over a shared solution for Jerusalem. King Abdullah’s 2002 Arab Peace Initiative recognized that Palestinians would settle for East Jerusalem as their capital. This hasn’t stopped Zionist extremists — with tacit official support — stealing every possible square inch in the east to erect illegal settlements and squeeze out Palestinians.

The announcement exemplifies Trump’s disdain for international law. UN declarations have consistently enshrined the principle that the status of Jerusalem could only be defined within a final-status peace deal. Since UN Resolution 242, which instructed Israel to withdraw from all territories occupied during the 1967 war, at least seven UN Security Council resolutions have been passed prohibiting any unilateral attempts to determine the status of Jerusalem (252, 267, 271, 298, 465, 476, and 478, along with a string of additional resolutions confirming these legal touchstones). As recently as December 2016, Resolution 2334 asserted that the Security Council would “not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem.”

How is it that, just a few months later, nobody is talking about action to ensure that these laudable aspirations are legally enforced?

By prejudicing Jerusalem’s status and dropping America’s previous insistence on a two-state solution, Trump has gutted the fundamental precepts upon which any peace deal could be built — undermining decades of efforts by moderates on both sides, who tirelessly sought formulas for peace.

One speech cannot efface thousands of years of Arab heritage, nor erase the religious affinity which billions of Christians and Muslims feel for this holy city — and will still feel in 10,000 or 100,000 years’ time.

Such is Jerusalem’s sacred status that we can truly say this is a city for all humanity. Jerusalem is one of the oldest cities in the world, having already been a settlement for several millennia before the Jews even appeared in ancient Palestine and captured the city through force of arms.

The bloody manner in which the city repeatedly changed hands during the Crusades and under a dizzying succession of short-lived empires demonstrates the futility of any single party trying to assert exclusive control. Does Netanyahu and Trump believe they can disregard or rewrite 7,000 years of history?

I still vividly remember visiting Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa long ago and being awestruck by a location tangibly overflowing with culture and holiness: Not only its indelible Arab heritage, but also the reverence with which deeply-rooted Christian communities venerated their shared city.

Palestinians are rightly up in arms about such cynical brinkmanship over the capital of their future state. The wider Arab world is similarly furious about an issue they have grown up caring passionately about. Yet Jerusalem is sacred to the entire Muslim world. Jerusalem indeed has resonance for billions of people from a multitude of faiths and sects.

A cheap decision to please Trump’s rabidly anti-Muslim base and far-right Israeli allies is already having tragic consequences. Palestinian blood is being spilled. The fact that, prior to this announcement, the US State Department told Americans to avoid travel to the region proves its foreknowledge of the deadly consequences of Trump’s pronouncement.

The temptation toward violent tactics must be resisted. Children who pelt Israeli soldiers with stones can expect to be mowed down like ants. Images of masked rioters throwing Molotov cocktails will be exploited by Trump’s friends at Fox News to portray all Muslims as uncivilized savages.

Yet I hope and pray that hundreds of millions of people — of all faiths and ethnicities — come out peacefully to make themselves heard on this issue. Muslims as far away as Malaysia, Pakistan and Indonesia are already coming out in their tens of thousands to express their anger.

Just as the world erupted against Trump’s Muslim travel ban and his refusal to condemn neo-Nazis marching through Charlottesville, we must condemn this act of vandalism against the peace process.

The Arab world of 2017 is beset by a critical mass of conflicts and crises. It has been many years since Arab nations spoke with one voice on anything; we must once again rediscover that voice. In the face of injustice, intolerance and brute force, if there is one issue which can bring the entire civilized world together — let it be Jerusalem.

• Baria Alamuddin is an award-winning journalist and broadcaster in the Middle East and the UK. She is editor of the Media Services Syndicate and has interviewed numerous heads of state.

By Filip Rudic

A unique database containing the names of people missing since the 1990s Yugoslav wars whose remains have still not been found will be created, governments across the region have agreed.

The 14th regional conference on the exhumation and identification of people who disappeared in the 1990s wars, held in Belgrade on Friday, was told that a unique database of missing persons will be established in The Hague.

Representatives of the Bosnian, Croatian, Kosovo, Montenegrin and Serbian governments, as well as some international organisations, have agreed to create the database, said a representative of victims’ families’ associations.

Olgica Bozanic, the chairperson of the board of the Regional Coordinating Body of Families’ Associations, warned that there has been a drop in activity in recent years when it came to locating victims’ remains.

“In most cases, politics gets involved when we ask that certain locations be checked,” Bozanic told BIRN after the conference.

But Bozanic said she was glad that the representatives of all government bodies and international organisations present have agreed to set up the list of missing persons.

“It would happen in the past that individuals were reported missing in multiple places,” she said.

She also noted that the number of missing persons has been the subject of political manipulation.

Bozanic added that the International Commission on Missing Persons, ICMP, has launched an online tool to assist in locating hidden grave sites.

People who know the locations of mass graves but are afraid to come to victims’ association offices, or do not want to be identified for any other reason, can now report what they know anonymously, Bozanic said.

The regional conference brought together representatives of state commissions for missing persons, war crimes prosecutors, and representatives of 18 victims’ families’ associations from the former Yugoslavia.

Their meeting, however, ended in vocal altercations, as some families’ representatives’ “feeling of powerlessness turned to anger,” according to Bozanic.

“Many still cannot overcome their emotions and fight for truth in a dignified manner. Shouting will not help anyone,” she said.

According to the International Committee of the Red Cross, there are still 10,373 missing persons from the Yugoslav wars.

The regional coordinator of the International Committee of the Red Cross for the Western Balkans, Zita Crener, said that locating the missing should be regarded as a humanitarian issue, not a political one.

“We are stepping up our efforts on calling for more actions from all sides,” Crener told BIRN.

By Konradus Epa

Indonesian Aris Panji Irianto did not mind traveling from his home in Central Java to Jakarta to meet with fellow victims of the nation’s bloody 1965-66 anti-Communist purge.

He came to the capital in October to learn more about 30,000 pages of official United States records relating to the bloody repression of that time.

Irianto believes the documentation confirms the extensive role of the Indonesia military during the purge that killed more than 500,000 people and imprisoned a million more.

Now aged 66, Irianto was a teenager at the time of the widespread violence that followed the murder of a group of army generals on Sept. 30, 1965.

He did not know then why members of his family were dragged away by anti-communists in his hometown of Kebumen in Central Java.

He was lucky to survive, but to this day he is branded a communist, resulting in social exclusion and a ban on government employment.

Irianto is glad the stigma was not passed to his children.

New milestone

The U.S. documents counter military assertions that it was not involved in wholesale killings.

Irianto said the revelations brought new hope for victims by dispelling “black propaganda” under the 1967-1998 regime of the late President Suharto.

Bedjo Untung, 77, who suffered in the purge, told ucanews.com that he and other victims met members of Indonesia’s National Commission on Human Rights to discuss the implications of the released records.

They were opened to the public by relevant U.S. security agencies and archives.

Untung called on the present Indonesian government to examine the records and take remedial action to help those who were mistreated.

Indonesian students have long been taught that military personnel were guardian angels who rescued the nation from communist subversives.

“In fact, the document shows that the military was involved,” said Untung.

He said new evidence included details of behind-the-scenes U.S. support for the purge.

The Indonesia military allegedly worked with several large Muslim organizations as well as recruiting and arming village anti-communist militias.

Untung called on the Indonesian government and the National Commission on Human Rights to act on the disclosures without giving in to military pressure.

Commission member Amiruddin Al Rahab said the U.S. documents would require further investigation before their validity could be accepted.

The Coordinating Minister for Political, Legal, and Security Affairs, Wiranto, who uses only one name, said that verification would be necessary before use could be made of the documents in any legal proceedings

“Thorough examination is necessary to establish whether the information contained in the archives was factually correct,” Wiranto, a former military commander, told reporters recently.

History professor at the Sanata Dharma University in Yogyakarta, Jesuit Father Fransiskus Baskara Tulus Wardaya, said that the military and government must allow Indonesian citizens to learn the facts about the 1960s massacre.

“We should be open to historical documents, even if they come from outside Indonesia, so that we can know our history more completely and contextually,” Father Wardaya said.

The priest admitted to studying some of the U.S. documents when he was conducting research back in the mid 2000s, but access had been on condition that he not make public the names of individuals while they were still alive.

Amnesty International Indonesia has also called the government to release all relevant historical documents.

Irianto, Untung and other victims are still fighting for truth to prevail.

By Mary Rezac

This week, TIME Magazine announced a group of women and men as their collective Person of the Year.

What do these people have in common? They are what TIME called “The Silence Breakers” – people who have blown the whistle on sexual assault and abuse within the workplace, largely in the industries of film, politics, and media.

In recent months an avalanche of abuse allegations have been brought to light against powerful figures, starting most notably with a piece in the New York Times in which several women accused Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein of sexual assault. This sparked a flood of men and women coming forward with other allegations of abuse against numerous people in positions of power.

“These silence breakers have started a revolution of refusal, gathering strength by the day, and in the past two months alone, their collective anger has spurred immediate and shocking results: nearly every day, CEOs have been fired, moguls toppled, icons disgraced. In some cases, criminal charges have been brought,” TIME reported.

Not long ago, the Catholic Church in the United States was reeling from its own sex abuse crisis. In the early 2000s, reporters at the Boston Globe broke the story of a former priest who was accused of molesting more than 100 boys over 30 years, which led to a large-scale uncovering of thousands more allegations of abuse in dioceses throughout the country.

Since then, the Church has taken care to provide numerous resources to such victims, and develop robust child protection policies.

Edward Mechmann, director of public policy and the safe environment office for the Archdiocese of New York, told CNA that the “silence breakers” who came forward and continue to come forward with accusations of abuse by clergy and Church personnel are key in maintaining a safe environment in the Church.

“I think the one thing we have to make sure we understand is who the whistleblowers are, and for the most part, the whistleblowers are victims,” Mechmann said.

“As much as the outside observers like the Boston Globe and the media in general contributed to our awareness of the scope of the problem, we would really be nowhere unless we had some of these courageous victims coming forward, because without them, we would have many more men in service who are victimizers,” he added.

It is especially important that victims come forward in order to protect others from abuse, he noted, because in some cases, abusers have victimized numerous people over the span many years.

Recently, the Church has seen victims coming forward “much more willingly now, because they see that we’re serious, they see that we’re not going to victimize them again, and they see concrete results” such as accused persons being removed from ministry, he said.

“The first and most important thing we do is we listen to them, and I can’t tell you how important that is,” Mechmann said.

“So many people that come in to see us are afraid, they’ve been victimized, they’re afraid they’re going to be victimized again, and just the fact that we listen to them is just an enormously healing thing,” he said.

Besides listening to victims, Mechmann said the Church also provides support through counseling and through talking with victims about the Church’s internal processes for dealing with cases of abuse.

“And we stay in contact with them, if they want to stay in contact with us, we walk with them,” he added.

Dr. Benjamin Keyes, a Catholic psychologist and Director for the Center for Trauma and Resiliency Studies at Divine Mercy University, told CNA that supporting and encouraging victims who come forward is of the utmost importance.

“There’s a whole lot of relief that someone has finally heard the story…they’re no longer isolated with the information, and how well they fare afterwards really depends on what happens around them,” he said. “Are they supported, are there people in their network, whether it’s family, friends, or co-workers, that really understand and really support them in the courage that it takes to do this?”

Sometimes it can takes months or even years for victims of abuse to break the silence on what happened to them, Keyes said, because there is usually “a lot of embarrassment, a lot of shame involved, and most people, women in particular, don’t want to expose that to the public or to others, even to those who are close to (them),” he said.

The fear of retaliation or retribution is also something that can keep victims from coming forward, especially if the abuse came from someone who is in a position of power over the victim, Keyes noted.

For these reasons, victims need encouragement and support from the Church in order to feel comfortable coming forward.

“The Church can be supportive, especially in the parishes, (by) making it safe for (whistleblowers) to be who they are, by acknowledging the courage that it took for them to do that, and to be supportive vocally within the body of the Church so that people hear that the Church is supporting it,” he said.

Supporting victims also involves “making sure that they stay networked into not only the activities that they’ve been involved with, but that they stay networked into the body of the Church, so that they don’t walk away,” he added.

The parish priest, as well as members of the parish community, are especially key in making victims feel welcomed and supported, he noted, which can be done simply by including them and befriending them.

“We’re taught in the Bible to love and to love unconditionally, and this is part of that,” Keyes said.

“It’s embracing the broken places and binding up the suffering and reaching out to the broken-hearted, and we’re called as Christians, not just as counselors, to do that,” he added.

Since the sex abuse crisis in the Church in the United States, the bishops have put into place numerous policies and practices to protect victims, and especially children from sexual abuse, including the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Charter for Child and Youth Protection, which calls for an annual audit and report of all the dioceses in the country.

The Church has also implemented safe environment trainings that call for a zero-tolerance policy of abuse in Church environments.

“I think a lot of what’s happening is really good,” Mechmann said, regarding the silence breakers in media and politics who have recently come forward.

“Maybe the world as a whole could learn a little bit from the way that we have handled this, in terms of creating a clear corporate culture of zero tolerance. Transparency is at the heart of what we’ve done, and I hope that some of these other industries can do the same.”

Even as the European Union has expressed alarm at Russia’s militarization of Kaliningrad and occupied Crimea (vz.ru/news/2017/12/10/898876.html), a Belarusian military expert says that Moscow is now moving tanks and other heavy weapons into his country and thus taking another “step toward war.”

The Belarusian government has been consistent in resisting Moscow’s demand that it permit the Russian military to establish a permanent military base in Belarus, but now Moscow is doing the next best thing from its point of view, moving heavy weapons into Belarus on the basis of the Union State agreement between the two countries “for joint use.”

Queried by Radio Liberty’s Belarusian Service as to whether this constituted the creation of a Russian base by the back door, the Belarusian defense ministry responded with a question of its own “What bases?” and promised to give more details later but then didn’t answer its phone (svaboda.org/a/28905621.html and belaruspartisan.org/politic/408751/).

Belarusian military expert Aleksandr Alesin says that the latest Russian moves mean that “Belarus and Russia are beginning to prepare more seriously for a future war with ‘our Western partners’” because now the Russian army has de facto what it earlier had hoped to achieve de jure, the basing of tanks and other weaponry to the west of the Russian border.

The Zapad-2017 maneuvers showed, the military specialist continues, that “if the Russian part of this group is based in Russia,” moving it forward is a question “not of days or weeks.” But if the equipment is prepositioned in Belarus, the amount of time needed for it to launch an attack on NATO forces is much reduced, to hours rather than even days.

He estimates that Moscow may put up to 400 tanks in Belarus under this latest agreement with Minsk, not to mention additional armored vehicles and other heavy weapons. Nominally at least, these will all remain under “Belarusian jurisdiction,” and consequently, there won’t be any issue of “foreign basing.”

What Russian forces are doing is the mirror image of what American forces have long done with Washington’s NATO allies, prepositioning heavy equipment that can be moved only by ship so that personnel who can be flown in at the last minute can be joined to them to form a serious military force, Alesin says.

Many in the Belarusian military will be pleased by this development because they will gain access to and experience with advanced Russian weaponry, but many Belarusian civilians, especially those in Borisov, Bobruisk, and Baranovichey where most of the Russian weapons are being placed won’t be because they will thus become targets in the event of a war.