By Ahmad Shah

Business owners in the southern Afghan province of Khost say that the government’s failure to deliver on a long-promised industrial park are severely limiting opportunities for local development.

An 80-hectare piece of land in the district of Ismail Khel had been earmarked for a dedicated industrial zone. But plans for the development, which would be properly secured and with a reliable power supply, have stalled.

In the meantime, local entrepreneurs complain that a lack of infrastructure combined with poor security meant that basic costs are eating up much of their revenue.

Haji Gul Nasir, who owns the Kawsar-e-Shifa drinks factory, said that moving to a properly-equipped business park would allow him to grow his business and provide more jobs.

He explained that problems with electricity supply forced him to rely on a generator that consumed 16 litres of gasoline per hour, while poor security meant he had to pay two private guards 200 US dollars each every month.

Nasir added, “I have invested 150,000 US dollars in this factory and if the government builds an industrial park and provides me with a place where I could develop my business, I might be able to employ as many as 50 people.”

He added that he personally knew some investors in India and in the Pakistani city of Lahore who would be eager to turn their sights to Afghanistan if security was ensured and they could be certain of government assistance.

According to Khost’s department of commerce and industry, nearly 200 factories of various sizes are operating in Khost province. However, most operate below the radar, with only 44 formally registered with the local authorities.

Bahram Burhani, director of the department of commerce and industry, said that factory owners simply refused to cooperate with them.

“For a long time we have run advertisements through radio and TV and we have sent our personnel to the factories in order to discuss the issue of registration, but they refuse to do so and we can’t force anyone,” he said.

The 44 registered factories employ around 600 people and mostly produce biscuits, fabrics, plastics, drinks and similar basic commodities. All are located in residential areas of Khost due to the lack of an industrial park, which has in turn created numerous environmental problems.

“I have a severe allergy to smoke and I am always getting colds,” said Khost city resident Attaullah Khan Sirak, who works in an office located near two sweet factories.

“The factories are near residential buildings and their noise and smoke really disturb people,” he continued. “In fact, half of my salary is spent on buying medicines due to the pollution from these factories. The government should pay more attention to people’s health than to money and should move these factories out of the city.”

Deputy director of Khost’s public health department, Gul Mohammad Deen Mohammadi, agreed that this pollution posed a serious public health risk.

“These emissions cause pneumonia, colds, nasal congestion, lung diseases and in many cases heart disease among children, and the smoke contains some very harmful substances that can also cause cancer,” he said.

Jawed, director of Khost’s department of environmental protection, said that small business owners had told him they had few other options.

“We’ve held frequent meetings with factory owners to discuss this issue and have asked them not to burn substandard fuel that produces great quantities of harmful smoke,” he said. “But the factory owners said they could only leave the city and stop using cheap fuel if the government provided them with an alternative location and supplied them with electricity.”

Officials say that another major problem has been the illegal appropriation of the land on which the industrial zone was supposed to be built. Across Afghanistan, local militias or people with powerful connections often simply occupy state-owned land, particularly in sought-after areas.

Khost governor Hakam Khan Habibi told a recent public meeting that plans were underway to evict the alleged squatters.

“The land of Khost’s industrial park will be freed from its occupiers and work will start according to the presidential order,” he said.

His spokesman Mubariz Mohammad Zadran said that this would resolve many of the problems faced by local entrepreneurs, and said that work had also begun to improve local power provision.

“The problem of power is about to be solved because electricity towers have arrived in Ismail Khel district and a substation will be built in Khost province,” he added.

However, some tribal elders claim that the land in question does not belong to the government at all but was in fact appropriated from local people.

“The government wants to forcefully seize the tribal lands of our fathers and grandfathers by claiming it’s government land, but we have the legal papers and documentation,” said Deen Wali, an Ismail Khel elder. “And we will preserve, protect and defend our property even if we have to put our own lives on the line. We can’t give our land away to the government.”

In turn, Hameed Shah, the director of Khost’s department of finance, insisted that the land belonged to the independent land authority. He said that all necessary legal procedure had been followed when it was transferred to the provincial department of commerce and industry in 2009 for the specific purposes of constructing an industrial park.

“This is absolutely government land, the government has the legal papers to this land and it is not private property,” he continued.

However, he noted a more pressing problem with the construction of the park: a lack of any money to proceed with the project.

“I worked closely on the issue of allocating a budget for Khost’s industrial park with finance ministry officials in Kabul, but we don’t have any budget for the coming year,” Shah said. “If the government wants, it can allocate funds for the industrial zone from somewhere else, but for now, there is no budget.”

This article was published at IWPR’s ARR 585

In a study spanning two decades, a team of researchers led by Colorado State University found declining numbers of soil fauna, nematodes and other animal species in the McMurdo Dry Valleys, one of the world’s driest and coldest deserts. This discovery is attributed to climate change, which has triggered melting and thawing of ice in this desert since an uncharacteristically warm weather event in 2001.

There are no plants, birds or mammals in the McMurdo Dry Valleys, located in the largest region of the Antarctic continent. But microbes and microscopic soil invertebrates live in the harsh ecosystem, where the mean average temperature is below -15 degrees Celsius, or 5 degrees Fahrenheit.

The findings offer insight and an alarm bell on how ecosystems respond to climate change and to unusual climate events, scientists said.

“Until 2001, the region was not experiencing a warming trend,” said Walter Andriuzzi, lead author of the study and a postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Biology and School of Global Environmental Sustainability.

“On the contrary, it was getting colder,” he continued. “But in 2001, the cooling trend stopped abruptly with an extremely warm weather event. Since then, the average temperatures are either stable or are increasing slightly. But most importantly, there have been more frequent intense weather events.”

The research team sampled soil invertebrates and measured soil properties, including water content, in three hydrological basins and at three different elevations in the region. In Taylor Valley, the field study was launched in 1993; in Miers and Garwood valleys, scientists started their work in 2011.

Andriuzzi said what the team found in this long-term study cannot be observed by looking at average or monthly temperatures.

“It’s a few hours, or days of unusually warm weather,” he said. “There are even peaks of high solar radiation that trigger ice thawing without high temperatures. That’s how climate change is happening there, and it’s already starting to impact the biological community there.”

Higher temperatures mean more melting and thawing of ice from glaciers and permafrost, which has led to the decline of the most common species, the nematode Scottnema lindsayae. Other species are becoming more abundant and are spreading uphill. As a result, at higher elevations, the microbes and animals in the soil are becoming more diverse, with unknown consequences for the ecosystem.

“This is happening worldwide, and not just in Antarctica,” said Andriuzzi, who is a researcher in the lab of University Distinguished Professor Diana Wall. In the Rocky Mountains, for instance, scientists have observed insects moving uphill on a year to year basis, due to warming temperatures.

Andriuzzi, who led field work in the McMurdo Dry Valleys, called Antarctic nematodes “remarkable creatures.”

“It’s amazing that they survive in these conditions,” he said. The growing season only lasts a few weeks, but in the field, this microscopic animal may live 10 years.

Given what the team found, Andriuzzi said it will take time for the nematode community to recover from these disturbances.

“With climate change, some species are winners, some are losers,” he said. “In the Dry Valleys it’s all about how they respond to warming and, most importantly, water.”

Andriuzzi said shifts in communities are often very hard to predict because there are so many species.

“It’s easier in places like the dry valleys to isolate the effects of climate change, or to isolate how one species responds to climate change in one way,” he said. “It’s a natural laboratory, where some of the mechanisms that operate elsewhere can be unveiled.”

In the first week of December 2017, US President Donald Trump’s pledge to move US embassy from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem caused controversy across the world.  The US tried to get its decision passed through the United Nations (UN), created pressure in the form of threatening of economic sanctions and withdrawing from financial support to the UN, but failed to get- through it.

In fact, the US is the only country to cast its veto over a UN Security Council resolution condemning the Trump position by a vote of 14 to 1. In the emergency meeting of UN General Assembly, 128 countries supported the resolution denying US move, 9 against and 35 abstained. One can rightly say that US may have might, but it may not always be right.

Why is the embassy move controversial? i) It would mean that the US effectively recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel; ii) Denying the creation of independent Palestinian State with East Jerusalem as its Capital, if at all feasible in this Bantustan like fragmentation of Palestine; iii) It will create unrest as more than 15 Palestinians have been killed, 2908 were wounded and more than 600 were arrested since the US declaration of embassy move on 6 December 2017; and iv) All three monotheistic religions- Islam, Christianity and Judaism have their claim in Jerusalem, so better to maintain status-quo, at least to avoid conflict.

Historically, the United Nations partition plan of 1947 artificially created the state of Israel in May 1948, denied by the Palestinian Arabs and the Arab countries. It envisaged Jerusalem as a separate “international city” (UN Special Committee on Palestine Report, 1947). But during the first Arab Israel war of 1948, the Jerusalem city got divided. When the war ended in 1949 through the armistice agreements between Israel and its four neighbouring Arab states, created temporary border – often called the Green Line because it was drawn in green ink – saw Israel in control of the western half, and Jordan in control of the eastern half of Jerusalem city, which included the famous Old City.

During the 1967 June War, in mere six days, Israel occupied Syrian Golan Heights, Sinai Peninsula, West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. Since then, the entire Jerusalem city has been under Israel’s authority. But Palestinians, and many in the international community, continue to see East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state.

In July 1980, Israel passed a law that declared Jerusalem the united capital of Israel. The UN Security Council responded with a resolution condemning Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem and declared it a violation of international law. By that time, Netherlands and 12 Latin American countries, in total 13 countries had their embassies in Jerusalem and they had all been there before the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 (Flicker 2002-03: 115-17). Gradually all the countries moved away from Jerusalem. In 2006, Costa Rica and El Salvador were the last to move their embassies out of Jerusalem, joining the rest of the world in locating their embassies in Tel Aviv. As of now, there is no embassy of any country in Jerusalem.

The attempt to move the embassy to Jerusalem is not new. In 1979, Canada during her election campaign declared to shift its embassy to Jerusalem, but had withdrawn due to its consideration of economic interest and domestic compulsion. Many argued that Arab oil embargo had also influenced to reverse its embassy shift policy. Regarding the recent controversy, the US has never had its embassy in Jerusalem. It has always been in Tel Aviv.

In 1989, Israel began leasing to the US a plot of land in Jerusalem for a new embassy. The 99-year lease cost $1 per year. To this day, the plot has not been developed, and it remains an empty field. In 1995, the US Congress passed a law requiring America to move the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. So why hasn’t the embassy moved yet? Every president since 1995 – Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama – has declined to move the embassy, citing national security interests. Every six months, the President has used the presidential waiver to circumvent the embassy move (Oren Liebermann and Caroline Kenny, CNN, December 6, 2017).

As mentioned, on 6 December 2017, US President Donald Trump pledged to move US embassy from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem. 15-Member UN Security Council passed a resolution condemning the move, but only the US vetoed the resolution. An emergency UN General Assembly special meeting was called upon and here too overwhelmingly the Assembly passed the draft resolution, despite the US economic threat, condemned the US pledge to move US embassy to Jerusalem. The immediate neighbours of US, both Mexico and Canada, were among the 35 countries that abstained from the rare emergency UN General Assembly vote on 21 December 2017 that delivered a resounding rebuke to Donald Trump over his decision to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

The vote in UN General Assembly placed Canada in a difficult situation because Trump had threatened to retaliate against countries that supported the resolution. It came as Canada is in the midst of a tough renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Trump administration that has threatened to tear up the deal.

“We are disappointed that this resolution is one sided and does not advance prospects for peace to which we aspire, which is why we have abstained on today’s vote,” Marc-Andre Blanchard, Canada’s UN ambassador told the General Assembly. It is worth mentioning that Canada played an independent role and did not toe the US line this time, but Blanchard spoke in the line of Israel’s foreign minister who said one sided anti Israel resolutions had been pushing the Middle East peace process back for years.

It is argued that Canada represented a delicate balance between not irritating the Americans while NAFTA negotiations are ongoing and also not alienating the roughly 50 Arab states with the power to cast votes in a powerful bloc against Canada’s bid for a seat on the UN Security Council. Former prime minister Stephen Harper made a point of solidifying Canadian support for Israel at the United Nations, voting in concert with the U.S. and Israel at several major votes over the years, and the government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has not significantly strayed from that path, often sticking with the decision to cast matching votes (Amanda Connolly, Global News, December 21, 2017)

Bessma Momani, a senior fellow and Middle East expert with the Centre for International Governance and Innovation said the threat of retaliation shouldn’t influence how Canada votes in UN General Assembly on the Jerusalem resolution. “Canada may find itself in a tough position as we try to renegotiate a NAFTA deal, but we should stand with the international community and wider expert opinion that the U.S. move is unnecessary, counterproductive, and toxic,” she said. “Moreover, there’s power in a collective response against Trump and we should take comfort in that.” (Mike Blanchfield, The Canadian Press, 21 December 2017). Mexico’s representative said he had also abstained, while emphasizing that convening an emergency session was a disproportionate response. The United States must become part of the solution, not a stumbling block that would hamper progress.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs of Turkey, described the recent US decision as a violation of international law and an “outrageous assault” on universal values. He recalled that the 13 December Summit of Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC) had unanimously rejected that decision and declared East Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Palestine. Since Jerusalem was the holy city of three monotheistic religions, it was the responsibility of all to preserve its historic status. Syria condemned the decision to transfer the United States embassy to the occupied city of Al Quds and to recognize it as Israel’s capital, said it constituted a flagrant violation of the city’s special status and yet another demonstration of colonial crimes committed against Palestine.

Calling upon the United States to respect all resolutions of the Assembly and the Security Council on the matter, he said that country’s arrogance had now risen to the level of directly threatening Member States, declaring: “This is a superpower which views the United Nations as a national institution”, adding that it treated other Member States like school children (General Assembly Plenary, Tenth Emergency Special Session, 37th Meeting (AM), GA/11995, 21 December 2017).

India faced diplomatic dilemma in this situation. India has historically supported the Palestinian cause, and its statements have always referred to East Jerusalem as being the capital of an independent Palestinian state.

But since 1992, New Delhi’s ties with Tel Aviv have been steadily warming and this year in July 2017, PM Modi became the first Indian Prime Minister to visit Israel. To mention, he had visited Israel in 2006 as chief minister of the Indian state of Gujarat. However, his July 2017 trip to Israel was the final step in fully normalizing ties between India and Israel. He departed from the earlier tradition by not visiting Ramallah. This is an act that seemingly established India’s growing tendency to de-hyphenate Israel and Palestine as far as foreign relations are concerned.

Earlier this year, when Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas visited India, Prime Minister Narendra Modi stressed on India’s support for an independent Palestinian state in a joint statement but did not mention East Jerusalem. In the last two years, in votes on anti-Israel resolutions in the UN Human Rights Council, India has abstained (David Rosenberg, 05 July 2017).

But in this recent controversy India voted in support of UN General Assembly draft resolution condemning US plan of moving embassy to Jerusalem. 
”India’s position on Palestine is independent and consistent. It is shaped by our views and interests, and not determined by any third country,” said Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Raveesh Kumar (MEA, 7 December 2017). Perhaps, India’s attitude in this context can be analysed that India is willing and able to pursue independent relationships with both the Israelis and the Palestinians, and do not want to see this issue through the prism of Arab Israel conflict (Ronak D. Desai, 18 July 2017).

Who loses or who gains in this embassy shift game? Its impact is devastating. More than 15 Palestinians were killed, including a lower-limb amputee, in violence in Gaza and the West Bank since Donald Trump announced the US embassy move to Jerusalem (http://www.aljazeera.com/news, 24 December 2017). Palestine Red Crescent Society (PRCS) reports 2,908 injuries, Palestinian Prisoner’s Society (PPS) reports 500 arrest and Israeli forces have detained over 600 Palestinians, including 170 minors, 12 women and three injured detainees, since Trump’s announcement. Attacks on the PRCS teams and ambulances continue by the Israeli occupation Forces. During the reporting period (07.12.2017 – 20.12.2017), 15 attacks were documented against the PRCS in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (https://www.maannews.com, 26 December 2017).

Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (http://pchrgaza.org/en, 26 December 2017), in their Weekly Report On Israeli Human Rights Violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (07 – 13 & 14 – 20 December 2017), documented that Israeli forces escalated the excessive use of force against protests in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. As per their estimate, 702 civilians; including 100 children, one woman and 17 journalists, were wounded in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Israeli warplanes carried out several airstrikes at different targets in the Gaza Strip. Israeli forces conducted 147 incursions into Palestinian communities in the West Bank and 9 similar incursions in Jerusalem and 3 limited incursions into the Gaza Strip. 280 civilians, including 67 children and 3 women, were arrested in incursions and protests. 82 of them, including 30 children and 2 women, were arrested in Jerusalem and its suburbs.

Israeli warplanes launched 15 missiles in 4 airstrikes at different targets in the Gaza Strip. Israeli forces turned the West Bank into cantons and continued to impose the illegal closure on the Gaza Strip. A Palestinian civilian was forced to self-demolish his house in Ras al-‘Amoud neighbourhood, otherwise he had to face high Israeli demolition charges. Israeli authorities continue to create a Jewish Majority in occupied East Jerusalem. Dozens of temporary checkpoints were established in the West Bank and others were re-established to obstruct the movement of Palestinian civilians.

Putting the whole issue, it is not only the issue of Embassy move to Jerusalem, but the real issue lies in the fact that the plight of the Palestinians is being ignored. A 16 year old girl Ahed Tamimi has been arrested and is facing charges at the Israeli military court following a viral video showing her taking on Israeli soldiers in occupied West Bank, which has become a symbol of Palestinian resistance. Her anger is nothing but the expression of the Palestinians anguish as a whole against the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory. To recap, US pledge to move the embassy did nothing but test the world opinion and further ignite the violence, far away from playing the mediator role for peace. The fact remains that unless the plights of the Palestinians and their issues are resolved, peace is elusive.

About the author:
*Dr. Kamaran M K Mondal
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Political Science, Chandidas Mahavidyalaya,
The University of Burdwan, West Bengal, India.
M.Phil&Ph.D in Canadian Studies, SIS, JNU, New Delhi.
Email: kamaranjnu@gmail.com

References:
Blanchfield, Mike, The Canadian Press, 21 December 2017 http://www.macleans.ca/news/ canada -to-abstain-from-un-vote-on-u-s-decision-to-move-embassy-to-jerusalem/.
Connolly, Amanda , Canada among 35 abstaining from UN vote condemning American embassy move to Jerusalem, National Online Journalist,  Global News, December 21, 2017, https://globalnews.ca/news/3929255/canada-abstains-un-vote-american-embassy-jerusalem.
Desai, Ronak D., 18 July 2017, Why Prime Minister Modi’s Israel Visit Really Matters, https://www.forbes.com/sites, 18 July 2017.
Flicker, Charles (2002-03), “Next Year in Jerusalem: Joe Clark and the Jerusalem Embassy Affair”, International Journal, 58(1), pp. 115-138, Canadian International Council.
General Assembly Plenary, Tenth Emergency Special Session, 37th Meeting (AM), GA/11995, 21 December 2017, https://www.un.org/press/en/2017/ga11995.doc.htm.
https://www.maannews.com, 26 December 2017.
http://www.mea.gov.in/media-briefings.htm, 7 December 2017.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news, 24 December 2017.
Israeli–Palestinian Conflict, http://www.aljazeera.com/news, 24 December 2017. 
Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, 26 December 2017, http://pchrgaza.org/en/?p=10208
Liebermann, Oren and Caroline Kenny, CNN, December 6, 2017, http://edition.cnn.com/ 2017 /01/24/middleeast/donald-trump-us-embassy-israel-explainer/index.html.
Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, http://pchrgaza.org/en, 26 December 2017.
Rosenberg, David, 05 July 2017, https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news.
United Nations (1947), United Nations Special Committee On Palestine Report to the General Assembly, Official Records of the Second Session of the General Assembly, Supplement No. 11, Volume 1, A/364, 3 Sept 1947, New York, http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF.

In the past 50 years, the amount of water in the open ocean with zero oxygen has gone up more than fourfold. In coastal water bodies, including estuaries and seas, low-oxygen sites have increased more than 10-fold since 1950. Scientists expect oxygen to continue dropping even outside these zones as Earth warms. To halt the decline, the world needs to rein in both climate change and nutrient pollution, an international team of scientists asserted in a new paper published Jan. 4 in Science.

“Oxygen is fundamental to life in the oceans,” said Denise Breitburg, lead author and marine ecologist with the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center. “The decline in ocean oxygen ranks among the most serious effects of human activities on the Earth’s environment.”

The study came from a team of scientists from GO2NE (Global Ocean Oxygen Network), a new working group created in 2016 by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission. The review paper is the first to take such a sweeping look at the causes, consequences and solutions to low oxygen worldwide, in both the open ocean and coastal waters. The article highlights the biggest dangers to the ocean and society, and what it will take to keep Earth’s waters healthy and productive.

The Stakes

“Approximately half of the oxygen on Earth comes from the ocean,” said Vladimir Ryabinin, executive secretary of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission that formed the GO2NE group. “However, combined effects of nutrient loading and climate change are greatly increasing the number and size of ‘dead zones’ in the open ocean and coastal waters, where oxygen is too low to support most marine life.”

In areas traditionally called “dead zones,” like those in Chesapeake Bay and the Gulf of Mexico, oxygen plummets to levels so low many animals suffocate and die. As fish avoid these zones, their habitats shrink and they become more vulnerable to predators or fishing. But the problem goes far beyond “dead zones,” the authors point out. Even smaller oxygen declines can stunt growth in animals, hinder reproduction and lead to disease or even death. Low oxygen also can trigger the release of dangerous chemicals such as nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas up to 300 times more powerful than carbon dioxide, and toxic hydrogen sulfide. While some animals can thrive in dead zones, overall biodiversity falls.

Climate change is the key culprit in the open ocean. Warming surface waters make it harder for oxygen to reach the ocean interior. Furthermore, as the ocean as a whole gets warmer, it holds less oxygen. In coastal waters, excess nutrient pollution from land creates algal blooms, which drain oxygen as they die and decompose. In an unfortunate twist, animals also need more oxygen in warmer waters, even as it is disappearing.

People’s livelihoods are also on the line, the scientists reported, especially in developing nations. Smaller, artisanal fisheries may be unable to relocate when low oxygen destroys their harvests or forces fish to move elsewhere. In the Philippines, fish kills in a single town’s aquaculture pens cost more than $10 million. Coral reefs, a key tourism attraction in many countries, also can waste away without enough oxygen.

“It’s a tremendous loss to all the support services that rely on recreation and tourism, hotels and restaurants and taxi drivers and everything else,” said Lisa Levin, a co-author and marine biologist with the University of California, San Diego. “The reverberations of unhealthy ecosystems in the ocean can be extensive.”

Some popular fisheries could benefit, at least in the short term. Nutrient pollution can stimulate production of food for fish. In addition, when fish are forced to crowd to escape low oxygen, they can become easier to catch. But in the long run, this could result in overfishing and damage to the economy.

Winning the War: A Three-Pronged Approach

To keep low oxygen in check, the scientists said the world needs to take on the issue from three angles:

1. Address the causes: nutrient pollution and climate change. While neither issue is simple or easy, the steps needed to win can benefit people as well as the environment. Better septic systems and sanitation can protect human health and keep pollution out of the water. Cutting fossil fuel emissions not only cuts greenhouse gases and fights climate change, but also slashes dangerous air pollutants like mercury.

2. Protect vulnerable marine life. With some low oxygen unavoidable, it is crucial to protect at-risk fisheries from further stress. According to the GO2NE team, this could mean creating marine protected areas or no-catch zones in areas animals use to escape low oxygen, or switching to fish that are not as threatened by falling oxygen levels.

3. Improve low-oxygen tracking worldwide. Scientists have a decent grasp of how much oxygen the ocean could lose in the future, but they do not know exactly where those low-oxygen zones will be. Enhanced monitoring, especially in developing countries, and numerical models will help pinpoint which places are most at risk and determine the most effective solutions.

“This is a problem we can solve,” Breitburg said. “Halting climate change requires a global effort, but even local actions can help with nutrient-driven oxygen decline.” As proof Breitburg points to the ongoing recovery of Chesapeake Bay, where nitrogen pollution has dropped 24 percent since its peak thanks to better sewage treatment, better farming practices and successful laws like the Clean Air Act. While some low-oxygen zones persist, the area of the Chesapeake with zero oxygen has almost disappeared. “Tackling climate change may seem more daunting,” she added, “but doing it is critical for stemming the decline of oxygen in our oceans, and for nearly every aspect of life on our planet.”

The geopolitical risks to the United States’ oil supply are the lowest since the early 1970s, due to fracking, climate action and a more diverse global supply, according to a new paper by experts at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. America’s energy prosperity contrasts with a more fraught period for energy-exporting countries where geopolitical challenges have been compounded by fiscal stress and rising domestic energy demand, the authors said.

“Geopolitical Dimensions of U.S. Oil Security,” co-authored by Jim Krane, the Wallace S. Wilson Fellow for Energy Studies at the Baker Institute, and Kenneth Medlock, senior director of the institute’s Center for Energy Studies, was published online this month in the journal Energy Policy.

The authors argue that while U.S. security guarantees for America’s Persian Gulf allies remain important, enhanced U.S. oil security and other factors could allow a downsizing of military commitment. At the same time, the oil-exporting world is turning toward the developing world to find markets for its crude. Someday, conceivably, these countries may participate in ensuring the security of global oil supply, the authors said.

Climate policies also, ironically, enhance oil security due to the greater fuel efficiency and push toward alternative technologies and fuels. “Hence, the more Americans adopt alternate vehicle technologies and fuels, the more they insulate themselves from oil disruptions,” the authors wrote.

Despite these factors, oil stands to remain the world’s primary transportation fuel for decades, ensuring its strategic value and U.S. interest in protecting the trade.

“The security of America’s oil supply and stability in global oil trade remain critical components of U.S. national security,” the authors wrote. “While the potential exists for rapid shifts in energy systems at the regional level, energy transitions tend to occur slowly on a global scale. Geopolitical forces, by contrast, are far more volatile.

“As the Iranian revolution and the fall of the Soviet Union demonstrate, sweeping change can upend longstanding relationships overnight,” they wrote. “Ongoing trends in global oil markets appear to be pointing to continued improvement in the security of U.S. oil supply. U.S. domestic production is increasing, as is the geographic diversity of global oil supply, and environmental pressures are encouraging greater efficiency and adoption of substitute technologies. All of these factors contribute to U.S. oil security.”

However, trends in oil geopolitics point in the opposite direction, the authors said. “The Trump administration’s transactional approach to international relations has intensified the uncertainty of an already volatile period among oil exporting states,” the authors wrote.

“Since the onset of the Arab Spring uprisings in 2010, instability has been exacerbated by fiscal stresses of low oil prices, the rise in tension between Sunni and Shia Muslim-dominated regions and the attendant proxy wars in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Libya, crumbling stability in Venezuela and a breakdown in relations among Gulf oil sheikhdoms. Most recently, the Trump administration has aggravated regional geopolitical tensions by taking sides in the intra-Gulf dispute. It has also created broad rifts with long-standing allies over its announced intention to withdraw from the 2015 Paris climate agreement,” the authors said.

Improvements to U.S. energy security despite rising tensions in oil-producing regions have prompted questions about whether the United States needs to continue enforcing the provisions of the Carter Doctrine that require Washington to maintain a large and costly military presence in the Persian Gulf. “Despite a strong prima facie case for drawdown, we argue that a continued U.S. presence remains compelling,” the authors wrote.

Looking to the future, U.S. oil security depends on development choices made in China, India and other Asian states where once impoverished masses are rising into the middle class, the authors said. “The oil intensity of China and India, as well as populous ASEAN states like Indonesia, will weigh greatly on future oil security in the United States,” the authors wrote.

Efforts by the Trump administration to marshal a muscular international response to Iran’s crackdown on anti-government protesters appeared to backfire Friday, as members of the UN Security Council instead used a special session called by the United States to lecture the US ambassador on the proper purpose of the body and to reaffirm support for the Iran nuclear agreement.

It was an afternoon of high diplomatic theatre that began with a passionate denunciation of Iran’s “oppressive government” by the US ambassador, Nikki R. Haley, and ended with the Iranian ambassador delivering a lengthy history of popular revolt in the United States – from the violent demonstrations at the Democratic National Convention in 1968 to the Occupy Wall Street protests in 2011.

In the interim, council members did, one by one, condemn the Iranian government’s response during more than a week of protests. As of Friday, more than 20 people had been killed and hundreds had been arrested. The authorities have blocked access to social media and have blamed foreign “enemies” for instigating the unrest, a common refrain at times of upheaval that in this case the government has provided no evidence to support.

In her remarks, Haley said the United States would remain steadfastly behind the Iranian protesters.

“Let there be no doubt whatsoever,” she said, “the United States stands unapologetically with those in Iran who seek freedom for themselves.”

But there was evidence of a mini-revolt brewing within the Security Council chamber, not only among traditional adversaries like Russia and China, but also among close allies like France and Sweden. Many seemed to fear that the outspoken criticism by the Americans was simply a pretext to undermine the Iran nuclear deal, which President Donald Trump has long desired to scrap.

It is not precisely clear what Haley hoped to achieve by convening the session Friday, which was not previously scheduled. Until the meeting began at 3 pm, it was not even certain whether Haley would be able to secure the votes needed to call the session to order.

But even before the session began, France’s ambassador, François Delattre, warned against “instrumentalisation” of the protests “from the outside.”

Speaking before the council, he went further.

“We must be wary of any attempt to exploit this crisis for personal ends, which would have a diametrically opposed outcome to that which is wished,” Delattre said.

He asked rhetorically why the Security Council had not taken up the issue of Black Lives Matter protests in Ferguson, Missouri, which were at times also met with a violent police response.

“The real reason for convening today’s meeting is not an attempt to protect human rights or promote the interests of the Iranian people, but rather as a veiled attempt to use the current moment to continue to undermine” the Iranian deal, Nebenzya said.

Trump has repeatedly excoriated the deal, which was a signature diplomatic achievement of his predecessor, Barack Obama. In October, he refused to recertify the deal, though he left it to Congress to legislate changes to it. (None of the other world powers that signed the deal believes renegotiation is possible.)

This month, Trump will again have to choose whether to continue to waive sanctions, as the deal requires, or chart a more confrontational approach that would further antagonise European allies.

Trump himself conflated the protests with the Iran nuclear deal this week, arguing that financial benefits received by the Iranian authorities as part of the accord had fuelled the corruption that the country’s people were protesting.

At the Security Council on Friday, most members insisted that these two issues were separate.

“It needs to be crystal clear to the international community that the situation in Iran does not belong on the agenda of the Security Council,” said Sacha Sergio Llorenty, the Bolivian ambassador.

Sweden’s representative, Irina Schoulgin Nyoni, concurred: “We have our reservations on the format and timing of this session.”

Such reticence to support the US position is the latest evidence of growing international resistance to the Trump administration’s foreign policy priorities, particularly at the United Nations. Last month, a large majority of UN members voted for a resolution denouncing the United States’ decision to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and move the US Embassy there.

Haley had to use her veto to block a similar resolution in the Security Council that was supported by every other member.

On Wednesday, the US Mission to the United Nations held a cocktail reception for the nine countries that voted against the resolution in the General Assembly, which, aside from Israel, were Guatemala, Honduras, Togo, the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru and Palau.

In a video message played at the reception, Trump thanked the attendees for “standing with the United States.”
He said the vote would “go down as a very important date,” and their support was “noted and greatly appreciated.”

Several Catholic bishops’ call for clarity and compassion on sexual identity issues such as transgenderism drew the ire of a dissenting Catholic group which is part of a well-funded LGBT activism network.

New Ways Ministry’s executive director Francis DeBernardo encouraged his group’s supporters Dec. 18 to write the four bishops who signed the recent letter. Claiming gender transition helps people “become closer to God,” he said the letter is “denying transgender experience” and “promotes a false scenario about how gender topics are being taught to children.”

The Dec. 15 letter “Created Male and Female” was published on the website of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Catholic signers included Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia, who chairs the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth; Bishop James Conley of Lincoln, chair of the bishops’ Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage; Archbishop Joseph Kurtz of Louisville, chair of the bishops’ Committee for Religious Liberty; and Bishop Joseph Bambera of Scranton, who chairs the Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs.

Other signers included religious leaders from Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, Baptist, and Muslim backgrounds.

The religious leaders stressed that male and female are God-given differences that must be publicly acknowledged, and that those who are confused about their own identity deserve authentic support.

Their letter voiced the belief that “God created each person male or female; therefore, sexual difference is not an accident or a flaw – it is a gift from God that helps draw us closer to each other and to God. What God has created is good.” They cited the Book of Genesis on the creation of humankind: “male and female he created them.”

DeBernardo, however, contended the letter was based on a scientifically false idea of gender. He rejected the idea that gender is a choice, portraying it as something discovered through one’s biological and sociocultural development.

“To force someone to live inauthentically is neither healthy nor holy,” said DeBernardo. “Reading this statement makes one wonder if any of these leaders have ever listened to the journey of transgender people. If they had, they would find that transgender people often experience their transition as not only a psychologically beneficial step, but one that also involves important spiritual dimensions. Transitioning helps people become closer to God. That is something religious people should support.”

The religious leaders’ letter said the movement to enforce the idea that a man can become a woman or a woman can become a man is “deeply troubling.”

They voiced concern that children are affected by current trends in sexual identity and are harmed when told they can change their sex or are given hormones that can affect their development or render them infertile.

Desires to be identified as the opposite sex are “a complicated reality that needs to be addressed with sensitivity and truth” and with a response of “compassion, mercy and honesty,” the letter said.

The letter is in line with writings from Pope Francis, who has addressed sexual identity issues several times. In his 2016 apostolic exhortation Amoris laetitia, he said young people “need to be helped to accept their own body as it was created.” And in his 2015 encyclical Laudato si’, he linked the acceptance of the human body as God’s gift to accepting the entire world as a gift from God. “[T]hinking that we enjoy absolute power over our own bodies turns, often subtly, into thinking that we enjoy absolute power over creation,” he warned.

New Ways Ministry has faced correction from leading U.S. bishops in the past, including a March 2011 statement from Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington. A February 2010 statement from Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, then-president of the U.S. bishops’ conference, said the group’s claim to be Catholic “only confuses the faithful regarding the authentic teaching and ministry of the Church with respect to persons with a homosexual inclination.”

In 1999 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, headed by the future Pope Benedict XVI, said New Ways Ministry’s founders took an approach to homosexuality that had “ambiguities and errors” which cause confusion among Catholics and harm the community of the Church.

New Ways Ministry’s current backers include the Arcus Foundation, founded by billionaire heir Jon Stryker. The foundation also backs the Equally Blessed Coalition, of which the group is a part. A 2014 grant for this coalition aimed “to support pro-LGBT faith advocates to influence and counter the narrative of the Catholic Church and its ultra-conservative affiliates” in connection with the Catholic Church’s Synod on the Family and World Youth Day.

In 2016 New Ways Ministry gave its Bridge Building Award to Father James Martin, S.J., editor-at-large of America Magazine. The priest’s lecture at the award ceremony was the basis for his book Building a Bridge, on Catholic-LGBT relations.

Catholic pastoral approaches to sexual identity and transgender issues in line with Church teaching are underway, though rarely on an organized basis.

In February 2017 a spokesperson for the U.S. Bishops’ Conference Office of Public Affairs told CNA most pastoral care has largely taken place “at a local and personal level.”

“As attention to and awareness of this experience has grown, we are seeing more efforts regionally and nationally to respond in a way faithful to the Catholic understanding of the human person and God’s care for everyone,” the spokesperson said.

The spokesperson said that dioceses with their own chapter of Courage, which aims to accompany Catholics with same-sex attraction, are in a good position to respond to people with questions about their sexual identity.

“Gaming disorder” will be recognised as a disease later this year following expert consensus over the addictive risks associated with playing electronic games, the World Health Organization said Friday, January 5, AFP reveals.

The disorder will be listed in the 11th edition of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), to be published in June, WHO spokesman Tarik Jasarevic told reporters in Geneva.

WHO is leading the process of updating ICD-11, which includes input from global health practitioners.

The current working definition of the disorder is “a pattern of gaming behaviour, that can be digital gaming or video gaming, characterised by impaired control over gaming, increased priority given to gaming over other activities to the extent that gaming takes precedence over other interests,” Jasarevic said.

Other symptoms include “the continuation and escalation of gaming despite the occurrence of negative consequences”.

The provisional guidelines say that an individual should demonstrate an abnormal fixation on gaming for at least a year before being diagnosed with the disorder, which will be classified as an “addictive behaviour”, Jasarevic said.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that the condition disproportionately effects younger people more connected to the ever-expanding online gaming world.

But the WHO spokesman cautioned that it was premature to speculate on the scope of the problem.

“Gaming disorder is a relatively new concept and epidemiological data at the population level are yet to be generated”, he said.

Despite the lack of hard data, “health experts basically agree that there is an issue” and that official inclusion in the ICD is the next appropriate step, Jasarevic said.

“There are people who are asking for help”, he added, noting that formal recognition of the condition will help spur further research and resources committed to combatting the problem.

(RFE/RL) — U.S. President Donald Trump’s former chief strategist Steve Bannon has reaffirmed his support for Trump and praised his eldest son as “both a patriot and a good man.”

Bannon made the comments in a January 7 statement after a new book quoted him as describing a June 2016 meeting between Donald Trump Jr., Trump campaign aides, and a Russian lawyer as “treasonous” and “unpatriotic.”

White House officials said Trump was furious at Bannon’s comments in the book by author Michael Wolff, titled Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House.

The president called the work a “phony” book and said it was full of inaccurate and false information.

But Bannon said in the statement that his description was aimed at Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, who also attended the gathering, and not the president’s son.

He also said that he regretted waiting five days to say something, and called Wolff’s reporting “inaccurate.”

Bannon added that his support for Trump and his agenda was “unwavering.”

The U.S. Senate, House of Representatives, and FBI are investigating alleged Russian interference in last year’s presidential election, allegations denied by Moscow.

By Riley Walters*

While mega-breaches of high-profile private companies are the norm for headline fodder, the federal government also has its share of vulnerabilities in cyberspace. A February 2017 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) highlights the federal government’s consistent shortcomings when it comes to protecting federal information systems.1 The GAO highlights the need for agencies to improve their cyber incident detection, response, and mitigation, and better protect personally identifiable information. The breach of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) in 2015 and theft of 22 million personnel records by Chinese hackers is no less proof of the need for greater security.

Yet agencies continue to be plagued by cyber incidents. In fiscal year (FY) 2016, government agencies reported 30,899 information security incidents, 16 of which met the threshold of being a major incident.2 A second report by the GAO, released in September 2017, highlighted federal agencies’ continued weakness in protecting their information systems.3 At least 21 agencies continued to show weakness in the five major categories for information-security control: access, configuration management, segregation of duties, contingency planning, and agency-wide security management.

This Issue Brief is a continuation in a series of papers that highlight cyber incidents involving the federal government between 2004 4 and 2015.5 Incidents are listed in chronological order by the date the incident is first reported to the public and does not necessarily reflect the time the breach originally occurred.

November 2016

Department of the Navy.6 The Navy was notified in October 2016 that a laptop containing the names and social security numbers of 134,386 current and former sailors was compromised.7 The laptop belonged to an employee of Hewlett Packard Enterprise Services which serves as a Navy contractor.

December 2016

Election Assistance Commission (EAC).8 Recorded Future, a threat intelligence firm, came across a Russian-speaking hacker looking to sell more than 100 potentially compromised access credentials of the EAC database.9 Some of the credentials contained administrative privileges. The hacker, given the name Rasputin, has no known affiliation to a foreign government and claims to have breached the EAC system. According to Recorded Future, Rasputin was in negotiations to sell the information to a buyer working on behalf of a Middle Eastern government. In February 2017, Recorded Future found Rasputin attempting to sell unauthorized access to a number of state and federal agencies though there was no sign of an actual breach.10

January 2017

Department of Defense (DOD). Not all breaches are malicious. Since March 2016 the DOD and HackerOne—a bug bounty platform—have initiated a series of “Hack the Pentagon” campaigns.11 The campaigns allow U.S.-based hackers to hunt for vulnerabilities in the DOD’s public-facing networks in exchange for a reward. During a Hack the Pentagon campaign that ran from November 30, 2016, to December 21, 2016, a hacker was able to access an internal DOD network through the goarmy.com website.12 Only those with authorized access can normally access the Internet network.

March and April 2017

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and National Security Agency (NSA). Any public release of classified information, especially information reportedly originating from within the American intelligence community, should err on the side of caution when recognizing its authenticity. In March 2017, Wikileaks released what it believes to be a list of CIA hacking tools.13 The list, known as “Year Zero” or “Vault 7,” was reportedly acquired by Wikileaks while the information was being passed between government employees and contractors in an “unauthorized manner.”14 A month later, a group known as the Shadow Brokers continued releasing what it claimed to be NSA hacking tools.15 One of the tools included, known as EternalBlue, was associated with a number of cyber attacks that occurred throughout the summer of 2016.16 The Shadow brokers claim to have stolen these tools from a team reportedly associated with the NSA, known as the “Equation Group.”

Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The Data Retrieval Tool for the IRS’s Free Application for Federal Student Aid was breached as early as September 2016.17 Approximately 100,000 individuals may have had their taxpayer information compromised. Until the tool was turned off in March 2017, hackers were also able to file upwards of 8,000 applications18 and steal $30 million from the U.S. government.

August 2017

Department of Labor (DOL). A new Injury Tracking Application website by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration was suspended after the Department of Homeland Security notified the DOL of a potential compromise.19 One company was reportedly affected by the breach.

September 2017

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The SEC’s Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval (EDGAR) database was compromised in 2016.20 The system houses sensitive corporate and financial information and could be used by traders looking to gain an advantage in stock trading.

October 2017

Departments of State, Energy, Homeland Security, and Defense, the U.S. Postal Service, the National Institutes of Health, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac. A server belonging to the auditing firm Deloitte was compromised by a cyber attack ongoing since 2016.21 The server contained the e-mails of an estimated 350 clients of Deloitte.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Between 2015 and 2016, the FDIC may have suffered 54 breaches.22 Of the 54 suspected or confirmed breaches, six were designated as a major incident and potentially compromised the personally identifiable information of 113,000 individuals.23 Just a year earlier, high-level officials at the FDIC were reportedly hacked by agents of the Chinese government during a three-year hacking campaign that lasted between 2010 and 2013.24

U.S. Forces Korea and Republic of Korea (ROK) Armed Forces. A South Korean politician announced that North Korean hackers stole joint U.S.–ROK wartime operational plans in September 2017.25 The 235 gigabytes of data stolen may have also included information on key military facilities and power plants.

November 2017

U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM). UpGuard, a cybersecurity company, discovered in September 2017 an Amazon cloud storage containing data belonging to INSCOM.26 The publically accessible cloud storage contained sensitive information not least including details of the DOD’s battlefield intelligence platform and a virtual system used for classified communication.

Government Networks Will Continue to Need Security

A breach of the Kansas Department of Commerce exposing 5.5 million social security numbers;27 the IRS relaxing commitments to protect taxpayers’ personal information;28 and the 21 states notified by the Department of Homeland Security that their election systems were targeted by Russian hackers29 — these additional incidents bear out the lesson of the list above. While the incidents may not apply to the federal level or reflect an actual breach in information, they no less represent the need for greater cybersecurity. To that end, the U.S. government should:

Support the private sector with active cyber defense. The private sector is key in maintaining a strong U.S. cyberspace, whether it is creating new devices, implementing best practices, developing a strong cyber workforce, or defending U.S. network systems. Lawmakers should refrain from burdening the private sector with rigid regulations, instead looking to expand the private sectors’ capabilities with allowing for active cyber defense.30

Continue to work with international partners. Cyberspace knows no borders, but cyber criminals do. And they are often located outside the U.S. The U.S. should work with international friends and allies to take cyber criminals out of cyberspace and make them answer for their crimes in the real world.

No Panacea in Cybersecurity

No silver bullet exists for the problems of cybersecurity. The U.S. government should refrain from shooting the private sector in the foot with new regulations and focus on strengthening the security of its own information.

About the author:
*Riley Walters is a Research Associate in the Asian Studies Center, of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy, at The Heritage Foundation.

Source:
This article was published by The Heritage Foundation.

Notes:
[1] Gregory C. Wilshusen, “Cybersecurity Actions Needed to Strengthen U.S. Capabilities,” testimony before the Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representative, February 14, 2017, http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/682756.pdf (accessed December 4, 2017).
[2] Office of Management and Budget, Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014, Annual Report to Congress, 2016, November 2016, https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/briefing-room/presidential-actions/related-omb-material/fy_2016_fisma_report%20to_congress_official_release_march_10_2017.pdf (accessed December 4, 2017).
[3] Government Accountability Agency, “Federal Information Security Weaknesses Continue to Indicate Need for Effective Implementation of Policies and Practices,” Report to Congressional Committees, September 2017, http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/687461.pdf (accessed December 4, 2017).
[4] Paul Rosenzweig and David Inserra, “Breaches Warn Against Cybersecurity Regulation,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 4288, October 27, 2014, http://www.heritage.org/defense/report/continuing-federal-cyber-breaches-warn-against-cybersecurity-regulation#_ftn2.
[5] Riley Walters, “Continued Federal Cyber Breaches in 2015,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 4488, November 19, 2015, http://www.heritage.org/cybersecurity/report/continued-federal-cyber-breaches-2015.
[6] While this Issue Brief focuses on cyber incidents that occurred in 2017, this event from 2016 is included to ensure no gaps exist in the research on the issue of cyber incidents in the federal government.
[7] Chief of Naval Personnel Public Affairs, “Security Breach Notification of Sailors’ PII,” America’s Navy, November 23, 2016, http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=97820 (accessed December 4, 2017).
[8] See footnote 6.
[9] Andrei Barysevich, “Russian-Speaking Hacker Selling Access to the US Election Assistance Commission,” Recorded Future, December 15, 2016, https://www.recordedfuture.com/rasputin-eac-breach/ (accessed December 4, 2017).
[10] Levi Gundart, “Russian-Speaking Hacker Sells SQLi for Unauthorized Access to Over 60 Universities and Government Agencies,” Recorded Future, February 16, 2017, https://www.recordedfuture.com/recent-rasputin-activity/ (accessed December 4, 2017).
[11] “Hack the Pentagon,” Hackerone, https://www.hackerone.com/resources/hack-the-pentagon (accessed December 4, 2017).
[12] Eduard Kovacs, “Expert Hacks Internal DOD Network via Army Website,” Security Week, January 23, 2017, http://www.securityweek.com/expert-hacks-internal-dod-network-army-website (accessed December 4, 2017).
[13] Roi Perez, “WikiLeaks Releases Document Trove Allegedly Containing CIA Hacking Tools,” SC Magazine UK, March 7, 2017, https://www.scmagazineuk.com/wikileaks-releases-document-trove-allegedly-containing-cia-hacking-tools/article/642429/ (accessed December 4, 2017).
[14] Ibid.
[15] Adam McNeil, “ShadowBrokers Fails to Collect 1M Bitcoins—Releases Stolen Information,” Malwarebytes Labs, April 10, 2017, https://blog.malwarebytes.com/cybercrime/2017/04/shadowbrokers-fails-to-collect-1m-bitcoins-releases-stolen-information/ (accessed December 4, 2017).
[16] Riley Walters, “A Massive Cybersecurity Has Hit Over 150 Countries. Here’s How to Protect Your Computer,” The Daily Signal, May 16, 2017, http://dailysignal.com/2017/05/16/massive-cyberattack-hit-150-countries-heres-protect-computer/.
[17] Alfred Ng, “Hackers Use College Student Loans Tools to Steal $30 million,” CNET, April 17, 2017, https://www.cnet.com/news/hackers-used-college-student-loans-tool-to-steal-30-million/ (accessed December 4, 2017).
[18] Kenneth C. Corbin and Silvana Gina Garza, testimony before the Oversight and Government Reform Committee on the FAFSA Data Retrieval Tool, U.S. House of Representatives, May 3, 2017, https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Corbin-Garza-IRS-joint-Statement-FAFSA-5-3.pdf (accessed December 4, 2017).
[19] Tressi L. Cordaro, “OSHA Suspends ITA Due to Security Breach,” The National Law Review, August 16, 2017, https://www.natlawreview.com/article/osha-suspends-ita-due-to-security-breach (accessed December 4, 2017).
[20] “SEC Hit by Database Breach in 2016,” Fedscoop, September 21, 2017, https://www.fedscoop.com/sec-hit-database-breach-2016/ (accessed December 4, 2017).
[21] Nick Hopkins, “Deloitte Hack Hit Server Containing Emails from Across US Government,” The Guardian, October 10, 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/oct/10/deloitte-hack-hit-server-containing-emails-from-across-us-government (accessed December 4, 2017).
[22] Billy Mitchell, “FDIC Breached More than 50 Times Between 2015 and 2016,” Fedscoop, October 5, 2017, https://www.fedscoop.com/fdic-breached-50-times-2015-2016/ (accessed December 4, 2017).
[23] Office of Inspector General, Office of Information Technology Audits and Cyber, “The FDIC’s Processes for Responding to Breaches of Personally Identifiable Information,” Report No. AUD-17-006, September 2017, https://www.oversight.gov/sites/default/files/oig-reports/FDICOIG-17-006AUD.pdf (accessed December 4, 2017).
[24] Katie Bo Williams, “Chinese Government Likely Hacked FDIC: Report,” The Hill, July 13, 2016, http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/287561-chinese-government-likely-hacked-fdic-report (accessed December 4, 2017).
[25] Bryan Harris, “North Korea Hacked War Blueprint, Says Seoul Lawmaker,” Financial Times, October 10, 2017, https://www.ft.com/content/d8bbceb0-ad64-11e7-aab9-abaa44b1e130 (accessed December 4, 2017).
[26] Dan O’Sullivan, “Black Box, Red Disk: How Top Secret NSA and Army Data Leaked Online,” UpGuard, November 28, 2017, https://www.upguard.com/breaches/cloud-leak-inscom (accessed December 4, 2017).
[27] Morgan Chalfant, “Over 5 Million Social Security Numbers Exposed in Kansas Breach: Report,” The Hill, July 20, 2017, http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/343028-kansas-breach-exposed-over-5-million-social-security-numbers-report (accessed December 4, 2017).
[28] News release, “Employees Sometimes Did Not Adhere to E-mail Policies, Which Increased the Risk of Improper Disclosure of Taxpayer Information,” U.S. Department of the Treasury, Inspector General for Tax Administration, November 17, 2016, https://www.treasury.gov/tigta/press/press_tigta-2016-36.htm (accessed December 4, 2017).
[29] Joe Uchill, “DHS Tells 21 States They Were Russia Hacking Targets Before 2016 Election,” The Hill, September 22, 2017, http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/351981-dhs-notifies-21-states-of-they-were-targets-russian-hacking?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=10978 (accessed December 4, 2017).
[30] Paul Rosenzweig, Steven P. Bucci, and David Inserra, “Next Steps for U.S. Cybersecurity in the Trump Administration: Active Cyber Defense,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3188, May 5, 2017, http://www.heritage.org/cybersecurity/report/next-steps-us-cybersecurity-the-trump-administration-active-cyber-defense.

Dodder, a parasitic plant that levies millions of dollars’ worth of damage on crops each year is a stealthy invader with the ability to wage war on the genes of its host plants. The assailant utilizes a highly sophisticated method of disarming its victims involving cross-species gene manipulation that has never before been seen from a parasitic plant. Understanding dodder’s covert communications weaponry system, which operates much like a computer virus, could provide researchers with a method to engineer parasite-resistant plants.

A paper describing the research by a team of scientists from Virginia Tech and Penn State appeared this week in the journal Nature.

“The big news is that we now have evidence of a function for RNA that is being exchanged between dodder and its quarry,” said Jim Westwood, professor of plant pathology, physiology, and weed science in Virginia Tech’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, an author of the paper.

“We had previously learned that messenger RNA, a nucleic acid present in all living cells whose primary role is to act as a messenger carrying instructions from DNA, moves between parasitic plants and their hosts, but we have yet to discover the significance of this exchange. But when we looked at microRNA, we found that dodder also passes this chopped-up form of RNA into its prey, which then exerts control over the host’s genetic expression.

“Imagine a battle between host and parasite. In this case, dodder is trying to hack into the host’s information system and the host is trying to shut it off. MicroRNAs are a new class of weapon being used in the warfare,” he said.

MicroRNAs are short bits of nucleic acid — the material of DNA and RNA — that can bind to messenger RNAs that code for protein because they have a complimentary sequence of A, U, C and G. This binding of microRNA to messenger RNA prevents the protein from being made, either by blocking the process directly or by triggering other proteins that cut the messenger RNA into smaller pieces. Importantly, the small remnants of the messenger RNA can then function like additional microRNAs, binding to other copies of the messenger RNA, causing further gene silencing.

The team found that microRNAs have a more powerful function than previously believed. The scientists investigated the parasite’s microRNAs as they entered the host and discovered that microRNAs are shutting off specific genes in the host plant. Evidence points to the fact that these targeted genes are the same genes a parasite would need to silence in order to establish dominance.

“Host-parasite interaction involves the use of microRNAs as messengers of doom. They are hijacking information from the host,” said Westwood, who is affiliated with the Fralin Life Science Institute. “We don’t yet know how they are being exchanged in terms of the mechanism, but it seems that many different organisms, including plants, fungi and insects, are using microRNAs as remote signals against other organisms. In these cases, the pathogen is sending microRNAs to shut down the host’s defenses. Likewise, the host is shooting its own microRNAs into the pathogen. MicroRNAs are a new class of weapon being used in the warfare.”

This research builds on previous studies by Westwood. The first, published in August 2014 in Science magazine, presented the discovery of a novel form of inter-organism communication using messenger RNA, showing that plants share an extraordinary amount of genetic information with one another. The second, published in November 2016 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, presented the discovery that parasitic weeds may be able to steal genes from their prey and then use those genes against the host plant.

When a plant is attacked by a parasite it initiates a number of defense mechanisms. In one of these mechanisms, similar to blood clotting after a cut, the plants produce a protein that clots the flow of nutrients to the site of the parasite. MicroRNA from dodder targets the messenger RNA that codes for this protein, which then helps to maintain a free flow of nutrients to the parasite. The gene that codes for this clotting protein has a very similar sequence across many plant species, and the researchers showed that the microRNA from dodder targets regions of the gene sequence that are the most highly conserved across plants. Because of this, dodder can probably silence this clotting protein in, and therefore parasitize, a wide variety of plant species.

The researchers sequenced all of the small RNAs in tissue from the parasite alone, the host plant alone, and a combination of two. By comparing the sequencing data from these three sources, they were able to identify microRNAs from dodder that had entered the plant tissue. They then measured the amount of messenger RNA of genes that were targeted by the dodder microRNAs and saw that the level of messenger RNA from the host was reduced when the dodder microRNAs were present.

“Along with previous examples of small RNA exchange between fungi and plants, our results imply that this cross-species gene regulation may be more widespread in other plant-parasite interactions,” said Michael J. Axtell, professor of biology at Penn State and an author of the paper. “So, with this knowledge, the dream is that we could eventually use gene editing technology to edit the microRNA target sites in the host plants, preventing the microRNAs from binding and silencing these genes. Engineering resistance to the parasite in this way could reduce the economic impact of the parasite on crop plants.”

Saudi authorities have held a prominent cleric for four months without charging or questioning him, Human Rights Watch said today. Saudi authorities detained the cleric, Salman al-Awda, on September 7, 2017, and later imposed arbitrary travel bans on members of al-Awda’s immediate family.

Al-Awda was among the first of dozens of people detained in mid-September. On September 12, Saudi authorities confirmed a crackdown against those acting “for the benefit of foreign parties against the security of the kingdom and its interests.” Saudi authorities carried out another wave of arrests in early November against people they accused of corruption and held many, arbitrarily, at five-star hotels until they agreed to turn over assets to the state.

“Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman’s efforts to reform the Saudi economy and society are bound to fail if his justice system scorns the rule of law by ordering arbitrary arrests and punishments,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “There’s no justification for punishing family members of a detainee without showing even the slightest evidence or accusation of wrongdoing on their part.”

A family member said that two men who identified themselves as State Security arrived at 6 p.m. on September 7, ignored requests to show a warrant, searched the house, and detained al-Awda.

Saudi authorities have neither questioned nor charged al-Awda, the family member said, and have held him in solitary confinement. He said he believed that al-Awda was being held because he hadn’t complied with an order from Saudi authorities to tweet a specific text to support the Saudi-led isolation of Qatar. Instead, he posted a tweet on September 9, the second part of which stated, “may God harmonize between their hearts for the good of their people,” an apparent call for reconciliation between the Gulf countries.

The family member said that authorities have permitted al-Awda only one 13-minute phone call, in October.

Authorities detained al-Awda’s brother Khaled after he tweeted about his brother’s detention, media reported. He remains in detention. Al-Awda’s family member said Saudi authorities imposed travel bans on 17 members of his immediate family, one of whom discovered the ban when attempting to leave the country. He said the immigration officer told his family member that the royal court itself had imposed the travel bans for unspecified reasons.

Human Rights Watch has documented Saudi Arabia’s rampant use of arbitrary travel bans and detentions of Saudi citizens over the years. Authorities have often broken Saudi law in imposing travel bans, Human Rights Watch found. Aside from a court ruling, the authorities may impose bans “for defined reasons related to security and for a known period” and must notify those banned within one week of the ban. Human Rights Watch found that many Saudi citizens only learned of their ban at airports, land crossings, and passport departments months or years after they were imposed. In many cases the authorities do not inform those banned from travelling of the reasons.

Al-Awda is among dozens of dissidents, writers, and clerics detained since mid-September. Activists have circulated lists of more than 60 people being held, though Saudi authorities have not released information about their cases.

Other prominent detainees in the group include Essam al-Zamil, an economist, Mustafa al-Hasan, an academic, Abdullah Al-Malki, a writer, and dozens of other clerics including Awad al-Qarni, Ibrahim al-Nasser, and Ibrahim al-Fares. Authorities imprisoned human rights activists Abdulaziz al-Shubaily and Issa al-Hamid around the same time, both had recently lost appeals of convictions for their human rights work following unfair trials.

Saudi courts have convicted at least 25 prominent activists and dissidents since 2011. Many faced sentences as long as 10 or 15 years, largely under broad, catch-all charges designed to criminalize peaceful dissent. They include “breaking allegiance with the ruler,” “sowing discord,” “inciting public opinion,” “setting up an unlicensed organization,” and vague provisions from the 2007 cybercrime law.

Since 2014, Saudi authorities have tried nearly all peaceful dissidents in the Specialized Criminal Court, Saudi Arabia’s terrorism tribunal.

Authorities have prosecuted nearly all activists associated with the Saudi Civil and Political Rights Association (ACPRA), one of Saudi Arabia’s first civic organizations, which called for broad political reform in interpretations of Islamic law. A Saudi court formally dissolved and banned the group in March 2013. The members faced similar vague charges, including disparaging and insulting judicial authorities, inciting public opinion, insulting religious leaders, participating in setting up an unlicensed organization, and violating the cybercrime law.

Saudi activists and dissidents currently serving long prison terms based solely on their peaceful activism include Waleed Abu al-Khair, Mohammed al-Qahtani, Abdullah al-Hamid, Fadhil al-Manasif, Abdulkareem al-Khodr, Fowzan al-Harbi, Raif Badawi, Saleh al-Ashwan, Abdulrahman al-Hamid, Zuhair Kutbi, Alaa Brinji, and Nadhir al-Majed. Activists Issa al-Nukheifi and Essam Koshak are currently on trial. Mohammed al-Oteibi and Abdullah Attawi are currently on trial for forming a human rights organization in 2013.

“If Mohammad bin Salman wants to show that a new era has begun in Saudi Arabia, a refreshing first step would be the release of activists and dissidents who have never been charged with a recognizable crime and should never have gone to jail in the first place,” Whitson said.

By Ali Vaez*

Manifold reasons lie behind Iran’s ongoing protests, but the immediate trigger appears to be widespread disgruntlement over the country’s economic performance, especially cuts in President Hassan Rouhani’s new budget. Neither a revolution nor a political movement, the crisis is an explosion of the Iranian people’s pent-up frustrations over economic and political stagnation.

Beyond a struggle between state and society – or a standoff between security forces and political figures on the one hand, and young, working-class, unemployed citizens on the other – the demonstrations are putting on full display the fault lines that also divide Iran’s political establishment.

That the protests originated on 28 December in Mashhad, a bastion of Rouhani’s opponents and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s hometown, is highly significant. Hardliners and conservatives initially welcomed the unrest in the holy city, showcasing the way that elite factionalism has worsened to the point that some of Rouhani’s opponents favour instability over siding with his political agenda.

The lack of uniformity in the government’s response to the protests has also highlighted these divisions. Rouhani initially struck a much softer tone than many other establishment figures, asserting people’s right to peaceful protest, and admitting that protesters are not lackeys of foreign powers but people who are suffering economically and seeking a more open society. In stark contrast, others – including Khamenei – have publicly blamed unrest on undefined external forces rather than legitimate grievances.

A Champion for Change

In part, the unrest stems from widespread discontent directed at Rouhani’s inability to activate the economic dividends of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Iran’s 2015 nuclear deal with the P5+1/E3+3. It may seem counterintuitive, but the clear new distance between Rouhani and his conservative critics offers the former a unique opportunity to pivot himself away from being the demonstrators’ target to becoming their champion for reform.

Rouhani can leverage public discontent to push the political establishment toward structural changes so fervently desired by the population. The chance that he can successfully take advantage of this dynamic is made greater by the way many Iranians are wary of taking part in the protests, even though sympathetic to the demands raised in them. Specifically, he could submit to parliament a package of major reforms, including constitutional amendments to empower elected institutions and a timetable for implementing them. If his reform package is blocked, it will be clear to the Iranian people where the problem lies, positioning Rouhani as a motor for change rather than a bulwark against it.

Getting there will require resisting the temptation of pursuing superficial reforms. Shy steps, like the ones reformists are suggesting at present, are not going to cut it with the protesters. Rouhani has nothing to lose by taking a bold step. Without empowering the government and the parliament, and reining in tutelary bodies, like the unelected Guardian Council, vested interests in the status quo are bound to thwart structural economic reforms that are needed to fight corruption and open Iran up to the world market.

The reality is that Rouhani over-promised and under-delivered on the July 2015 nuclear agreement, which many Iranians hoped would bring speedy economic rewards. Five months after the JCPOA was signed, Crisis Group warned that rapid economic transformation was unlikely, as foreign firms and financial institutions were always likely to find it difficult to overcome deeply-entrenched hesitancy regarding doing business with Iran. Despite a number of marquee deals and recovering oil sales, the government has failed to significantly redress issues of unemployment, corruption and income inequality.

Perennial Demands

As the crisis continues, the more violent alternative left open to the Iranian government will not address the underlying causes of unrest. While the state security apparatus might crush the protesters, as it has done at least once every decade since 1979, it cannot eliminate the perennial popular demand for fundamental change, which last reared its head in 2009.

Today’s unrest is different from the 2009 protests, not least because protesters are not asking for U.S. help. Demonstrations are more geographically scattered than during the 2009 revolt, and they seem to involve young and unemployed Iranians more than the middle class. One interior ministry official estimated that 90 per cent of those arrested in the first few days of the most recent unrest were younger than 25.

Rouhani’s initial response to the unrest seemed to acknowledge the notion that the crisis offers an opportunity. Whether he will use it is another question. Without real reform, domestic turmoil is likely to continue and will also afford U.S. President Donald Trump a new chance to kill the JCPOA. Trump will have to decide on 12 January 2018 whether he wants to extend sanctions relief and remain party to the JCPOA. A violent crackdown by Iran’s security forces could give him justification for not waiving sanctions, or even imposing new ones.

About the author:
* Ali Vaez, Crisis Group, Project Director, Iran

Source:
This article was published by International Crisis Group.

A set of leaked audiotapes reveal that the Egyptian government has all but abandoned its solidarity with the Palestinian people.

In secret conversations unearthed by The New York Times, government intelligence officials pushed talk show hosts to peddle a government narrative accepting Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as the “undivided” capital of Israel, despite a public facade of outrage over the move.

The actual government position: that while Palestinians’ rights deserve to be heard at some level, Egypt accepts Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, as Egypt has more pressing security concerns that is shares with Israel.

In other words, Egypt and Israel’s alliance takes precedence over Egypt’s alliance with Palestine, which now looks more myth than reality.

“How is Jerusalem different from Ramallah, really?” the intelligence official, Captain Kholi is heard speaking with talk show hosts, encouraging them to publically push the message that antagonism against Israel is not worth it.

“We, like all our Arab brothers, are denouncing this matter,” but the fact of the matter is that “this thing [Jerusalem’s recognition as the capital of Israel] will become a reality. Palestinians can’t resist and we don’t want to go to war. We have enough on our plate as you know,” Kholi said to the hosts.

Even though Egypt and Israel have slowly become closer regional partners, the leaked audiotapes reveal the extent to Egypt’s acquiescence to its former enemy.

Egypt has historically been one of the strongest military powers against Israel, spearheading wars against Israel in 1948, 1967 and again in 1973–the last of which Egypt initiated as a way to retake the Sinai Peninsula.

Arab leaders have historically been staunch supporters of Palestine and opponents of Israel, but that solidarity has rung hollow, and the Palestinian people are increasingly alone in the fight for their future.

Saudi Arabia, which enjoys heavy influence with Egypt, has reportedly been pressuring other Arab states to accept Trump’s Jerusalem move. Saudi has also been working closely with Trump’s team in the Middle East to work out an Israeli/Palestinian deal–one that Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas was pressed to accept by Saudi delegates.

In a recent analysis by Al Bawaba, Middle East expert and Senior Fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, Dr. Barak Mendelsohn, said that “hardly anyone really cares about the Palestinian issue anymore… Arab states such as Saudi Arabia may be less likely to come out with their warming relations with Israel but as long as shared interests dictate cooperation it will continue to take place.”

Captain Kholi, on tape, echoed exactly this sentiment, telling the talk show hosts, “The point that is dangerous for us is the intifada issue… An intifada would not serve Egypt’s national security interests because an intifada would revive the Islamists and Hamas. Hamas would be reborn once more.”

For their part, the hosts were receptive to the government’s message. One host who is also a member of parliament, Saeed Hassaseen, verbally submitted to Kholi: “Give me orders, sir… I am at your command.”

The Egyptian state’s burgeoning relationship with Israel and Saudi Arabia is part of a geopolitical axis that includes the United States, and the UAE who all are focused on preventing the rise of Iran, treating the Palestinian cause as one that is culturally important but ultimately a comparatively minor and less immediate concern.

As a result of this, it is becoming clearer that Arab leadership is no longer willing to seriously push for a two-state solution, a plan to create both an Israeli state and Palestinian state whereby Jerusalem is under international control rather than the control of one state.

Original source

As German Chancellor Angela Merkel tries to secure a fourth term at the helm of a new grand coalition, a poll has shown a majority would rather vote again. The results also suggest Merkel should not be on the ballot.

Three months after Germans went to the polls, they are still without a government. Their frustration is apparently growing, with the new study finding that 34 percent of respondents want new elections. The Insa survey, commissioned by Germany’s Focus magazine showed that only 30 percent expressed support for a continuation of talks to try and form a grand coalition. A minority government would be viewed favorably by just 15 percent of Germans.

Some 52 percent said Chancellor Merkel should not spearhead her Christian Democratic Party (CDU) in a ‘fresh election.’

The findings from another recent poll, ordered by the ARD broadcaster, showed more than half of respondents, 52 percent, are skeptical about restoring the coalition which has governed the EU powerhouse for years.

On Sunday, talks between Merkel’s CDU/CSU alliance and the Social Democratic Party (SPD) chaired by Martin Schulz got underway in an attempt to revive the so-called ‘grand coalition.’

Merkel won a fourth term in the federal election in September last year, but her party performed poorly, and thus unable to form a majority government. The SPD also returned its worst result in decades, while the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) formation became the third party in the chamber.

Merkel said she thought the attempts could be “successful” this time, as she arrived for the talks – set to last for five days. She has already failed to form an alliance with two smaller parties, and even the SPD appears to not have much of an appetite to join forces. An anti-coalition group “NoGroKo” (no grand coalition) has emerged within Schulz’s party, suggesting the SPD should go into opposition and part ways with Merkel’s bloc.

“Following the 2017 elections result we cannot simply say: We are doing Groko [Grand coalition] as before,” SPD deputy chairman, Thorsten Schafer-Gumbel told Der Tagesspiegel.

Party leader Schulz said they would try to “push through” as much of their policies during the talks, adding that the outcome of the negotiations was unclear, Reuters reported. The parties might not find common ground on immigration issues, for example, as well as on healthcare and other social programs and relations within Europe, experts warn.

The current talks are exploratory, and are not expected to result in any final decisions. The two parties would engage in full-blown coalition talks, but only if the SPD leadership is backed by enough members who would endorse such a move. And that could last for another couple of months. Germany faces new elections or a minority Merkel government should the negotiations collapse.

The long delay has damaged Berlin’s reputation on the international stage, president of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, Andreas Vosskuhle suggested. “The so far great trust of our international partners in Germany’s political capacity for action has suffered since the federal elections. Germany is not used to the fact that the formation of a government turns to be extremely difficult,” he told the Rheinischen Post.

By Gosan Godjaev*

Turkey’s Defense Minister Nurettin Canikli on Wednesday confirmed that the S-400 missile deal with Russia has been concluded.

Recent events on the world stage show a rapid rapprochement between Turkey and Russia. After the incident with the Russian bomber the two states were on the verge of severing ties. Now the countries have demonstrated a significant breakthrough in almost in all areas of cooperation.

Experts argue that long term prospects for Russian-Turkish relations are strengthening.

There are those who claim that Erdogan turned toward Moscow when “faced with opposition in the West to his authoritarian methods, and commitment to Islamic ideology. In case of any positive foreign policy gesture from the US or the EU, Mr. Erdogan will immediately turn away from Russia”. But there are also those who believe that the changing of Ankara priorities has a long-term character.

First, while having dictatorial inclinations Erdogan has always been a mere pragmatist. His position regarding Turkey’s accession to the EU is an example of this. The idea of entering the Turkish Republic into united Europe structures was for Turkey essential for decades. Since Kemal Ataturk’s times the majority of the Turkish elite have viewed themselves as Europeans. Turkey has been an “associate member” of the EU since 1964 and handed in its formal application for membership in 1987. The Turks have waited for a measure of appreciation of their European aspirations for 30 years. And what is the result? Two key continental players – France and Germany – have totally been against Turkey’s integration into the EU, regardless of their own political course changes.

Germany, having failed in its multicultural experiment, fears of the uncontrolled growth of the Turkish diaspora. France traditionally finds a cause to talk about human rights violations, covering a deep antagonism toward the country with a large population and a promising economy.

What is the result of Turkey’s “European integration” for today? Erdogan has said that the EU was a “closed Christian club”, where Turkey would never been accepted. He said that it was not worth trying. For the first time in three decades a political leader of Turkey has turned away from a foreign policy that was a constant of the whole national foreign policy.

Second, there has been a crisis in relations between Ankara and NATO for several years. Remember the recent scandal during the maneuvers in Norway when the portraits of Ataturk and Erdogan were used as targets of potential enemies for firing. But this outrageous insult from the military “allies” is just a petty crime when compared to events in 2015.

The fact is that despite the armed forces, Turkey has a significant breach in its defense. We are talking about the lack of modern layered air defense. All attempts of Ankara to buy the American Patriot missiles have failed due to the reluctance of the United States. The US has stated that the security of Turkey is guaranteed by the American and German Patriot missiles. When Turkey extended the permission to use the Incirlik airbase in 2015, the “guarantors” decided on a unilateral basis to remove the complexes from duty. The credibility to the NATO partners has been undermined.

The legal framework of the Alliance does not provide that the allies are obliged to enter a war in case of an attack against one member. The national governments have right to decide it. So there was a question for Turkey: Who was Russia for them? A strategic enemy or a strategic partner?

The S-400 deal, previous treaties on energy resources and nuclear energy transportation shows the answer. The fact is that the Russian s-400 means in practice the beginning of a long-term cooperation (supplies, operators training, etc.), as well as the design of a national layered air defense with the broad involvement of the Russian defense industry, which is able to offer a wide range of land systems.

As such, we are witnessing how Turkey is making a radical geopolitical turn towards Russia. Despite the fact that the signed contracts have a point only if their implementation is prolonged by 50 years, there is absolute confidence that Russia will not alienate the Turkish partners as the United States and Europe have done.

Source: This article was published by The Commonwealth.

By Gulshat Abdullaeva

At the end of December, assets of the National Fund of Kazakhstan worth $22 billion (40% of the total amount of the National Fund of Kazakhstan) were “frozen” by the New York Mellon Bank in connection with the lawsuit filed by the Moldovan businessman Anatol Stati and his companies against the government of Kazakhstan. The immediate reaction followed from the National Bank of Kazakhstan in the form of a counterclaim against BNY Mellon. The court of Amsterdam and Belgium was also allowed to arrest the bankrolls of the National Fund of Kazakhstan. In the near future, a UK court must rule on this case.

In Europe, shares in companies that belong to Kazakhstan are frozen. However, the Government of Kazakhstan has not officially confirmed this yet. Representatives from the Ministry of Justice of Kazakhstan announced the country’s involvement in a series of foreign trials over the past four years. This was due to the proceedings initiated by Anatol Stati and his son Gabriel Stati, as well as their companies.

Anatol Stati was a Soviet functionary who later founded Ascom Group S.A. The company was established in the mid-nineties for oil and gas production. Ascom was exploring oil and gas in Turkmenistan, and then began working in Kazakhstan.

In 1999, Anatole’s son, 41-year-old Gabriel, took up his post in the company of his father, receiving the post of vice-president of the Ascom group.

In April 2009, the Communist Party won the parliamentary elections, which aroused disagreement with the representatives of the Moldovan opposition, who organized protest actions. Then they turned into street riots, during which the demonstrators defeated and set fire to the buildings of the parliament and the administration of the President of Moldova. The Communists accused the opposition of attempting a coup d’état.

Stati was detained on suspicion of financing protest actions and preparing a coup in Moldova. Later the criminal case was dismissed.

The most important issue in this situation concerns the basis for the intervention of foreign states in the economy of Kazakhstan. Only a lawsuit by a foreign investor-rebel has been a reason.

According to paragraph 3 of Article 4 of Section 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan – International treaties ratified by the Republic have priority over its laws. The procedure and conditions for the operation in the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan of international treaties to which Kazakhstan is a party are determined by the legislation of the Republic.

Similarly, in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 6 of Chapter 2 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Law Acts” – International treaties ratified by the Republic of Kazakhstan take precedence over its laws and are applied directly, except when it follows from the international treaty that for its application the publication of the law is required. However, according to the law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On introducing amendments and additions to the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan”, the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan may sign a law on introducing amendments and additions to the Constitution, not allowing Western intervention.

Recently, the Head of Kazakhstan met with representatives of the domestic media, during which the president announced the need to amend the normative acts of the country.

It turns out that at the moment that Western countries are able to exert pressure on Kazakhstan. Obviously, Kazakhstan should not be adjusted for minimal losses.

According to the representative of the Moldovan businessman K.Winans, The shares belonging to the sovereign fund of Kazakhstan Samruk-Kazyna in the Dutch company KMG Kashagan BV through which the government of Kazakhstan participates in a large international consortium studying the Kashagan field (including Shell, Eni, Exxon and Total) are frozen as well, worth $ 5.2 billion.

In Sweden, shares in Kazakhstan worth about $ 100 million were frozen in 33 state-owned companies (including Volvo, Skanska, Electrolux, Nordea, etc.). K.Winans noted that any economic rights belonging to Kazakhstan in relation to these shares are also frozen.

Kazakhstan is in a suspended state, the reason for which is the imperfection of compilation of normative state acts and the country’s economy at the moment depends on the decision of the court of London. Just one more story with a bitter experience in the treasury of Kazakhstan.

Source: This article was published by The Commonwealth.

Iran today resembles the USSR in its final days, “an ideological regime in collapse;” but the Iranian protesters are more radically inclined against the ayatollahs than were Russians against the communists and also more willing than Russians to bear their share of responsibility for the regime they hope to overthrow, Avraam Shmulevich says.

In an article on the After Empire portal and in an interview with Radio Liberty, the head of Israel’s Eastern Partnership Institute argues that is the case even if the current upsurge in protests in Iran is put down for a time (afterempire.info/2018/01/04/night-revolution/ and svoboda.org/a/28956976.html).

Authoritarian regimes “do not fall by themselves,” and they do not fall when they first face public opposition, the commentator says. Instead, they collapse as wave after wave of opposition appears and as their opponents become more radical in their criticisms and in their demands.

That was true of the Russian Empire and of the Soviet Union, and it is very much true of Iran now, Shmulyevich says. “If in 2009, protesters [there] demanded honest elections; now, no one talks about elections and the chief slogan is death: ‘Death to Khomeini,’ ‘Death to the Islamic Revolution!’ and so on.”

Like their Russian and Soviet precursors, the Iranian people see that the regime ruling over them oppresses the ordinary people while allowing “the golden youth to what it wants.” They see corruption all around them, with the rulers enriching themselves while the people suffer ever more.

All this, he continues, is very similar to what was the case in the Soviet Union in the 1980s.

But there are some big differences, Shmulyevich says; and those deserve to be attended to because they show that the Iranians in the streets are more angry and more committed to real change than were the supporters of perestroika at the end of Soviet times.

“In Iran, there is a real demand for democracy. People who are now going into the streets of Iranian cities really want freedom and really want the establishment of a normal democratic society. In Russia, there [was and] is no such demand.” Instead, there is a demand for another but “good tsar” to rule over the people.

The Iranians protesting now are talking “precisely about the complete destruction of the existing system. One of the slogans [they are marching under holds] ‘we were wrong when we made the Islamic Revolution.’ Such repentance and recognition of their own errors and that it necessary to go in another way does not exist in Russia now and did not in the early 1990s.”

What is happening in Iran now is a genuinely popular rising. No outside forces can get hundreds of thousands of people to go into the streets, although the current Iranian regime like all authoritarian ones elsewhere “accuses external forces” in order to try to mobilize patriotic feelings on its behalf.

Another way Iran is both similar to and different from the late Soviet Union is that in Iran today there are “quite powerful ethnic conflicts” and the existence of “at a minimum three national liberation movements – the Kurds, the Beluchi, and the Arabs” – not to mention the Azerbaijanis.

And the Iranian demonstrators can expect to gain the backing of many in the outside world not only because of their commitments to democracy and freedom, Shmulyevich says, but also because “in Iran is the very lowest level of anti-Semitism among the populations in the Middle East.”

China, Russia and Iran used Venezuela to needle the United States, but deepening economic crisis erodes all foreign ties.

By Carlo Jose Vicente Caro*

Since the election of Hugo Chávez Frias to the Venezuelan presidency in 1998, followed by Nicolás Maduro in 2013, Venezuela has endured steady decline with the approval of the new constitution in 1999, concentration of presidential power, the capture of state and private institutions, gradual control over the press, mismanagement of its national oil company and establishment of a failed political project known as the “socialism of the 21^st century.”

With 81.8 percent of Venezuelan households in poverty, 1.5 million of its citizens leaving the country, 78 percent of medical centers suffering from a supply of medications, an inflation rate that may pass 2,300 percent in 2018, oil revenues cut by half and shortages of gasoline, Chávez and Maduro literally ruined the country.

These economic challenges have influenced foreign relations. Alliances sought to counter the United States are starting to backfire. The official line is that the government is strengthening strategic relations with partners like Moscow and Beijing as well as Tehran. But the Maduro administration has exaggerated the strength of those ties.

The priority is not helping Venezuela but countering US hegemony in regional politics. For example, Russia and China did not attend an informal November meeting of the UN Security Council that sought to condemn Venezuela for human rights violations and undermining the country’s constitutional order. Vassily Nebenzia, Russia’s permanent representative to the UN, stood alongside Venezuelan counterpart Rafael Ramirez who denounced Washington for a  “crusade”  against Caracas.

Russia and China help bankroll Venezuela, but a Bulltick Capital report suggests a 90 percent probability that Venezuela will struggle to repay its debts and other financial obligations this year – a problem for both countries that have lent Venezuela billions of dollars and paid for oil in advance. Rosneft sent $6 billion to its Venezuelan equivalent, PDVSA, in early 2017 and announced in August it planned no more advance payments. Russia gave Venezuela a brief break in November by agreeing to restructure about $3 billion in loans, buying Maduro time to pay off other creditors and assure bondholders. After helping Venezuela three times in 2017, Russia might be running out of patience. Nevertheless, Moscow’s loans to the Venezuelan government form part of a strategy that uses Rosneft to achieve foreign policy objectives.

In fact, Russia behaves like a predatory lender when it comes to Caracas. The newspaper El Nacional reported in October that Moscow and Beijing took over refineries in Paraguana, “renting” them. The move is controversial, violating the 2006 Law of Organic Hydrocarbons, ironically a Chávez instrument. Venezuelan law indicates that only national firms registered in the National Registry of Contractors can work for the state.

Trade with Russia has increased since 2005, and a joint venture to export flowers began in 2006. But Moscow did not need Venezuelan oil and commerce with Brazil carried higher priority. By 2008, the large asymmetry in trade imbalances emerged between the two countries: Venezuela imported $967.4 million, mostly military purchases, while exporting $320,000 dollars in goods to Russia. After 2006 when the United States refused to sell American military technology to Caracas, Russia became primary provider with sales based on credit, either from Russian banks or the government.

Moscow maintains military relations with Caracas mostly for geopolitical, propaganda and symbolic reasons. Venezuela supported the 2008 Russian incursion into Georgia and invited the Russian nuclear warship Peter the Great to conduct joint exercises in the Caribbean, essentially the US backyard. In 2016 at the United Nations, Venezuela voted to support Russia against a resolution for a ceasefire in Aleppo. In February 2017, Venezuelan Foreign Minister Delcy Rodriguez described Russia as a global actor that supports global stability and lauded Moscow’s role in confronting international challenges. In turn, Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov declared that Russian-Venezuelan relations were “booming,” and a few months later an agreement was revealed – Russia would supply Venezuela with 60,000 tons of wheat per month, although the same could be obtained at lower cost from Argentina.

Venezuela has tried to diversify its benefactors and reduce dependence on the American oil market. The 2001 visit of Jiang Zemin, the first of a Chinese president to Venezuela, and of Chávez to Beijing in 2002 marked the start of a diplomatic pivot for Caracas in Asia. Chinese commerce with Venezuela has grown exponentially since. In 2014 China became the nation’s second largest trading partner with more than $15.7 billion in trade. China has since replaced Russia, long considered Venezuela’s key military ally, as its major supplier of armament and defense technology. China offers more advanced technologies and provides better service in terms of maintenance and replacement parts. At the same time, Venezuela has opposed condemnations against China for human rights violations and supported Beijing in the search for global use of alternatives to the dollar.

Although China has lent Venezuela more than $60 billion, it recently suspended further loans to Caracas. Chinese Sinopec, the oil and gas conglomerate, sued Venezuela’s national oil company PDVSA in December because it did not receive full payments for its orders. Chinese companies are also reported to have lost interest in investing in Venezuela due to the high levels of corruption.

Venezuela also has ties with Iran. Iranian revolutionary ideology in the 1980s was influenced by Latin American leftist doctrine and the two countries constructed consensus around an “anti-imperialist” axis. Since 2001, both countries have reached more than 340 agreements in technology, health, industry, infrastructure, culture, defense and housing. Nevertheless, the vast majority of these agreements have not been implemented. A 2006 joint venture between former Chávez and Iran’s former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to build cars through Venirauto Industrias C.A. generated losses and was largely unsuccessful. Another joint venture to produce corn flour struggled  with low productivity despite high demand for the product in Venezuela. By 2014, Iran canceled a project of the Persian Gulf Petrochemicals Holding in Venezuela. Iran’s Rokneddin Javadi, former deputy oil minister of Iran, admitted that establishing offices of the National Iranian Oil Company in Venezuela had no economic justification but rather served political purposes.

In return, Venezuela was one of the few nations to oppose the International Atomic Energy Agency’s efforts to present the Iranian nuclear program case to the UN Security Council in 2006. Venezuela supported Iran in criticizing Israel, and in January that year broke off diplomatic relations in response to the Israeli offensive in Gaza. In November 2007 at OPEC’s third summit, Chávez tried to persuade members to transform into a more active geopolitical group that supported Iran. Saudi Arabia opposed that proposal.

A military relationship between Iran and Venezuela is in question. Some have accused Iran of installing intermediate missile systems in the country, though General Douglas Fraser, former head of the US Southern Command, dismissed an Iranian military presence in Venezuela. Nevertheless, some officials like Vice President Tareck el Aissami are reported to have provided assistance to Iran and Hezbollah. In 2013, state-owned Venezuelan weapons company CAVIM was sanctioned for trade with Iran. Under Chávez in 2008, trade between both nations was approximately $57 million with additional investments.

For Iran, China and Russia, Venezuela is a small and distant priority. The country’s value is for needling the United States, much less necessary with the distractions and “America first” policies endorsed by Donald Trump. Venezuela’s chaotic economic crisis is more pressing as its relationship with Russia, Iran and China weaken. The imbalanced relationships ensure that Venezuela is but a pawn for legitimizing those countries’ policies on the world stage rather than advancing a real agenda of its own.

*Carlo Jose Vicente Caro is a graduate student in US Foreign Relations at Columbia University. He has published commentary for Foreign Affairs, Forbes, the National Interest and HuffPost.

The so called “Croatian scenario“, is something that has been periodically brought up after the start of the armed conflict in Donbass. (Among other instances, yours truly noted this in articles from this past December 17 and August 24, 2015.) Promoted at Johnson’s Russia List, the December 28 Euromaidan Press article “What Ukraine Can Take from the ‘Croatian Scenario’ of Conflict Resolution“, omits some key factors for being apprehensive about the probability for success of an Operation Storm like strike against the Donbass rebels.

In 1995, the Serb Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic, had essentially dropped the Krajina Serbs, with the hope that he could improve his relationship with the West. At the time, Russia was weak and Yugoslavia (then consisting of Serbia and Montenegro) was somewhat war weary and faced with a good degree of international isolation through hypocritically applied sanctions against it.

Going into Operation Storm, the Croat government likely knew that Yugoslavia wouldn’t give any military support to the Krajina Serb leadership – something which proved to be correct. Thereafter, Yugoslavia saw some easing of hostility against it. This changed a few years later when events in Kosovo became increasingly more violent – thereafter prompting another hypocritical Western led condemnation of Belgrade.

The Donbass rebels and Russian government are fully aware of this. Hence, they’ve good reason to be on guard against a Kiev regime advance on the rebel held territory. A successful military attack on the Donbass rebels puts their position as a political factor in jeopardy. In turn, Russia will be seen as weak. As is, the Russian government has faced some criticism for not doing enough to support the counter Euromaidan opposition in the former Ukrainian SSR.

In any event, as a major power, Russia isn’t in as much a vulnerable predicament as Yugoslavia. This reality lessens the chance of the Kremlin feeling a need to go against its interests. Analytical omissions aside, the aforementioned December 28 Euromaidan piece, acknowledges some potential problems with implementing a victorious attack against the Donbass rebels.

This can change if the Kremlin were to become extremely annoyed with the rebels and cheery with the Kiev leadership and its Western backers. For now, this appears unlikely. Furthermore, there’s division within Western and pro-Kiev regime circles. The support for increased US military aid to the Kiev regime has been met with some reasoned second guessing that’s worth notice.

Among other things, US Naval War College academic Lyle Goldstein’s November 30 National Interest article, pointedly criticizes the hardline pro-Kiev regime stance of Kurt Volker – the Trump administration’s appointee for handling former Ukrainian SSR matters like Donbass. In a February 15, 2015 Washington Post piece, Brookings Institute analyst Fiona Hill argued against arming the Kiev regime. Hill now serves as a Trump administration adviser on Russia related matters. Over the past couple of years, City College of New York professor Rajan Menon has opposed US military aid to the Kiev regime. Menon hasn’t been sympathetic to pro-Russian concerns (which encompass a good number of folks in the former Ukrainian SSR), as is true of his Rutgers University affiliated peer Alexander Motyl.

The latter is on record for believing that Ukraine could be better off without the rebel held Donbass area – on the basis that its territory has become economically problematical, coupled with a population which by and large doesn’t share Motyl’s negative perception of Russia – a slant evident among many on the pro-Euromaidan side. Motyl’s opinion aside, Donbass has the potential to regain and improve upon its prior status as a key economic area, relative to the former Ukrainian SSR. Granted that much needs to be done for this to happen.

The Trump administration’s decision to provide the Kiev regime with arms represents an ongoing tug of war between the realists and hardline elements against pro-Russian sentiment. Despite their clear differences, Trump’s exhibited realism on Russia was supported by his predecessor Barack Obama in a lengthy 2016 exchange he had with Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic. While being decidedly biased against Russia (as noted by yours truly), that dialogue included a realistic assessment by Obama, which noted Ukraine’s importance to Russia and how Moscow has a geographic advantage over Washington, when it comes to military action in the former Ukrainian SSR.

There’s also the matter of the US having a pecking order of other foreign policy concerns, with the former Ukrainian SSR probably not ranking in the top three or more.

With all this in mind, a prolonged, geopolitically boring frozen conflict seems like the most probable scenario for Donbass. This possibility isn’t necessarily so bad, if the violence ends with improved socioeconomic conditions for both sides. Meantime, the Kiev regime’s ongoing economic problems, ultra-nationalist element and talk of a Croatian scenario for Donbass, might very well increase the likelihood of a skirmish – especially with the announced US military aid package.

Another trigger point could be armed conflict within Kiev regime controlled Ukraine between anti-Russian and pro-Russian groups. Such an occurrence  could lead to claims of Russian meddling with Donbass potentially blamed as a base for the trouble – never minding the internal dynamic within Kiev regime controlled Ukraine.

*Michael Averko is a New York based independent foreign policy analyst and media critic. This article was initially placed at the Strategic Culture Foundation’s website on January 6.