By Nabila Ramdani*

The French president’s voice appears particularly resonant because of the increasing feebleness of his counterparts in other European states — but that does not mean he wants to rule over the bloc.

This is the year when many expect Emmanuel Macron to move up from boy wonder to undisputed leader of Europe. The French president turned 40 in December and, during his state visit to China, observers certainly thought he looked ready for the challenge.

Speaking in Beijing last week, Macron told Chinese business executives in English: “I want you to just get this message — France is back, but with France, Europe is back.”

There was little ambiguity in what Macron meant. Using the language of global trade, rather than his mother tongue, he showed he was just as keen to open up the economy of the European Union as he was France’s. From the moment of his astonishing election win last May, which Macron chose to celebrate with a rendition of Beethoven’s “Ode to Joy,” the EU anthem, the future success of the union of 28 states has been as important as domestic ambitions.

It comes as German Chancellor Angela Merkel — in recent years the personification of calm and stable leadership — faces serious problems at home. The head of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) is currently involved in apparently never-ending talks with her rival party, the Social Democratic Party (SPD), as she tries to form a coalition government. A preliminary deal was struck after a 24-hour verbal marathon that finished last Friday, but there is still much politicking to be done.

France and Germany are the traditional powerhouses of the EU project, with the latter dominating historically. However, the political stalemate in Germany has caused an increase in votes for smaller parties at the expense of both the CDU and SPD, and a rise in extremism.

In such circumstances, Merkel is hamstrung as she attempts to tackle issues such as Europe’s burgeoning refugee crisis, and — crucially — power struggles within the EU. An inconclusive federal election in September means the Chancellor desperately needs the SPD. It is telling that, following the negotiating session at the end of last week, Merkel said: “The world is not waiting for us — we need a fresh start in Europe.” She added: “A fresh start for Europe is also a fresh start for Germany.”

What we should not do, however, is mistake Merkel’s woes, and Macron’s fierce loyalty to the EU, for a desire for France to rule over the European entity. On the contrary, Macron is a pragmatic team player who has a very clear idea of what the European project was set up to achieve, and this can be summed up in one word — peace.

After 1945, integration and cooperation were seen as essential in combating pugnacious nationalistic interests, and especially the Franco-German rivalry, which had led to two cataclysmic world wars. Just as importantly, centralizing power in a single mighty figure was associated with the kind of fascist dictators who turned Europe into a series of battlefields.

Macron was born and grew up in Amiens, the provincial northern town that had to be rebuilt after both conflicts, as vast areas of the surrounding Somme countryside were also decimated. During his election campaign, he told me how he saw Europeans joining forces as being the key to avoiding such horrors being repeated.

Macron was far more interested in reforming the EU than becoming its figurehead. Yes, France and Germany’s roles as founders of the bloc would be hugely important in its future development, but this does not translate into them controlling everybody else. Working closely with Merkel will be as important to him as dealing with the other EU nations.

What is happening at the moment is that Macron’s voice appears particularly resonant because of the increasing feebleness of his counterparts in other EU states. Merkel’s energy-sapping inter-party bargaining makes her far less reliable as a buttress to less secure world leaders, and especially American president Donald Trump.

Macron established himself as an immensely confident and realistic statesman within weeks of taking office by inviting Trump to Paris. He did not fawn over the populist head of state, but simply expressed his willingness to engage with the most powerful nation on earth, whoever was in charge.

It was the same when Macron received Russian leader Vladimir Putin at the Palace of Versailles; the French president was as critical of Russian policy in Ukraine as he was of manipulative bots and fake news emanating from Moscow. Similarly, Macron called the Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan an “essential partner,” despite serious concerns about his country’s human rights record — notably from Merkel.

Look, too, at how non-confrontational Macron has been over Britain’s slow, muddled exit process from the EU. Rather than using Prime Minister Theresa May’s tribulations to bolster his own position, he has mainly kept a dignified silence about them. This, after describing Brexit as “a crime” before he came to office.

Macron’s resounding victory over far-right nationalist Marine Le Pen in the second and final round of the presidential election is another reason for his European-wide, and indeed worldwide, popularity. Le Pen’s Front National (FN) still represents division and hatred of foreigners, as well as a protectionism that is frequently medieval in substance.

Macron embodies a younger generation that is repulsed by FN and Trump-style cant. He comes across as a dynamic politician who is already reviving a notoriously sluggish domestic economy, while promoting France’s global engine room — its multinationals.

This all adds up to a thoroughly up-to-date operator who will not just continue to work with traditional EU allies such as Germany, but also perceived enemies, no matter what difficulties they find themselves in. Many will criticize him for acting like the Sun King (French presidents are constantly compared to King Louis XIV, and their first ladies to Marie Antoinette) but such cliches are wide off the mark.

Macron is a consensus politician who is currently offering a sensible, but by no means remarkable, alternative to failing contemporaries. He will invariably impress, but calling him the leader of Europe, let alone the free world, would display an abject misunderstanding of who Macron is and what he stands for.

• Nabila Ramdani is an award-winning French-Algerian journalist, columnist, and broadcaster who specializes in French politics, Islamic affairs and the Arab World.

Thousands of residents in several towns in Albay province, about 500 kilometers south of Manila, have fled their homes in fear of the possible eruption of Mount Mayon.

Volcanologists warned that the volcano can erupt “within weeks or even within days” as magma continued to build up at its summit.

The Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology raised the alert level to 3, or critical after observers noted lava flow from the mouth of the volcano.

The agency announced that it will raise the alert level to 4 if there is an indication of a hazardous explosion. Level 5 indicates an eruption is in progress.

At least 15,000 people have so far been evacuated to safer areas in the towns of Camalig, Guinobatan, and Malilipot, and in the cities of Tabaco and Ligao.

Mayor Ahrdail Baldo of Camalig town said that although the local government has been ready for evacuation, “I am worried about food supply.”

In the town of Guinobatan, Mayor Ann Ongjoco suspended classes in all schools to accommodate at least 3,700 people who have left their homes.

The 2,460-meter Mount Mayon is a tourist attraction in the province of Albay because of its near-perfect cone shape.

The volcano has, however, a long history of deadly eruptions.

In 1814, more than 1,200 people were killed when lava flows buried the town of Cagsawa.

Small no-fishing zones around colonies of African penguins can help this struggling species, new research shows.

Working with the South African government, researchers from the universities of Exeter and Cape Town tested bans on catching “forage fish” such as sardines and anchovies – key prey for the endangered penguins – from 20km around their breeding islands.

The body condition and survival of chicks improved when the no-fishing zones were in place.

More research is needed, but the scientists say the fishing closures should continue in South Africa and should be considered elsewhere.

“The amount of forage fish caught worldwide is increasing and – although the effects are disputed – the impact on marine ecosystems could be severe,” said Dr Richard Sherley, of the Environment and Sustainability Institute on the University of Exeter’s Penryn Campus in Cornwall.

“Forage fish are a key link in the food chain as they eat plankton and are preyed on by numerous species including tuna, dolphins, whales and penguins.

“We need to do more to understand the circumstances in which small no-fishing zones will improve the food available to predators, but our research shows this is a promising way to help African penguins.”

The test areas were on a small scale compared to some no-fishing zones worldwide, which can cover hundreds of thousands of square kilometres.

Researchers examined colonies at Dassen Island, Robben Island, St Croix Island and Bird Island, and compared fishing bans of about three years with similar periods when fishing was allowed.

The study says evidence for overall effects was “subtle and inconsistent”, with clear benefits for penguin populations at only two of the four islands.

Dr Sherley said it was difficult to discover the full effects of the no-fishing zones because many other factors also affect the birds.

“Decades of research may be needed to be absolutely certain of the impact on the penguins’ population size,” he said.

However, the researchers used a statistical method called Bayesian inference to demonstrate beyond doubt that the zones improved the health and survival rates of penguin chicks.

“There’s never going to be a quick answer to problems in complex ecosystems,” Dr Sherley said.

“However, without conservation action, there’s a good chance African penguins will go extinct in at least some of their current colonies.

“We are calling for a precautionary and adaptive approach – no-fishing zones to protect this species, with an open mind to change as more evidence emerges.”

Dr Stephen Votier, senior author of the study, added: “This is an excellent example of how a collaboration between government, fisheries and scientists can lead to positive outcomes for conservation.

“Statistics have played an important role here – only by using the approach we adopted was it possible to understand fully that these fisheries closures do indeed work.”

Tuesday marked the US celebration of National Religious Freedom Day. President Donald J. Trump made the observance official in a signed proclamation this week.

“Religious freedom has shaped the history of the United States since our forefathers sought refuge from religious persecution. Federal recognition of Religious Freedom Day began with President George H. W. Bush in 1993, and presidents have generally signed a new proclamation every year since,” the White House said in a statement.

January 16 is the anniversary of the 1786 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom’s passage. Considered one of the foundational texts of a young America, the document outlined what principles constituted true respect by a government for freedom of religion. “All men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities,” wrote its author, Thomas Jefferson.

The Virginia statute served as a model in many ways for the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which followed a few years later with its familiar words, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

According to the White House, in that spirit, Religious Freedom Day is a moment to celebrate and fight to protect religious freedom in America and around the world. “We will continue to condemn and combat extremism, terrorism, and violence against people of faith, including genocide waged by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria against Yezidis, Christians, and Shia Muslims,” President Trump writes in this year’s proclamation.

The White House said President Trump’s proclamation is a reminder that civic participation and religious observance shouldn’t be opposing forces. “The free exercise of religion is a source of personal and national stability,” the proclamation reads.

Researchers at the University of York have found no evidence to support the theory that video games make players more violent.

In a series of experiments, with more than 3,000 participants, the team demonstrated that video game concepts do not ‘prime’ players to behave in certain ways and that increasing the realism of violent video games does not necessarily increase aggression in game players.

The dominant model of learning in games is built on the idea that exposing players to concepts, such as violence in a game, makes those concepts easier to use in ‘real life’.

This is known as ‘priming’, and is thought to lead to changes in behaviour. Previous experiments on this effect, however, have so far provided mixed conclusions.

Researchers at the University of York expanded the number of participants in experiments, compared to studies that had gone before it, and compared different types of gaming realism to explore whether more conclusive evidence could be found.

In one study, participants played a game where they had to either be a car avoiding collisions with trucks or a mouse avoiding being caught by a cat. Following the game, the players were shown various images, such as a bus or a dog, and asked to label them as either a vehicle or an animal.

Dr David Zendle, from the University’s Department of Computer Science, said: “If players are ‘primed’ through immersing themselves in the concepts of the game, they should be able to categorise the objects associated with this game more quickly in the real world once the game had concluded.

“Across the two games we didn’t find this to be the case. Participants who played a car-themed game were no quicker at categorising vehicle images, and indeed in some cases their reaction time was significantly slower.”

In a separate, but connected study, the team investigated whether realism influenced the aggression of game players. Research in the past has suggested that the greater the realism of the game the more primed players are by violent concepts, leading to antisocial effects in the real world.

Dr Zendle said: “There are several experiments looking at graphic realism in video games, but they have returned mixed results. There are, however, other ways that violent games can be realistic, besides looking like the ‘real world’, such as the way characters behave for example.

“Our experiment looked at the use of ‘ragdoll physics’ in game design, which creates characters that move and react in the same way that they would in real life. Human characters are modelled on the movement of the human skeleton and how that skeleton would fall if it was injured.”

The experiment compared player reactions to two combat games, one that used ‘ragdoll physics’ to create realistic character behaviour and one that did not, in an animated world that nevertheless looked real.

Following the game the players were asked to complete word puzzles called ‘word fragment completion tasks’, where researchers expected more violent word associations would be chosen for those who played the game that employed more realistic behaviours.

They compared the results of this experiment with another test of game realism, where a single bespoke war game was modified to form two different games. In one of these games, enemy characters used realistic soldier behaviours, whilst in the other game they did not employ realistic soldier behaviour.

Dr Zendle said: “We found that the priming of violent concepts, as measured by how many violent concepts appeared in the word fragment completion task, was not detectable. There was no difference in priming between the game that employed ‘ragdoll physics’ and the game that didn’t, as well as no significant difference between the games that used ‘real’ and ‘unreal’ solider tactics.

“The findings suggest that there is no link between these kinds of realism in games and the kind of effects that video games are commonly thought to have on their players.

“Further study is now needed into other aspects of realism to see if this has the same result. What happens when we consider the realism of by-standing characters in the game, for example, and the inclusion of extreme content, such as torture?

“We also only tested these theories on adults, so more work is needed to understand whether a different effect is evident in children players.”

Pope Francis met privately Tuesday with 6 victims of sexual abuse committed by priests in Chile, the papal spokesman has reported. The meeting had not been previously announced as a part of the Pope’s schedule.

“Today after lunch, the Holy Father met with a small group of victims of sexual abuse committed by priests, at the Apostolic Nunciature in Santiago. The meeting was strictly private, and there was no one else present: only the Pope and the victims. In this way, the were able to share their sufferings with Pope Francis, who listened to them, and prayed and cried with them,” reported Greg Burke, director of the Vatican’s press office.

At a press conference from Santiago, Burke told reporters that the meeting lasted half an hour.

The Pope’s visit to Chile has been marked by protests, including some from groups who allege a bishop appointed by the Pope covered up acts of sexual abuse committed by an influential Chilean priest.

Earlier Tuesday, during a speech to Chile’s civic authorities and diplomats, the Pontiff expressed his sorrow for the cases of abuses against minors.

“I can not help but express the pain and shame I feel at the irreparable damage caused to children by Church’s ministers. I join with my brothers in the episcopate, knowing that it is a matter of justice to ask for forgiveness, and to support the victims with all our strength. At the same time we must work so that it does not happen again,” he said at the event.

Later, in the afternoon, the Pontiff conveyed solidarity with priests and religious who, he said, suffer insults and misunderstandings because of the abuses committed by some ministers of the Church.

“I know that at times you have been insulted in the metro or walking on the street, and that by going around in clerical attire in many places you pay a heavy price. For this reason, I suggest that we ask God to grant us the clear-sightedness to call reality by its name, the strength to seek forgiveness and the ability to listen to what he tells us,” the Pope said.

Iranian Defense Minister Brigadier General Amir Hatami said recent US moves regarding the 2015 nuclear deal between Tehran and world powers indicates that Washington has devised a new strategy against Iran and seeks to put the country in a “complex” situation.

“The recent US behavior (towards the JCPOA) shows that the enemies of the Islamic Republic are seeking to leave Iran in special and complex circumstances,” General Hatami said on Tuesday.

The US has formulated a new strategy to counter Iran, he added, saying that it shows the depth of Washington’s animosity towards Iran and the Islamic Establishment.

The Iranian defense minister stressed that the Iranian nation, armed forces and officials would remain fully vigilant in the face of the enemies’ plots.

On Friday, Donald Trump again waived sanctions against Iran that were lifted as part of the landmark nuclear deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

“Today, I am waiving the application of certain nuclear sanctions, but only in order to secure our European allies’ agreement to fix the terrible flaws of the Iran nuclear deal,” he said in a statement.

He further claimed, “This is a last chance. In the absence of such an agreement, the United States will not again waive sanctions in order to stay in the Iran nuclear deal. And if at any time I judge that such an agreement is not within reach, I will withdraw from the deal immediately. No one should doubt my word.”

In reply, Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif took to Twitter on Friday to condemn Trump’s reluctant announcement on the nuclear sanctions waiver, saying, “Trump’s policy & today’s announcement amount to desperate attempts to undermine a solid multilateral agreement, maliciously violating its paras 26, 28 & 29.”

He further stressed that the deal is “not renegotiable” and urged Trump to, instead of repeating tired rhetoric, bring the US into full compliance of the deal, just like Iran.

By Akash Vashishtha and Rohit Wadhwaney

More than three days after the brutalized body of a missing teenage girl was found in the northern Indian state of Haryana, police had yet to identify her alleged rapists and killers, an official said Tuesday.

The 15-year-old victim went missing on Jan. 9 after she left her home in Kurukshetra town for private tutoring, police said, adding that her body, which bore signs of sexual abuse and torture, was discovered about 100 km (62 miles) away in Jind on Saturday.

“We have rounded up many people for questioning, but haven’t yet zeroed down on the culprits. No arrests so far. But one person from the girl’s village has been missing since she disappeared last week. We are trying to trace him to ascertain the identities of the accused,” Jind’s Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), Dheeraj Kumar Singh, told BenarNews.

The victim’s liver and lungs were ruptured because a blunt object was inserted in her body, a doctor who conducted the autopsy said, rekindling memories of the infamous Delhi gang-rape in which a 23-year-old medical student died after being tortured on a moving bus in 2012.

“The body had many injury marks. The private parts were mutilated and there were lot of internal injuries. Signs of sexual assault are visible and it looks like three-four people were responsible. A hard and blunt thing was inserted inside her,” NDTV quoted Dr. S.K. Dattarwal of the government hospital in Rohtak as saying.

Namrata Gaur, of the Haryana Women Commission, said that the victim and the missing youth from her village knew one another.

“The commission is closely monitoring the case and we have assured the victim’s family of all assistance in the case,” Gaur told reporters.

“Both the victim and the youth left their homes together. It is now a matter of police investigation how the brutally mutilated body of the girl has been found while the youth is yet to be traced,” she said.

Police said they were investigating the case, which has provoked nationwide outrage, with “utmost urgency and seriousness.”

“We have formed several teams to identify and nab the accused. It won’t be long before they are caught,” DSP Singh said.

He said the girl belonged to the historically marginalized Dalit community, which is at the bottom of Hinduism’s rigid caste hierarchy and is often at the receiving end of violent caste-based discrimination.

Singh, however, said it was “unlikely that this was a caste-motivated assault.”

Fourth case in a month

The case is the fourth incident of sexual violence over the last month in Haryana, where the government recently hailed its “Save our Daughters” campaign, citing an improvement in the state’s gender ratio.

A 22-year-old woman was allegedly abducted and gang-raped for two hours in a moving vehicle in Faridabad, situated on the outskirts of Delhi, on Sunday, before being dumped on the highway.

An 11-year-old girl was allegedly raped and strangled to death when she went to dispose of garbage in Panipat town on Saturday.

And last month, a 6-year-old was allegedly raped and tortured to death in the state’s Hisar district.

“Such horrific incidents have brought shame to Haryana. The state government needs to do more to ensure safety for women. The state has to translate its words into action. Separate police teams should be constituted in each district of the state especially for the safety of women,” Anita Parashar, a Haryana-based women’s rights activist, told BenarNews.

(RFE/RL) — Kosovo Prime Minister Ramush Haradinaj has suggested that the slaying of a leading ethnic Serb political leader in the country’s north was the result of illegal interference coming from outside the country.

Oliver Ivanovic was shot dead on January 16 in the Serb-dominated northern part of the divided city of Mitrovica in an attack that has raised tensions in the Balkans and prompted the suspension of EU-facilitated talks between Kosovo and Serbia.

“We think that this crime, as well as certain criminal developments taking place in the north, are the result of illegal involvement in the north of other institutions beyond Kosovo,” Haradinaj said following a meeting of Kosovo’s National Security Council.

He did not elaborate.

Haradinaj also rejected Serbia’s demand to take part in the investigation and said he might invite the FBI.

Ivanovic’s lawyer, Nebojsa Vlajic, told RFE/RL that Ivanovic was shot in front of his office at 8:15 a.m., and doctors at a hospital in Mitrovica said they confirmed his death at 9:15 a.m.

Ivanovic sustained at least five gunshot wounds to his upper torso, Vlajic cited doctors as saying.

Media reports in Serbia described the killing as a drive-by shooting carried out by more than one assailant while Ivanovic was entering his office on Sutjeska Street in northern Mitrovica.

Police said they believe a burned out Opel Astra car found later on another Mitrovica street was used by the perpetrators.

In Pristina, Kosovar President Hashim Thaci called on law enforcement authorities to “throw light as soon as possible on the circumstances of the death so that the perpetrators are brought to justice.”

A statement issued on Thaci’s Facebook page also urged Kosovar citizens in the north to cooperate with police as their investigation continues.

The government in Pristina said it considered the killing an attack on “the rule of law and efforts to establish the rule of law in the whole of Kosovo territory.”

In Brussels, Serbian delegates walked out of talks with Kosovar authorities that had just gotten under way — the latest attempt to improve severely strained relations between Serbia and Kosovo.

‘Push For Chaos’

The leader of Belgrade’s delegation, Marko Djuric, said he and other Serbian delegates were returning to Belgrade because of “Ivanovic’s murder.”

Djuric, who heads of the Serbian government’s Office for Kosovo and Metohija, said the killing was “an attempt to push the Serbian people into chaos, to push Serbia into chaos.”

He said that “whoever is behind this attack…whether they are Serb, Albanian, or any other criminals, they must be punished.”

EU foreign-policy chief Federica Mogherini spoke to the presidents of both Serbia and Kosovo by telephone after the killing of Ivanovic.

A statement from Mogherini’s office said she urged all sides “to show clam and restraint” and to allow the rule of law to take its course.

Mogherini also said the EU’s Rule of Law mission in Kosovo (EULEX) would support the investigation by Kosovar authorities “in accordance with its mandate.”

The EU-facilitated talks in Brussels — which had last taken place in March 2017 — were scheduled to continue through January 18 and were aimed pushing forward with the normalization of relations between Pristina and Belgrade.

Contentious Issues

Issues on the agenda of the Brussels talks included contentious issues surrounding a proposal for the creation of an Association of Serb Majority Municipalities in Kosovo.

Although Kosovo declared independence in 2008, Belgrade still claims the former Serbian province as part of its territory.

The normalization of ties between Pristina and Belgrade is also a key issue tied to the EU-membership ambitions of both Serbia and Kosovo.

In Belgrade, Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic scheduled an emergency meeting of the National Security Council on January 16 to discuss the implications of the killing.

Kosovar Prime Minister Ramush Haradinaj said in a Facebook statement that “exploiting this tragic act for daily political goals, even to block processes aiming at normalizing ties between two countries, is against the logic and spirit of cooperation.”

“Kosovo remains committed to create a safe environment for all its citizens and is powerfully set in its Euro-Atlantic path,” Haradinaj said.

He also said Pristina would “in no situation accept the logic of calculating criminal acts for political purposes by anyone.”

In Belgrade, Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic called the killing “a terrorist act” and said that Serbia is demanding that international missions in Kosovo include Serbia in their investigation into the slaying.

“Serbia will take all necessary steps so the killer or killers are found,” Vucic added.

During a visit to Montenegro, Serbian Foreign Minister Ivica Dacic said that “the most important thing is to preserve stability in the north of Kosovo.”

“When the stability of northern Kosovo is jeopardized, the stability of the entire Kosovo and the whole region is under threat,” Dacic also said.

Calls For Swift Investigation

The head of the UN mission in Kosovo, Zahir Tanin, urged investigative authorities to “work swiftly and effectively” and assured them that “all the international agencies on the ground are ready to support the authorities in any manner which may assist the swift apprehension of those responsible.”

The U.S. Ambassador to Pristina, Greg Delawie, also called on judicial bodies “to investigate this incident swiftly and professionally, and bring the perpetrators to justice.”

Delawie also urged “all sides to avoid dangerous rhetoric and remain calm at this sensitive time, and recommit themselves to continue the work toward the normalization of relations.”

NATO urged “all parties to exercise restraint to defuse tensions and called for dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina to “continue as soon as possible.”

“This is critical for regional peace and security,” it added.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry warned of the “risk of contagion in an atmosphere of terror and a resurgence of interethnic conflict in the region.”

Ivanovic, considered a moderate opposition politician, was a controversial political figure in both Serbia and Kosovo.

Judges from the EULEX mission in Kosovo in January 2016 found Ivanovic guilty of committing war crimes against ethnic Albanians during Kosovo’s 1998-99 war and sentenced him to nine years in prison.

But that verdict was annulled by the Appeals Court in Pristina in February 2017, and a retrial was under way at the time of Ivanovic’s death.

Ivanovic’s political career began in June 1999 during the final days of the Kosovo war when he was named as the head of the Serbian National Council of Kosovo and Metohija, a body set up in 1999 to represent ethnic Serbs in Kosovo.

More recently, he was the president of the SDP Civic Initiative that ran candidates in local elections in Kosovo in 2017.

Ivanovic served as a member of Serbia’s government from 2008 to 2012, despite Kosovo’s 2008 declaration of independence, as Belgrade’s state secretary of the Ministry for Kosovo and Metohija.

He also had been a leader in Kosovo of Serbia’s Social Democratic Party until 2009 when he became president of the SDP Civic Initiative.

Before the 1998-99 war, Ivanovic was a manager at the Trepca mine complex in Mitrovica.

Belgrade continues to claims ownership of the Trepca mines, which once employed 23,000 people and accounted for 70 percent of Kosovo’s gross domestic product.

But the de facto partition of Mitrovica between Serbs and ethnic Albanians has kept most of Trepca’s facilities closed since 1999.

By Zoran Radosavljevic

(EurActiv) — A prominent Kosovo Serb leader was shot dead outside his party offices in Serb-run northern Kosovo on Tuesday (16 January), raising concerns of renewed tensions in the Western Balkans and prompting a Serbian delegation to cancel EU-sponsored talks with Kosovo in Brussels.

The killing of Oliver Ivanović is likely to stoke ethnic tensions in the former Serbian province that declared independence in 2008, just as the Serbia-Kosovo dialogue was set to resume as part of a new push to revive the region’s European perspective.

Unidentified perpetrators shot Ivanović, the leader of Srbija, demokratija, pravda (Serbia, democracy, justice) in Kosovska Mitrovica on Tuesday morning. He later died in hospital.

Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic, who has made EU membership a top priority, called an emergency session of the national security council for later on Tuesday.

Marko Đurić, the head of Serbia’s Office for Kosovo, told Beta news agency before leaving Brussels that the attack on Ivanović was “an attempt to plunge the Serbs in Kosovo into chaos”.

“This is an attack on the entire Serbian people, to push them into the hell of a new conflict,” he said.

EU spokeswoman Maja Kocijančič also confirmed that “the dialogue discussions on a technical level were suspended”, without giving further details.

In 1998-99 Belgrade sent army and police troops to crack down on ethnic Albanians, who make up the majority of the population in Kosovo. The campaign was halted when NATO launched airstrikes against Serbia in 1999, after which the region was placed under UN supervision.

Relations between Serbia and Kosovo have been tense since Kosovo’s independence in 2008, which Serbia vowed never to recognise. But under EU pressure in 2013, both parties agreed to take part in EU-sponsored ‘dialogue’ on normalising relations, a key condition for both to progress towards membership of the bloc.

The talks were set to resume on Tuesday but their fate now looks uncertain.

“We are abandoning the technical dialogue and returning to the country because of the murder,” Đurić was quoted as saying by Serbia’s official news agency Tanjug.

Bulgaria has made the Western Balkans a key priority of its six-month EU presidency, with an EU-Western Balkans summit scheduled for 17 May in Sofia.

Bulgaria’s Prime Minister Boyko Borissov condemned the murder in a statement.

“I expect political elites and all citizens to be mature and restrained. The rule of law cannot be called into question and I believe that those guilty of this crime will bear responsibility. I am convinced that the dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina has no alternative and that such acts should not be allowed to hinder it,” he said.

Kosovo President Hashim Thaçi also deplored the murder in a separate statement and urged the police to bring the perpetrators to justice as soon as possible.

Governments in Latin America seemingly go unpunished at election times for high crime rates. This column examines whether the region’s high tolerance for crime is the result of ‘desensitisation’, with people reacting less to crime the more they are exposed to it. It finds that victims of crime become desensitised compared with non-victims, helping to explain tolerance to crime and a weak relationship between crime and happiness in high-crime areas.

By Rafael Di Tella, Lucía Freira, Ramiro Gálvez, Ernesto Schargrodsky, Diego Shalom and Mariano Sigman*

Crime is one of the main social problems in developing nations (Jaitman 2017). It is particularly serious in Latin America, a region with 8.6% of the world’s population, but 36.5% of the world’s homicides.¹ Moreover, Latin American citizens systematically rank crime as one of their main concerns (Latinobarómetro 1995-2015). Yet, their societies seem to show tolerance for crime. For example, many incumbent politicians are re-elected even as crime increases or remains constant at extremely high rates. Moreover, the relationship between crime victimisation and happiness looks weak (Di Tella and Schargrodsky 2009, Graham and Chaparro 2012). Our understanding of this puzzling mismatch, between actual levels of crime and concerns related to crime and violence, is limited.

A natural hypothesis in this context is that victims gradually become used to high levels of crime, so that perceptions of crime are not primarily driven by the actual amount of crime. This hypothesis follows ‘desensitisation’ (or ‘habituation’ or ‘adaptation’) phenomena, namely, the reduction in the response to repeat stimuli observed in humans across many settings (e.g. Thompson and Spencer 1966 on hearing habituation to sound, Rosburg et al. 2002, 2006, Sörös et al. 2001).

In a recent paper (Di Tella et al. 2017), we discuss an experiment that examines whether victims of crimes become desensitised to violence, as captured by watching footage of criminal events in real life. Participants were asked to watch footage of real TV news programmes, with half randomly assigned to watching crime-related scenes (treatment group) while the other half watched non-violent footage (control group). Subjects, who had different victimisation experiences, were monitored on standard implicit markers of habituation, including biological (cortisol and heart rate levels) and cognitive ones (Stroop-like and Raven’s Progressive Matrices tests).²

The expectation was that, in response to violent footage, participants that were previously victimised would exhibit small changes in cortisol, heart rate, and measures of cognitive function and fluid thinking (desensitisation) relative to control participants watching videos without violence. In contrast, we expected participants who were not previously victimised to respond to exposure to crime-related videos with significant changes in physiological and cognitive tests relative to participants in the control group.³

Results

With the assistance of a recruiting agency, a sample of 160 individuals aged from 24 to 65 were invited, induced by a cash payment, to participate in the experiment at Universidad Torcuato Di Tella’s Neuroscience Lab (Argentina) during late 2015 and early 2016. The recruiting agency was instructed to follow a sampling quota scheme based on gender and socioeconomic status. For each participant, we obtained measures of the four markers of habituation (cortisol, heart rate, Stroop score, Raven’s score) before and after watching the videos. Assignment to the treatment and control footage was stratified at the socioeconomic level. Standard tests showed no statistically significant differences in pre-treatment markers of habituation, victimisation history, and sociodemographic characteristics between subjects exposed to the treatment and control footage. Moreover, no statistically significant differences were found between victimised and non-victimised participants regarding pre-treatment markers of habituation and sociodemographic characteristics either.

For the four markers of habituation we ran a series of regressions that exploit data variations within individuals. In doing this, we placed the focus of analysis on measuring the mean change between pre- and post-treatment values of the markers of habituation across different groups of participants (i.e. Control, Treatment, Treatment Victimised, and Treatment Non-Victimised). Here, we summarise our main results:

• In terms of Control versus Treatment, the intervention video per se produces no significant effects on treated participants’ cortisol level and Raven matrices results. For heart rate, there is a significant reduction induced by watching the crime video. There is also a reduction in time Stroop induced by the crime video.
• In terms of Control versus Treatment Victimised and Control versus Non-Victimised, our main results are derived from analysing the interaction of treatment and previous victimisation for two different definitions of victimisation – at the individual and household levels. In general, a very interesting pattern emerges. Individuals who have been previously victimised show similar behaviour to the control group when watching the treatment footage. Instead, treated individuals with no victimisation history react differently to the treatment. Overall, non-previously victimised participants show higher cortisol levels, higher Raven scores, faster Stroop, and a lower heart rate than the control group. These patterns are obtained both when victimisation is defined at the respondent level and when it is defined at the respondent’s household level.⁴

Conclusions

We measured biological markers of stress and behavioural indices of cognitive control before and after treated participants watch a series of real, crime-related videos (while the control group watches non-crime-related videos). Our data consistently reveal that victims of crime become ‘desensitised’ compared with non-victims. This evidence might help to understand tolerance to crime and a weak relationship between crime and happiness in high-crime areas, such as those in Latin America. Furthermore, our findings may also be helpful in explaining episodes where the share of violent crime grows as crime does – more violence may be necessary to induce desensitised subjects to surrender their possessions in a robbery.

*About the authors:
Rafael Di Tella, William Ziegler Professor of Business Administration, Harvard Business School

Lucía Freira, PhD student in Economics, Universidad de San Andrés

Ramiro Gálvez, PhD student in computer science at the Computer Science Department, FCEyN, Universidad de Buenos Aires

Ernesto Schargrodsky, President, Universidad Torcuato Di Tella
Diego Shalom, Teaching Assistant, Physics Department, University of Buenos Aires; Researcher, CONICET

Mariano Sigman, Founder, Integrative Neuroscience Laboratory, University of Buenos Aires

References:
Di Tella, R and E Schargrodsky (2009), “Happiness, ideology and crime in Argentine cities”, IDB Working Paper Series 112.

Di Tella, R, L Freira, R H Gálvez, E Schargrodsky, D Shalom, and M Sigman (2017), “Crime and violence: Desensitization in victims to watching criminal events”, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization.

Graham, C, and J C Chaparro (2012), “The Linkages Between Insecurity, Health, and Well-Being in Latin America: An Initial Exploration Based on Happiness Surveys” in D Webb, and E Wills-Herrera (eds.), Subjective Well-Being and Security, Social Indicators Research Series No 46, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 197-252.

Jaitman, L (2017), The Costs of Crime and Violence: New Evidence and Insights in Latin America and the Caribbean, Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank.

Latinobarómetro (1995-2015), Informe Latinobarómetro, available here.

Rosburg, T, J Haueisen, and B Sauer (2002), “Habituation of the auditory evoked field component N100m and its dependence on stimulus duration”, Clinical Neurophysioly 113: 421-428.

Rosburg, T, P Trautner, N N Boutros, O A Korzyukov, C Schaller, C E Elger, and M Kuthren (2006) “Habituation of auditory evoked potentials in intracranial and extracranial recordings”, Psychophysiology 43: 137–144.

Sörös, P, S Knecht, E Manemann, I Teismann, T Imai, B Lütkenhöner, and C Pantev (2001), “Hemispheric asymmetries for auditory short-term habituation of tones?”, in J Nenonen, R J Ilmoniemi, and T Katila (eds), Biomag 2000, Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Biomagnetism, Espoo: Helsinki University of Technology, pp. 47–49.

Thompson, R F, and W A Spencer (1966), “Habituation: a model phenomenon for the study of neuronal substrates of behavior”, Psychological Review 73: 16–43.

Endnotes:
[1] Authors’ calculation from the World Development Indicators for 2014.

[2] Our sample shows high victimization rates (25% of our sample reports having been the victim of a crime in the previous year), although it does not include victims of very severe crimes like rape, kidnapping or homicide.

[3] Experimental setup details available in Di Tella et al. 2017.

[4] Details on the interpretation of the direction of these effects as well as regarding statistical significance is available in Di Tella et al. 2017.

The latest kerfuffle about ending the Special Chambers – which elicited strong negative reaction from both the EU and US – is just one indication that Kosovo is not ready to be on its own yet.  But many other reasons exist to expect that EULEX will remain, even as it again downsizes slightly to lessen its footprint.

By Gerard M. Gallucci*

Just before Christmas, Kosovo President Hashim Thaci publicly called on the EU Rule of Law Mission (EULEX) to leave after the end of its current mandate in June 2018.  The Pristina government would have us believe that Kosovo is now ready to stand on its own as a self-policing, law abiding independent country.  But actually, there is little likelihood that the EU will abandon its oversight of Kosovo in this area.  Thaci is smart enough to realize this so must be supposed to be speaking more for domestic politics than to the foreigners upon whom he – and Kosovo – still depend.

The latest kerfuffle about ending the Special Chambers – which elicited strong negative reaction from both the EU and US – is just one indication that Kosovo is not ready to be on its own yet.  But many other reasons exist to expect that EULEX will remain, even as it again downsizes slightly to lessen its footprint.  The first is that the EU mandate for rule of law actually is on loan from the United Nations, which passed it to EULEX in 2008 (without a UN Security Council vote).  The EU might decide to surrender the mandate but it would then revert back to the UN and presumably to UNMIK.  Neither the EU (and US) nor Thaci are likely to think that passing the mandate back to UNMIK would be a good thing for their interests.  It also remains unlikely that the UNSC will vote to remove or change UNSCR 1244 which still defines the international community’s responsibility for Kosovo.

Within the EU itself, it would be remarkable if all its members agreed to free Kosovo from its oversight.  Might Spain accept any further unilateral developments for Serbia’s break-away province while in turmoil over Catalonia?   Would Kosovo’s neighbors near and far want to leave it as an unmonitored criminal or terrorist haven in the middle of the Balkans?  Indeed, in response to Thaci’s comments, the EULEX Mission publicly reaffirmed that the EU would make the decision on its future.

The biggest reason that the EU cannot abandon its rule of law role in Kosovo is the still unresolved matter of status.  The internationals have not yet finished the job they started in 1999.  A majority of the world’s countries now recognize Kosovo but many still do not, including important members of the UNSC and EU.  Kosovo remains outside the UN.  More to the point, Serbia (with support from Russia) has yet to agree to the formal loss of Kosovo.  Since 2008, Brussels has become the mediator in talks between Belgrade and Pristina.  Some progress has been made since the EU abandoned its effort to simply bully the northern Serbs into accepting Pristina’s rule.  But the EU needs to retain its leverage to finally push the two sides into an accommodation.  On the Serbia side, the prospect of EU membership only really comes into play with Belgrade in the end game, in exchange for some form of recognition of Kosovo and the lifting of the Russian veto over repealing 1244.  In order to get that far, Brussels will have to settle the status of the north, the residual Serbs in the south and of property taken by the Kosovo Albanians.  Partition and compensation remain the most logical outcomes but the US and EU remain hesitant to push the fractious Albanians into accepting this.  The continued EU rule of law mission remains necessary as leverage on Pristina as well to continue to govern its behavior vis-a-vis the remaining Kosovo Serbs.

The EU has big problems on its hands, the unexpectedly weakened Chancellor Merkel, Brexit, Spain vs. Catalonia, the rise of the neo-fascists, the continued refugee flow, the still unresolved name for FYROM, and, last but not least, positioning itself between Putin’s Russia and the unhinged US administration.  Finally settling the Kosovo status issue may not rise to the top of this mix.  So, meanwhile, far better and easier to just let EULEX spin in its space just as UNMIK has been left to spin in its.  After all, there is no special reason to beat the clock until maybe 2019, when everyone can then celebrate the 20 year “anniversary” of the original intervention.

*Gerard M. Gallucci is a retired US diplomat and UN peacekeeper. He worked as part of US efforts to resolve the conflicts in Angola, South Africa and Sudan and as Director for Inter-American Affairs at the National Security Council. He served as UN Regional Representative in Mitrovica, Kosovo from July 2005 until October 2008 and as Chief of Staff for the UN mission in East Timor from November 2008 until June 2010. He has a PhD in political science, taught at the University of Pittsburgh, University of Arkansas, George Washington University and Drake University and now works as an independent consultant.

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of TransConflict.

The Trump administration has settled on a plan for sabotaging the Iranian Nuclear deal that does not explicitly violate the terms of the agreement. Trump will continue to suspend sanctions, as is required under the terms of the deal, but at the same time, he will warn that if the agreement isn’t changed to meet his specific demands,  he will terminate it unilaterally.

“If at any time I judge that such an agreement is not within reach, I will withdraw from the deal immediately,” Trump said.

We can expect Trump to continue to issue these same threats in the months ahead as it helps to maximize the uncertainty as to whether the agreement will survive or not. As a businessman and investor,  Trump  knows that uncertainly is nearly as effective as sanctions when it comes to dampening foreign investment in the country’s businesses and resource development. Corporations and private investors are not going to commit significant capital to long-term projects if they think that the rug could be pulled out from under them at any time. They need certainty just like they need security.  By renewing his threat to withdraw from the deal every 120 days, Trump hopes to negate any benefits that Iran might enjoy by complying with the terms of the nuclear deal. The sanctions will have been lifted, but the impact of Trump’s meddling will stifle foreign investment preventing the strong economic rebound that Iranian leaders had anticipated.

Trump also announced that the United States will impose new sanctions on “14 individuals and entities” over alleged human rights abuses to anti-government protestors during the recent demonstrations which took place in cities across Iran. The Iranian Foreign Ministry has denounced the sanctions as a clear violation of the nuclear agreement which forbids any changes to the terms of the deal. Here’s part of the FM’s statement:

“The Islamic Republic of Iran stresses clearly that it will take no measures beyond its commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and will accept no changes to this agreement now or in the future and will not allow that the JCPOA be linked to any other issue.”

Taken together, the Trump strategy is clever two-pronged approach that shrinks capital investment in the country (thereby strangling the economy) while increasing the incitements that are intended to cause the government to overreact and (possibly) scuttle the agreement. Trump’s goal is to trick Iran into terminating the deal because it would be too costly for the US to end its commitment unilaterally.

The only reason Iran agreed to comply with the onerous requirements of the nuke’s deal was to end the sanctions that had crippled the Iranian economy.  Iran agreed “to reduce uranium enrichment activity drastically, dispose of its enriched uranium stocks and modify a heavy water facility so it could not produce material suitable for a nuclear bomb.” (BBC) Iran was also forced to accept “the toughest and most technologically advanced inspections regime ever put in place to prevent a country from developing an atomic bomb.”  In other words, Iran had to make huge concessions that no other signatory of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) ever had to make to stop the decades-long economic war the US had been waging on it. Trump’s strategy will undoubtedly erase many of the potential economic benefits Iran would have realized had the US honored the spirit and letter of the agreement.

Here are a few excerpts from recent articles that highlight Washington’s off-the-radar efforts to damage Iran’s fragile economy. Here’s a clip from a recent post at Press TV:

“The administration of US President Donald Trump is considering blocking planned sales of hundreds of passenger planes by two aerospace giants, Boeing and Airbus, to Iranian airlines, a report says.

Citing US officials, The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday that Trump’s team is expected to present him with options that include banning sales, imposing stringent conditions that could halt any aircraft deliveries, or slow-walking approvals.” (Press TV)

(NOTE: “The JCPOA explicitly allows US companies to sell civilian airliners to Iranian firms. The sales were a key incentive for Iran to sign onto the deal because Tehran is eager to replenish its civilian airliner fleet, which has been decimated by decades of sanctions.”)

Here’s more from The National Interest:

“The United States is criticized for deterring companies and investors from entering the Iranian market. Iran believes that while the legal and political foundations of sanctions have been removed, the United States has fully kept the primary sanctions in force, preventing the practical removal of the secondary sanctions that were to be lifted.” (“America Still Has Iran Sanctions—And They’re Hurting the Nuclear Deal”, The National Interest)

As we said before, the lifting of sanctions has not produced the economic benefits that Iran’s leaders had expected. Much of this has to do with the slow return of investors due to the  unwillingness of the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) to provide assurances that the nuclear agreement won’t be suddenly rescinded.  Here’s more from an article at Quartz:

“Most international financial transactions are done with U.S. dollars, requiring the transactions to be cleared through the U.S. banking system. Since the primary sanctions remain in force, Iran is barred from using U.S. Dollars, making it more difficult to trade with other countries. Additionally, Iran has experienced problems in obtaining its funds in U.S. dollars from other banks….

Foreign companies are also still restricted from trading with more than 200 Iranian entities sanctioned by the United States for non-nuclear reasons. Some firms also fear the possibility of “snapback” sanctions if Iran violates the deal, or policy changes under the next US president…

Citing remaining financial restrictions, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei accused the United States of not fulfilling its pledges under the nuclear deal. “In Western countries and places which are under U.S. influence, our banking transactions and the repatriation of our funds from their banks face problems … because (banks) fear the Americans,” he said in March.” (“A year on, Iran’s nuclear deal is helping its economy, but not as much as some hoped”, Quartz)

Finally, there’s this from an article at Reuters titled “A year after nuclear deal, sanctions still hurt Iran”:

“While the deal lifted EU and UN sanctions on Iran’s banking and energy sector, unilateral U.S. sanctions on the Iranian economy remain. These sanctions forbid U.S. citizens and companies from conducting most forms of business with Iran, but companies outside the United States are affected as well. …

Without foreign direct investment and international banks willing to underwrite projects in Iran, the fruits of the nuclear deal will elude the Iranian public. Banking and finance are the arteries of global commerce and investment. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has tried to offer assurances that the United States will not interfere with legitimate commerce between Iran and the rest of the world, but his pledges ring hollow. European banks remain skittish. Over the past decade, BNP Paribas, HSBC, and Deutsche Bank have paid billions of dollars in fines for Iran-related activity.

From Iran’s perspective, unless the United States takes more concrete steps to make European banks feel confident about engaging in commerce with Iran, the Iranian people will begin to view the nuclear deal as one-sided.” (Reuters)

So, while Iran has faithfully kept up its end of the bargain (Regular inspections have confirmed that they are in compliance), Washington never has. The US has made every effort to undermine the deal by covertly discouraging foreign investment that would improve living standards for ordinary working people in Iran.

Like his predecessors, Trump has tried to justify his hostility towards Iran in terms of his fear that Iran is secretly developing nuclear weapons. But Trump knows it’s all baloney. Iran has no interest in building nuclear weapons and never has. Take a look at this excerpt from an interview with investigative journalist Gareth Porter that was published by Harpers.

“In Manufactured Crisis, I show that the claim of an Iranian nuclear-weapons program has been based on false history and falsified records. The description of the Iranian nuclear program presented in official documents, in commentaries by think-tank “experts,” and in the media bears no resemblance to the essential historical facts……

Ayatollah Khomeini forbade the use of such weapons, on the ground that both the possession and use of weapons of mass destruction are illicit under Islamic jurisprudence…. Shia jurisprudence is a fundamental constraint on Iranian policy toward weapons of mass destruction. It also makes credible the claim that Iran is forbidden by a fatwa from Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei from possessing nuclear weapons….

The evidence adduced to prove that Iran secretly worked on nuclear weapons represents an even more serious falsification of intelligence than we saw in the run-up to the war in Iraq….

CIA brass apparently went so far as to suppress WMD intelligence obtained by one of its best covert agents in the Middle East because it didn’t fit the conclusion they knew George W. Bush’s administration wanted. I reveal for the first time in the book that a former undercover operative who brought a lawsuit against CIA leadership in 2004 claimed that a highly respected source in Iran had told him in 2001 that Iran had no intention of “weaponizing” its nuclear program. The CIA apparently never informed the White House of that information, and refused to circulate it within the intelligence community….

With Iraq, there was at least dissent over issues like its alleged illegal importation of aluminum tubes, which reflected debates within the intelligence community. Coverage of Iran, on the other hand, has been virtually unanimous in reporting the official line without the slightest indication of curiosity about whether it might be false or misleading.” (“Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare”, Harper’s Magazine)

In a report for the Council on Foreign Relations titled “Putting Iran’s Nuclear Program in Context”, Micah Zenko is even more blunt:

“It is essential to recognize that Iran does not currently have a nuclear weapons program, nor does it possess a nuclear weapon. On February 26, James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Ayatollah Khomenei, the supreme leader of Iran, ended his country’s nuclear weapons program in 2003 and “as far as we know, he’s not made the decision to go for a nuclear weapon.”

Unfortunately, there is so much disinformation in the media on this point, that we must repeat this critical fact over and over again. Iran has no nuclear weapons, no nuclear weapons programs, and has never diverted nuclear fuel to anything other than “approved” energy-related activity.

So why has the United States continued to hector, harass, threaten and bully Iran if the country poses no threat to its neighbors or to US national security?

Iran’s vast resources– natural gas and oil– which are situated at the heart of the strategically-critical Middle East, make it an irresistible target for imperial exploitation.  Washington needs to keep its hand on the oil spigot to ensure that vital resources continue to be denominated in the world’s reserve currency, the dollar, and recycled into US debt.  Washington also needs oil to control the growth of thriving but energy-dependent economies in Asia that are rapidly gaining on the US and challenging its grip on global power. Seen in this light,   Iran’s fictitious “nukes program” is just a pretext for Washington to continue its asymmetrical war on Iran’s economy. The goal of course is regime change and a strengthening of Washington’s geopolitical power through the control of crucial resources.

It’s important to note that Israel has joined Trump in his jihad against Iran. On December 12,  US and Israeli national security advisers, H. R. McMaster and Meir Ben-Shabbat, concluded secret talks at the White House on dealing with Iran and signed “far-reaching joint memorandum of understanding providing for full cooperation.” Ostensibly, the strategy will focus on “Iran’s nuclear drive, its missile programs”, and the activities of its military abroad. In reality, however, Trump has aligned US policy with Israel’s openly belligerent approach which regards Tehran as a sworn adversary that must be defeated in order for Israel to become the dominant power in the Middle East, the regional hegemon. Check out this blurb from Business Insider:

“Quoting the Israeli officials, Channel 10 said that the meeting confirmed that the US and Israel “see eye to eye on the trends and processes in the region,” and have now reached agreement on the strategy and policy required to deal with them.” (“The US and Israel reportedly signed a secret pact to take on Iran”, Business Insider)

Washington and Tel Aviv’s policy towards Iran is now identical which means that the probability of a confrontation is bound to increase.

It’s beginning to look like Trump’s promise of a  “non interventionist foreign policy” was just another empty campaign slogan.

New EU rules on how, where and when fish can be caught, were voted on Tuesday. MEPs inserted an amendment to ban the use of pulsed electric current for fishing.

The new law – updating and combining more than 30 regulations – would provide for common measures on fishing gear and methods, the minimum size of fish that may be caught and stopping or restricting fishing in certain areas or during certain periods. It also allows for tailor-made measures to be adapted to the regional needs of each sea basin.

An amendment calling for a total ban on the use of electric current for fishing (e.g. to drive fish up out of the seabed and into the net) was passed by 402 votes to 232, with 40 abstentions.

EU-wide prohibitions

The EU rules, designed progressively to reduce juvenile catches, would, inter alia prohibit some fishing gear and methods; impose general restrictions on the use of towed gear and static nets (list fish and shellfish species for which fishing is banned
restrict catches of marine mammals, seabirds and marine reptiles, including special provisions to protect sensitive habitats; and ban practices such as “high-grading” (discarding low-priced fish even though they should legally be landed) in order to reduce discarding.

Regional measures

Regional measures would cover inter alia minimum conservation reference sizes, and closed or restricted areas. Member states and the Commission would have 18 months after the entry into force of the regulation to adopt regional rules on mesh sizes.

However, it would be possible to deviate from these regional rules, via a regional fisheries multiannual plan or, in the absence of such a plan, via a decision by the EU Commission. Member states could submit joint recommendations to this end, and MEPs ask them to “base their recommendations on the best available scientific advice”.

According to Rapporteur Gabriel Mato (EPP, ES),  “The current state of standards is impractical, complex and rigid, so there is a need to revise the technical measures. Everyone agreed we needed simplification. We shouldn’t reinvent the rules, but rather make them clearer and more practical to implement for fishermen and others, with regionalization and results-based programming which is helpful for the fishermen, and national and local authorities being able to take decisions in line with the broad framework.”

By Dr Subhash Kapila

Asian security environment plagued with volatility spawned by China’s hegemonistic impulses visible in 2018 places a special call on Japan’s geopolitical assertiveness. Japan is well positioned to do so with its established and credible strategic footings as compared to India which is still positioning itself in the global strategic calculus.

Japan’s established and credible strategic footings in the global strategic calculus arise from it’s a century-old strategic profile of political and military assertiveness beginning from the end of the 19th Century. Japan’s defeat in World War II was only an interlude—a passing phase.

The United States soon after its victory over Japan facilitated only by use of atomic bombings soon realized that United States embedment in the Asia Pacific template then needed American co-option of Japan as a pivotal security partner in Asia.

The advent of the Korean War 1950-53 further reinforced United State conviction that the United States needed and could depend on Japan as an enduring security ally of the United States in the decades to come.

The United States owes immense gratitude for this visionary step of cementing United States embedment in Asia to General Douglass MacArthur through Japan in a pivotal role in post-World War II era.

Japan’s value as a security ally of the United States has never ever wavered after that in the last seven decades. Japan remained steadfast in its commitment despite United States varying the political nuances, if not the security nuances, to serve US political expedient ends of its China Hedging strategies.

In 2018, Japan still stands out as a pivotal security anchor not only of the United States security architecture in the Western Pacific but also as a co-anchor with India of the evolving Indo Pacific Security Coalition that seems to be taking shape potentially as a counterweight to China’s menacing rise endangering Asian security.

In 2018, an Indo Pacific Security Coalition is a trend already visible with all the portents to emerge as a Indo Pacific Treat Organization recommended by me in an earlier SAAG Paper. A loose coalition already exists when the dots are added to the US-Japan Security Treaty with the Japan-India Global Special Strategic Partnership, the US-India Strategic Partnership, he US-Japan-India Trilateral and the US-Japan-India-Australia Quadrilateral.

India in the years after 2014 with the Modi Government in place in New Delhi after decades of India’s obsessive fixations with Non Alignment as strategically meaningless policy precept has finally broken out of the Non Alignment straitjacket and adopted more assertive strategic policy formulations in keeping with prevailing geopolitical realities.

India’s strategic centerpieces in the new policy formulation are United States, Japan, and Australia and followed by Vietnam and Israel. However in 2018 also, India’s dynamic moves towards propelling India into countervailing coalitions as counterweights to balance China and the China-Pakistan Axis are stymied by Indian opposition parties for narrow political gains in terms of domestic politics.

The above limitation sends wrong messages to India’s strategic partners in terms of lack of bipartisan support of Indian geopolitical and strategic formulations and India’s commitments towards Indian regional security , despite the Modi Government subtle moves in that direction. But then even the Modi Government has to recognise that in terms of balance of power strategies against military adventurism of revisionist powers like China, India needs to send out clear signals as to where India stands.

India under PM Modi has sent out clear signals of its intent but it needs to add more visible and vocal manifestations of its intent to be a proactive strategic partner of the groupings emerging for defending Indo Pacific security and stability. India needs to shed the shibboleths of “strategic autonomy” another euphemism for Non -Alignment. It has no place in balance of power political and strategic policy formulations that India must necessarily adopt in the 21st Century.

In view of the above as India transcends its existing strategic coyness in a transitory period, hopefully short, it is Japan as the other leading Asian global power in contention with China that has to exhibit greater strategic assertiveness as an Asian security imperative.

Japan seems to be very much alive to China’s potential to endanger Japanese security both by direct action, coercive political and military brinkmanship and through proxy use of North Korea. Japan’s security postures have been realigned in relation to the China Threat. Japan has embarked on a graduated military buildup without giving the images of an arms race. PM Abe like PM Modi is very much cognizant of the China Threat is seeking to transform the provisions of the Japanese Constitution to position Japan to effectively counter both the China Threat and the North Korea Threat.

Japan is very much in a position to be the pivot for a North East Asia security grouping but is held back by South Korea’s clinging to historical mindsets against Japan, very much like China. Since the United States enjoys mutual security relationships with both Japan and South Korea, the United States needs to make special persistent pressures on South Korea and evolve a Japan-South Korea-United States Security Trilateral.

Japan has already initiated proactive moves towards putting in place a naval profile in the South China Sea under illegal occupation of China, by associating in Joint Naval Patrols with the United States. Australia is also ready to join-in in the same effort. Besides the preceding, Japan and Australia enjoy strong political and strategic bonds.

The South China Sea maritime expanse is one region where all the countries wishing to forestall China’s hegemonistic designs in the Indo Pacific can pool in their naval resources to affect an international naval presence in this vital global commons. Regionally, Japan is in a position both technologically and financially to build-up the military capacities of Vietnam and the Philippines subjected to Chinese illegal occupation of their islands in the South China Sea.

Noteworthy is the recent strategic understanding arrived at by Japan with Britain where British Navy would be exercising in the region. Japan needs to expand such strategic understandings with other major European countries like France and Germany. These moves would not go unnoticed in Beijing. With Chinese economy in a slow-down and thus with a lower attraction to European economies, China is in no position to dictate terms to European majors.

However, where Japan has to fast-rack its military capacities is in the areas of ballistic missiles interceptors, ballistic missiles shields, and cyberwarfare and space warfare capabilities. Japan has the requisite technological production capability indigenously available in Japan to make significant advances, even faster than India.

Short of war and in peacetime too, Japan should it achieve significant advances in the above mentioned fields, can significantly affect and narrow the gap that China has already achieved here. Japan should be well aware that it is in these fields that China is attempting to reduce its differentials with its asymmetries with the United States.

China while it may not admit openly does have serious fears and concerns on the Japanese Navy with battle-tested heritage against the most powerful Navies of the world. Japanese naval traditions coupled with Japan’s state of the art indigenous production of large Navy battleships, submarines and combat helicopter carriers ships. Japan has the most potent Navy in Asia.

Japan must also implement plans to materialise a greater naval profile in the Indian Ocean to checkmate China’s increasing intrusions in this vital Ocean so vital for Japan’s prosperity. Such a Japanese move could greatly supplement the Indian Navy presence in the Indian Ocean, with similar intentions. It is heartening to note that a Japanese task force on security has recommended to the Japanese Government that in the ultimate analysis, Japan’s security against the implicit China Threat would rest on the creation of significant oceanic naval profile

Rounding off the assertive role of Japan as an imperative for Asian security, what needs to be pointed out in this direction is that Japan has also to be more vocally assertive in Asian security affairs. Japan has nothing to be apologetic about in defending its own security against the China Threat and also partaking in regional and global security initiatives towards this end.

Concluding, the following observations would be in order in relation to the main theme of this Paper:

• Asian security is definitely overshadowed and Indo Pacific security specifically threatened by China’s ongoing power tussle with the United States which so far has shouldered these responsibilities.
• Japan and India as the two leading Asian powers need to shoulder responsibilities of Indo Pacific security as indigenous Asian powers and recognised as global leading powers.
• Japan and India can together provide an existential counterweight to China’s unrestrained military and geopolitical moves without an overt arms race.
• Japan is more comprehensively well positioned in 2018 than India in this direction as India breaks out of its archaic strategic policy straitjacket to assume the joint responsibilities with Japan.

In 2018, therefore, Japan’s geopolitical and strategic assertiveness emerges as a strong Asian imperative.

Chief of Army Staff of the Pakistan Army (COAS), General Qamar Javed Bajwa arrived in Sri Lanka Monday evening at the invitation of his Sri Lanka’s counterpart, Lieutenant General Mahesh Senanayake.

During his three-day long stay, General Qamar Javed Bajwa expects to pay courtesy calls on President Maithripala Sirisena, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, Prime Minister, State Minister of Defence, Secretary to Ministry of Defence, Chief of Defence Staff, Commanders of the Navy and Air Force as parts of his itinerary in Sri Lanka.

His delegation is comprised of the spouse of General Qamar Javed Bajwa, Mrs Ayesha Amjad Begum. Brigadier Iftikar Hassan Chauhadary, Personal Secretary to COAS, Mrs Nazia Iftikhar, Begum of PA (C) to COAS, Lieutenant Colonel Asif Hashmat and Captain Kashan Saeeed.

Commander of the Army, Lieutenant General Mahesh Senanayake and Mrs Chandrika Senanayke, President, Army Seva Vanitha Unit received the visiting Pakistan Army Chief, General Qamar Javed Bajwa and Mrs Ayesha Amjad, Begum of COAS respectively, along with Pakistan’s delegation to a red-carpet welcome at the Colombo Bandaranaike International Airport.

With help from the Belt and Road Imitative, China strives to compete with India for influence throughout South Asia.

By Harsh V Pant*

The past year has marked a turning point in Sino-Indian relation in more ways than one. If 2017 began with India taking a strong stance against China’s ambitious Belt and Road Initiative, it ended with China’s tightening grip in South Asia. In between was the 73-day long Doklam standoff between Asia’s two giants at the India-Bhutan-China tri-junction. The year’s events underscore the challenges for this bilateral relationship in ways few would have anticipated in the recent past. India and China grapple with rapid deterioration in their bilateral relations and increasingly jostle with each other for strategic space. And South Asia is fast emerging a theater of Sino-Indian rivalry.

China made an ambitious move in South Asia in December by hosting the first trilateral meeting with the foreign ministers of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Afghan Foreign Minister Salahuddin Rabbani and Pakistan Foreign Minister Khawaja Asif joined their Chinese counterpart Wang Yi in Beijing, where they reportedly agreed to work together to tackle the threat of terrorism. From China’s perspective, such terrorism is intricately linked to the security of its restive Xinjiang province. Beijing also gave a push to the Afghanistan peace process, in limbo since 2015. Garnering much attention is the suggestion that China and Pakistan consider extending their $57 billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, or CPEC, to Afghanistan. The Chinese foreign minister publicly expressed hope that the economic corridor could benefit the whole region and act as an impetus for development, but China’s moves were aimed at India which has been steadfast in its refusal to accept CPEC.

Over the years China has managed to tighten its economic bonds with India’s neighbors. The Maldives became the second country in South Asia, after Pakistan, to enter into a free trade agreement with China late last year. The Abdullah Yameen government pushed the trade agreement through the nation’s parliament when the opposition was not in attendance at the parliamentary session. The principal opposition party, the Maldivian Democratic Party, remains opposed with concerns centering around a possible increase in the trade deficit, already tilted in China’s favor, and the strategic direction of the country.

After Xi Jinping’s visit to the Maldives in 2014, the first by a Chinese president, the nation officially became a part of the “21st century Maritime Silk Road.” China quickly expanded its economic profile in the Maldives by building mega infrastructure projects, including development of Hulhule and a bridge connecting the bridge to Male as well as the country’s main international airport. A constitutional amendment allowing foreign ownership of freehold land was passed in 2015, which coul potentially enhance Chinese military presence in the island nation. Already, Chinese naval ships are regular visitors to Male.

India’s ties with Nepal too have entered a difficult phase with the decisive victory of the coalition of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre), led by Pushpa Kamal Dahal, known as Prachanda, and the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist Leninist), led by Khadga Prasad Sharma Oli. Soon after his victory in October, Oli visited the border with China in Rasuwagadhi and declared that the Rasuwagadhi-Kerung border point, the only trade and transit point between Nepal and China, would be upgraded to international standards. This is an implicit challenge to India which has been Nepal’s principal link to the world. Oli blamed the blockade along the Nepal-India border in September 2015 by Madhesi groups on India, emerging as a vocal critic of New Delhi’s policy towards Nepal and making his intention of taking his country closer to China clear. He secured China’s support during the six-month long blockade and after being forced to resign as the prime minister, he accused India of effecting a government change by encouraging Maoists to withdraw support from his government via “remote control.” The government of Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba who succeeded Oli decided to cancel a major $2.5 billion hydroelectric project awarded to Chinese state company China Gezhouba Group in November 2017 much to Beijing’s annoyance. The new Communist government in Nepal is likely to reverse that decision as Oli had warned against revoking the plan. “The issue here is about foreign investment and such decisions cannot be taken on a whim,” he had said. Beijing is looking into the possibility of connecting Kathmandu to Tibet’s capital Lhasa via railways at an estimated cost of $8 billion as part of the Belt and Road Initiative.

While China seems to be enjoying an upswing in relations throughout South Asia, not everything is going in its favor. The much-hyped CPEC project confronts serious problems. Pakistan reportedly rejected China’s offer of assistance for the $14 billion Diamer-Bhasha Dam, asking Beijing to take the project out of the $60 billion CPEC so that Pakistan can build the dam on its own. Because the project was in disputed territory, the Asian Development Bank had refused to finance it. China was keen to step in, but Pakistan realized that the tough conditions imposed by Beijing pertaining to the dam’s ownership, operation and maintenance costs, as well as security, made the project politically and economically untenable. The Hambantota Port in Sri Lanka offers a cautionary example: China lent money and later took over the indebted port. Pakistan therefore gravitated towards self-financing. Differences also emerged over the use of the Chinese yuan in Pakistan along the lines of the US dollar. Pakistan rejected this demand as well, arguing that common use of the yuan in any part of Pakistan, exchangeable like the dollar, had to be on a reciprocal basis.

The initial euphoria surrounding CPEC has given way to a more realistic appraisal of the project’s costs, with Beijing and Islamabad each reassessing the terms of their engagement. While China is demanding greater autonomy and security in operations, Pakistan finds it difficult to accede to most of these demands. Growing voices in Pakistan suggest that China may be a bigger beneficiary from CPEC than Pakistan. The expectation is that China will engage in its modus operandi of importing goods and labor for the projects at the expense of the local market with Islamabad left carrying the burden of paying interest on loans to Chinese banks well into the future.

Such disputes may settle or intensify. But Sino-Pak relations are unlikely to be downgraded by either side as both view them as critical in managing India. Following the recent suspension of US credit to Pakistan, China has become an even more indispensable partner. Smaller states in South Asia have long used the China card to balance India’s overweening regional presence. Now with China’s heft in global politics at an all-time high, the temptation to leverage Beijing’s clout in bilateral ties with India is even greater. Yet geography is a reality that cannot be changed. As New Delhi asserts itself as a leading global power, it must manage not only its immediate neighborhood with greater strategic vision but also monitor China’s growing clout in South Asia. This, after all, is just the beginning of Sino-Indian jousting in South Asia.

*Harsh V Pant is a distinguished fellow at Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi, and professor of international relations, King’s College London.

A brain-machine interface that combines brain stimulation with a robotic device controlling hand movement increases the output of pathways connecting the brain and spinal cord, according to a study of healthy adults published in JNeurosci. This work could have implications for restoring function in stroke patients with hand paralysis.

Alireza Gharabaghi and colleagues asked participants to imagine opening their hand without actually making any movement while their hand was placed in a device that passively opened and closed their fingers as it received the necessary input from their brain activity.

The researchers demonstrate that stimulating the hand area of the motor cortex at the same time, but not after, the robotic device initiated hand movement increased the strength of the neural signal, most likely by harnessing the processing power of additional neurons in the corticospinal tract.

However, the signal decreased when participants were not required to imagine moving their hand. Delivering brain stimulation and robotic motor feedback simultaneously during rehabilitation may therefore be beneficial for patients who have lost voluntary muscle control.

In 2017, natural gas spot prices at the national benchmark Henry Hub in Louisiana averaged $3.01 per million British thermal units (MMBtu), about 50 cents per MMBtu higher than in 2016. The higher prices in 2017 contributed to less natural gas consumption for power generation. Increased domestic production was offset by increased exports of natural gas by pipeline and liquefied natural gas (LNG) cargoes.

Overall, natural gas prices at key regional trading hubs were less volatile in 2017 than in previous years, as pipelines that came online throughout the year eased some infrastructure constraints that affect regional prices. In the Northeast, which tends to have large price spikes during periods of cold weather, new pipeline capacity, along with warmer winter weather, helped to moderate price volatility. However, record cold temperatures at the end of December in the eastern United States led to record high demand for natural gas and significant price spikes at many trading locations.

Additional takeaway capacity in the Appalachian region, the region with the largest U.S. natural gas production growth in 2017, continued to narrow price differences between Henry Hub and nearby trading hubs such as Dominion South in western Pennsylvania, Transco Zone 6 NY in New York City, and Algonquin Citygate near Boston, Massachusetts.

Until the last few days of 2017, relatively warm winter weather limited natural gas consumption growth in the residential and commercial sectors compared with 2016 levels. However, higher natural gas prices contributed to a 6% year-on-year decline in natural gas consumption for power generation, based on data through October and projections for November and December. This decline was despite a large increase in natural gas-fired capacity additions in 2017, as coal became more competitive with natural gas.

Mild winter temperatures in early 2017 also limited natural gas storage withdrawals, with the first-ever net injection recorded in the month of February. As a result, natural gas storage inventories ended the injection season lower than last year, but higher than the previous five-year average.

EIA expects the United States to become a net exporter of natural gas on an annual basis in 2017 for the first time since 1957. The United States is exporting more natural gas to Mexico and more LNG to at least 20 countries while importing less natural gas by pipeline from Canada. Although EIA’s monthly natural gas data for December 2017 will not be available until the end of February 2018, EIA expects the United States to have exported 0.4 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) more natural gas than it imported in 2017.

U.S. net pipeline imports from Canada continued to decline in 2017, in part because of the commissioning of the first phase of the Rover pipeline, which transports natural gas from the Northeast’s Appalachian supply basin to the Midwest and other markets, reducing Canadian net exports into the Midwest.

U.S. LNG exports averaged 1.9 Bcf/d in 2017, 1.4 Bcf/d higher than in 2016, as liquefaction capacity continued to expand. Currently, the Sabine Pass LNG terminal in Louisiana is operating at near-full capacity with additional liquefaction capacity to be added in the near future. The Cove Point LNG terminal in Maryland plans to start commercial operations in the next few months, and four additional LNG projects are under construction in Georgia, Texas, and Louisiana. By the end of 2019, assuming all liquefaction facilities currently under development are completed, EIA expects U.S. liquefaction capacity to reach 9.6 Bcf/d, the third largest in the world behind Qatar and Australia.

Future U.S. pipeline exports to Mexico are supported by a near doubling of U.S. export pipeline capacity to Mexico by 2019. However, further growth in natural gas pipeline exports to Mexico will be contingent on the timely completion of Mexico’s connecting pipelines, which so far have experienced construction delays.

U.S. marketed natural gas production increased by 1% (1 Bcf/d) in 2017, according to EIA’s preliminary estimates for the year. Regionally, natural gas production growth was concentrated in Appalachia—primarily in the Marcellus and Utica shales. Other regions have also increased production, including the Anadarko region in Texas and Oklahoma and the Bakken region in North Dakota.

Principal contributor: Victoria Zaretskaya

Extensive lead contamination was found in lead battery recycling plants and surrounding communities in seven African countries. The contamination levels in soil ranged up to 14% lead with average concentrations of 2% lead.

Lead battery recycling is a growing hazardous industry throughout Africa. In addition to vehicle applications, lead batteries are used to store solar and wind power, and are in demand for backup power for computers, cell phone towers, and home use. Lead pollution at these industrial sites poses significant health risks to the public.

The study “Soil Contamination from Lead Battery Manufacturing and Recycling in Seven African Countries” published in the Journal Environmental Research, tested areas surrounding 16 authorized industrial facilities in Cameroon, Ghana, Kenya, Mozambique, Nigeria, Tanzania, and Tunisia. Lead levels around lead battery recycling plants ranged up to 48,000 parts per million (ppm) with an average of 2,600 ppm. Levels below 80 ppm are considered safe for children.

Perry Gottesfeld, Executive Director of Occupational Knowledge International and the lead author of the study, said “There is an immediate need to limit lead emissions from this industry and to test children’s exposure levels in nearby communities.” He added that most African countries have no laboratories that can routinely test blood lead levels.

“This study demonstrates that even large scale recycling facilities are significant sources of lead contamination.” Gottesfeld said. Even in Los Angeles, California the large Exide Technologies battery recycling plant that was forced to close in 2015 was found to be contaminating soil in a radius extending up to 1.7 miles from the site.

“In Africa there are no industry specific regulations controlling the release of lead from these recycling plants or to protect workers and children in surrounding communities.” said Dr. Gilbert Kuepouo, from the NGO CREPD and an author on the study.

Kuepouo noted that “One of the two facilities tested in Cameroon is located within approximately 100 meters of a High School and residential district with 30,000 inhabitants.”

A recent study found that lead exposure levels among children in Cameroon are five times higher than those reported among children in France and six times higher than in the U.S. “We know that exposures around these industrial facilities are much greater than the levels we saw in our capital city, Yaoundé.” Kuepouo added.

Few countries in Africa have adequate regulations governing the operations and emissions from lead battery recycling. Kuepouo added “That governments should require lead battery manufacturing and recycling industries to publicly disclose their air emissions on an annual basis like in Europe and the U.S.”

The authors of the study called on governments to ensure that plant operators set aside funds for facility closures to ensure that lead soil contamination is no left behind. One such site around a shuttered lead battery recycling plant in Mombasa Kenya that has never been remediated is responsible for poisoning hundreds of nearby residents since the plant was closed in 2009.

The United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) adopted a resolution during its meeting in 2017 calling on governments to do more to control hazardous lead emissions from lead battery recycling.