Qatar’s Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Sultan bin Saad Al Muraikhi is proposing to hold a global conference on preventive diplomacy.

According to Qatar’s Foreign Ministry the nation is ready to host the event, “out of its belief in the importance of the firm role that preventive diplomacy plays as a main pillar in the vision of the UN Secretary General and Doha’s sense of responsibility to support his efforts and the success of his initiatives to achieve peace.”

Speaking at the Doha Regional Dialogue on Sustaining Peace, Al Muraikhi said that the proposed conference would support the contents of secretary general’s message addressed in welcoming 2018, which highlights the danger due to the absence of peace and the aggravation of challenges in the world.

Al Muraikhi said the global community is facing serious threats and obstacles regarding international peace and safety. These threats puts the United Nations, as an entity for collective security, in a real test for achieving peace in the world, he added.

According to Al Muraikhi, peace does not only mean no wars, but also means respecting legislations, human rights and handling rising tensions that are a result of all types of conflicts that haven’t been fairly settled.

Al Muraikhi reiterated that peace is only achieved with justice and balance in meeting the interests of different countries regardless of the size of their wealth or their geographical area. When justice is not met the results are conflict and instability, he said, and peace will not be achieved if there is greed and if international legitimacy is not met, international relations will be based on power which will resort to politicization of the law to justify its use, Al Muraikhi said.

According to Al Muraikhi, the international community is in dire need to adopt a more comprehensive perception with regards to dealing with international safety and security issues from a preventive stance, where it will work on treating reasons and conflict roots to prevent their outbreak, taking into consideration the organic relations between peace, security and development.

Al Muraikhi reiterated Qatar’s commitment to implement the U.N. development plan 2030 and described it as a plan for development and peace that complies with Qatar’s policies in supporting the pillars of peace, promoting human rights, addressing inequality, achieving justice, combating corruption and consolidating noble human values such as freedom of speech and the right to participate in decision making.

The ongoing India-US rapprochement has been couched in terms of a pact between the “two largest democracies in the world” and similar superlatives. While geographically-challenged Americans may be forgiven for not recognizing their immediate northern neighbor as both a larger nation and a better democracy, mnemonically-challenged Indian pundits should nonetheless subject India-US ties to trend-based reality checks.

Three recent notable sticking points below should deflate India’s pro-American media.

Why does the US continue to withhold David Headley aka Daood Syed Gilani – a key planner behind the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks—from the Indian justice system? Headley, long fingered as a CIA-ISI asset, is supposedly serving time in a US prison for terrorist crimes perpetrated on Indian soil and against Indian citizens. If one agrees with this bizarre judicial arrangement, then one shouldn’t be offended by US President Donald J. Trump’s fecal rants against Third World nations. India might as well count itself in as a founding member of this lavatorial bloc as Trump’s sentiments have long been trailblazed by the US justice system.

Touching on the US justice system, why hasn’t the State Department offered a formal apology to India over the barbaric treatment of diplomat Devyani Khobragade, who was stripped-searched and cavity-checked for an alleged minimum wage offence in 2013? The incident has no parallel in the history of modern international relations. Not even Nazi Germany had subjected a diplomat of an enemy power to such abject degradation.

Indian geopolitical savants should honestly ask themselves whether the US would dare subject a low-ranking female Iranian or North Korean diplomat to such indignities despite Washington’s daily sabre-rattling against both nations. Will either Trump or the State Department proffer an overdue apology or is that unwarranted for a s***hole country?

As for the State Department itself, one should ask whether Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been officially removed from a US visa sanctions list under the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. Even as late as August 2013, the bipartisan United States Commission on International Religious Freedom had opposed granting a visa to Modi due to “very serious” doubts lingering over his alleged role in the “horrific” 2002 Gujarat riots. What changed since then? Did a new US Justice Department review discover exculpatory evidence to exonerate Modi? Otherwise, Modi is still technically on course for a possible indictment at a future date when he no longer enjoys automatic diplomatic immunity as head of government.

Modi remains the only person sanctioned under the Act. Not even Al Qaeda financier sheikhs in the Gulf Arab world carry this stigma. No Pakistani politician has ever been sanctioned under the same Act for the routine rapes, murders and property confiscations of minority Christians and Hindus in his nation.

Yet, instead of questioning US motives; sense of moral proportion; and restitution for past misdeeds, a bovine Indian media is coaxed to play up the China hysteria. It is after all a publicly-stated US policy to use India – and inevitably the blood of Indian soldiers – as a buffer against China. And not just against China. US Defence Secretary Jim Mattis even had the temerity to demand an Indian military presence in Afghanistan during a recent visit to Delhi.

Why can’t the US ask Saudi Arabia, with its vast petrodollar wealth and millions in unemployed youths, to undertake the same task? After all, Washington remains an abiding military patron of Riyadh. Besides, what kind of “war on terror” is the US fighting when its soldiers are routinely photographed protecting opium fields in Afghanistan? This grotesque arrangement with Afghan opium growers has directly resulted in a runaway heroin crisis in Punjab – a state that ironically produces a disproportionate number of soldiers for the Indian army.

As for China, aside from an unresolved border issue and Beijing’s opprobrious support of Pakistan over Hafiz Saeed, no Indian diplomat has ever been arrested and cavity-checked in Beijing. Indian and Chinese soldiers have not exchanged bullets in Doklam or anywhere else along the Himalayas since the late 1960s. In fact, one potential Himalayan spoiler to the 1975 incorporation of Sikkim was Hope Cooke – the American consort to the 12th Chogyal King, Palden Thondup Namgyal. (David Headley is also incidentally half-American).

American spoliation is not just limited to geopolitics. Just about every notable Indian breakthrough in high technology came in the face of prior US opposition. While NASA may congratulate India on its rocketry and space milestones, it forgets how the US had forced the Soviet Union – or the “evil empire as then President Ronald Reagan called it– to cancel cryogenic technology transfers to Delhi. When India recently celebrated the unveiling of the Pratyush supercomputer, few retraced its developmental trajectory to PARAM machines that were built in the face of US denials of technology.

Despite its consistent record in stifling Indian innovation, Washington continues to dangle the carrots of military technology transfers along an eternally-stretched dirt road. India buys US weapons systems such as M777 howitzers and GE F404 engines in hard cash. Hardly any major technology transfer has been effectuated despite Washington’s perennial rhetoric.

While some Indian apologists attribute past frictions between Washington and New Delhi to realpolitik and the Cold War zeitgeist, there remains one overriding strategic reason for India to reject any military alliance with the US: None of Washington’s allies can militarily stand on their own in any major conflict despite possessing the technologies and potential manpower to do so. Take a look at Britain, France, Germany, Canada, South Korea, Japan and Australia, amongst numerous other nations, to see how military dependence on the US translates to foreign policy servitude.

Take a closer look at Israel. While US politicians love to bellow their “love for Israel” from the rooftops of Capitol Hill, nationalist Israelis will remember how the Reagan regime had deliberately scuttled the native Lavi fighter jet program and thereby kill a viable competitor to the F-16s and F-18s. The annual military aid to Israel, couched in vacuous civilizational and religious terms, is in reality a quid pro quo to purchase or improvise US weapons systems. India can never be a military-cum-economic superpower if it is ever subsumed into the US security hydra.

On the civilian and commercial fronts, US industrial contributions to India have been patchy, mundane or outright lethal. The 1984 Bhopal tragedy and the ongoing suicides of Indian farmers after the introduction of Monsanto GMO seeds are cases in point.

Of course, US multinationals are undeniably setting up software and R&D centres in India, creating hi-tech jobs in return for low-cost skills. Yet, there is a flip side to this development as Indian ingenuity may be prematurely swallowed up by cash-rich MNCs. Decades-old Indian software prowess has yet to produce native challenges to operating systems from Microsoft and Apple (US); Internet browsers like Yandex (Russia); and mobile apps like Waze (Israel), WeChat (China) or Telegram (Russia).

Finally, one only needs to study how Pakistan’s military alliance with the US had panned out. The global jihadi menace – nurtured by Washington as an ostensible bulwark against Soviet communism in Afghanistan –was predictably re-channelled by Pakistan into unremitting terror in Kashmir.

For now, the US is seen to be acting tough on Pakistan, much to the delight of the visceral Indian “intelligentsia”. However, Indians should remember that no other major power had applied more sanctions on New Delhi, post-WWII, than the United States of America!

So much for the ebullience over the “two largest democracies in the world”….

A breakdown of the deal and tension in the Persian Gulf has implications for India.

By Manoj Joshi

The Trump Administration’s decision to continue waiving sanctions relating to the 2015 Iran nuclear deal is good news for the world and India. However, and somewhat ominously, Trump said that this was the last waiver he would issue. Which means in four months, we will confront the possibility of the deal collapsing and its attendant consequences.

In addition, the US issued new sanctions against 14 Iranian officials and institutions relating to human rights, its ballistic missile programme and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). New sanctions have been issued against the head of Iran’s judiciary Sadegh Larijani and a cyber warfare unit accused of internet censorship and this could further roil relations between Iran and the US.

It is no secret that Trump hates the Iran deal and had threatened to talk away from it, but since taking over as President, he has waived sanctions for the third time. By law, the US President is required to certify to its Congress every 90 days as to whether Iran is complying with the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) Agreement that it signed with six world powers to limit its nuclear programme. In October 2017, Trump refused to certify the agreement and is since been issuing waivers on the sanctions that he is mandated to impose.

Trump now wants to work with the European powers who were behind the deal and push for a follow on agreement which would impose new conditions on Teheran. Trump’s ideas are contained in amendments to the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act (INARA). This would mandate that Iran allow timely and sufficient inspection of all its sites by international inspectors, that Iran does not come close to getting nuclear weapons.

However, while UK may want to go with the US on this, Germany, France, are not likely to follow and China and Russia most certainly not.

The Europeans have been categorical in opposing any efforts to re-write the deal. On Thursday, the Europeans made it clear that they support the JCPOA. In Brussels, Federica Mogherini, the EU foreign policy chief said that while there were concerns about Iran’s development of ballistic missiles and other activities in the Middle East, they could be dealt with as a separate issue. But this would require Chinese and Russian cooperation as well as that of the Iranians, something that looks unlikely.

That is why there has been a big debate within the US about the Presidential waiver. Some have argued that the recent political protests are an opportunity to further push Iran to the point where the people overthrow the mullah-led government. However, others say that pressure would actually do the opposite—generate support for the government. Whatever it is, the US is poorly equipped to handle the issue because so far the US has been looking at the issue through only a military perspective. But while the protests have convinced the President that the Iranian leadership must be punished, the Europeans believe that the deal should be preserved.

The Americans realise that they lack significant diplomatic heft to push the Europeans, but their real problem is that they want to re-write the deal which was achieved through very tough negotiations.The JCPOA was worked out through a UN Security Council resolution with monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency which must certify that Iran is complying with its side of the deal which includes limiting its enrichment of uranium, reducing its heavy water stockpiles, dismantling centrifuges, pouring cement over the core of the Arak reactor. So far the IAEA which has got unprecedented access to the programme, has certified that Iran is in compliance with its part of the deal.

From the outset there has been little trust between Iran and the US. So while Iran has continued ballistic missile testing, the US has continued its sanctions through using the issue of human rights and terrorism and many international companies have stayed away from Iran so as not to get entangled in US laws.

Trump’s policy has two pillars—the dismantling of a deal worked out by his predecessor Barack Obama which has been criticized by Israel as well. And containing Iranian activism in Yemen, Syria and Iraq. The American policy is strongly influenced by the military men in his administration, people like the National Security Adviser H R McMaster who commanded American forces in Iraq.

Supporters of the deal say that it had a single focus—prevent Iran from going nuclear. Other issues such as ballistic missiles, Iranian activities in Yemen, Lebanon and Iraq were not part of the arrangement. Those who thought that the deal alone would transform Iranian behaviour towards the US and its allies were unduly optimistic.

A breakdown of the deal and tension in the Persian Gulf has implications for India which imports significant quantities of Iranian oil and is also committed to building the Chah Bahar project.

This article originally appeared in Greater Kashmir.

By Sanjeev Ahluwalia

India’s Supreme Court was thrown into a tizzy last week, because four senior-most Justices of the Court, felt the Chief Justice was using his discretion to allocate “politically sensitive” cases to judges who could be expected to rule in favour of the government.

So deep was their despair that they did something dramatic. They bared their anguish in public at a press conference, adding that they had tried to settle the matter internally, by talking to the CJI, who apparently gave them short shrift.

Indian Supreme Court is notoriously clannish. A “collegium” of the CJI and four senior-most judges, recommend new judges for appointment to the higher judiciary. The process is opaque. The President must formally approve the appointment. This provides an opportunity to the Government to hold up an appointment. But it cannot appoint a judge by itself. This system dates back two decades when the Supreme Court ruled, in 1993, that the power of appointing a judge was inherent to its ability to safeguard the basic structure of the Constitution – its key mandate.

The earlier UPA government and subsequently the Modi government sought to substitute the “collegium” with a Judicial Appointments Commission comprising the CJI and two judges of the Supreme Court, the Law Minister of India and two eminent persons appointed by a committee consisting of the CJI, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the opposition in the Lok Sabha. The act was approved in both houses of the Parliament and by a majority of state legislatures, as is required for a constitutional amendment and notified as the National Judicial Commissions Act 2014.  However, a five-member bench of the Supreme court struck down this amendment to the constitution on October 16, 2015, thereby restoring the “collegial” appointments” system.

Justice J.S Kehar who led the bench striking down the Act went on the become the Chief Justice of India under the Modi government, as observers hailed the victory of the rule of law, constitutionality and the preservation of the fundamental principle of separation of powers in a democracy. The Modi government silently licked its wounds. But recompense was not long in coming.

CJI Kehar retired on in September 2017 and the senior most Justice Dipak Mishra was sworn in as the CJI on August 28, 2017 per precedent in the collegial system. On Friday last, the earlier supporters of the collegial system of judicial appointment were on their feet again, this time praising the four judges, who had saved democracy and lauded them for their courage and resoluteness in coming out in the open against the CJI chosen by the very same collegial system.

This just doesn’t square. So, lets assume, for arguments sake, that the CJI was sending “sensitive” cases to judges, whom he felt would decide them in a particular manner. What were the possible options available to the four judges?

Clearly the first was to have a chat with the CJI and apprise him that they took a dim view of what he was doing. The judges say they did do that. But when nothing changed they decided to go public with the amorphous charges.

It is pertinent to ask, why they never sought to rally around them, their brother judges. There are 25 Judges in the Supreme Court. Why could they not convince the 18, or so, other “uncommitted” judges, that something needed to be done? Surely, if the four judges had managed to get an additional 10 judges around to their point of view and had they put up a common viewpoint to the CJI, the outcomes could have been different.

One of the four judges, who went public, is Justice Ranjan Gogoi, who is set to take over as CJI, once the present CJI retires, in October 2018. Why did they not similarly try and get the four other Justices who can become the CJI all the way till 2024 converted to their cause? Sharad Arvind Bobde – due to become CJI in November 2019; N.V. Ramana – due in April 2021; Uday Umesh Lalit – due in August 2022 and D.Y. Chandrachud – due to become CJI in November 2022. Was it because these judges did not feel similarly oppressed? If this be the case, it significantly takes away from the bite of the allegations voiced by the four judges.

Justice Ranjan Gogoi has certainly put his neck on the line by disrupting the placid exterior of the Supreme Court. He has also certainly riled the government. Readers may recollect that Justice Khehar, the previous CJI had also riled the government, by heading the five-judge Justice bench which totalled the NJAC Act. He became CJI nevertheless. The Judiciary and the Bar have aligned view-points which are penetrable only by insiders.

It is unlikely, that, Justice Gogoi would have gone public without consulting with and getting the support of his brother judges and the Bar. Even Supreme Court Justices are human and are allowed a touch of self-preservation. More important they are expected to be rational, sans emotion, with their heads ruling their hearts.

Does this imply that dissatisfaction, with the administration of the Supreme Court, runs deep within the brotherhood? Also does this not show that the judiciary needs to change with the times?

Specifying the procedure for case allocation narrowly, rather than leaving it to the discretion of the CJI, would be a good start. Cases can be randomly allocated, using a specially designed algorithm, since all the Supreme Court judges have the same status and come to the court after years of experience. Most importantly, if the “collegial” system is not fool proof in selecting judges true to their salt, why not try the collaborative approach of the NJAC. After all, Justice N. Chelameswar, one of the four judges, wrote the dissenting judgement supporting the NJAC. No one arm of the State has a monopoly on virtue.

This article originally appeared in The Times of India.

By Aditi Aryal

The beliefs and practices that revolve around menstruation differ across societies. In some cultures, the menstruating women are victimized due to the regressive attitudes that exist around menstruation. In others, menstruation as a topic is not up for discussion; it is covered in layers of shame and stigma.

Nevertheless, what remains common for the women who go under this natural biological phenomenon is that there exist different battles. Actually, these battles have to be fought primarily as a result of some concepts that render women dirty and their bodies polluted; as not sacred enough to befit daily activities. These beliefs reduce women into untouchables and sometimes compel them to live in isolation.

In the region of South Asia, the practices vary from culture to culture, and there is a stark contrast between urban and rural societies. In Hindu societies, families host figurines of deities in their houses that are worshiped regularly with full devotion. The concept of sacred and profane is very widely present in such families, and menstruating women are considered profane. Living in the same space as the god is sacrilegious.

In Nepal, 19% women are banished from their houses to ‘chhaupadi goth’, roughly translating to menstruation huts. Chhaupadi is a practice in the mountainous western Nepal that forces women to sleep and live in sheds for the duration of their period, due to the belief that menstruating women cause ill-luck to the family, crops, and cattle if the god is displeased.  The practice had been outlawed by the Supreme Court in 2005, and recently in 2017 was taken up in the parliament again because it caused death in huge numbers. In 2017 alone, the cases of Chhaupadi related deaths came up and it was immediately re-criminalised with a penalty for the offenders.

Despite this, the practice has not stopped. In interviews that were taken immediately as the nation was outraged by the frequent deaths that took place in western Nepal, the women were questioned if they would still practice Chhaupadior put their daughters through the same after the re-criminalisation and additional penalty. They responded that it was not up to them but on the very societies that coerced them to undergo such malpractice.

Furthermore, criminalizing the practice would mean filing formal complaints against the family members which is very unlikely. If the women had that kind of powers, they would not be banished to a shed in the first place.

Merely making and implementing of draconian laws is not enough because people house their belief systems in superstitious interpretation of religion. Vulnerable in those sheds, women fear snake bite and animal attacks, mosquitoes, asphyxiation due to inhalation of smoke from the fire built to fight the cold, and sexual predators among others. However, these families see it more deeming that a woman live in a shed outside the house in unsafe conditions just to prevent the house from being polluted by her presence. This all boils down to the fact that a death of a menstruating woman would be justified because at least, the god was spared from pollution, the crops and cattle were intact. It perhaps gets justified as a result of something she did, maybe touch a bottle of pickle, who knows?

A large section of the urbanized sectors lament, often in forms that take of troll posts and memes, about the so-called ‘feminists’ in the ‘East’ who limit their talk to menstruation to come off as empowered in contrast to the ‘feminists’ in the ‘West’ who battle real and important feminist issues like ‘equal pay’ and ‘glass ceiling’. Dissecting this, it dawns upon a realisation that people in these societies regard the women who talk about menstruation in the open as aggressively progressive. Moreover, they would rather dismiss the topic as something irrelevant and consider talking about it lesser important than talking about other inequalities. However, it is only fitting to be vocal about menstruation as much as required.

We forget to remember that women in remote areas with poor access do not benefit from the choice between various menstrual products at their disposal. In India, less than 16% of the women use marketed feminine products. In various parts of the country, women use sand, or wood shavings or pieces of cloth. Now, the issues that arise are of infections among other things.

To begin with, these products are unsafe and pose a threat of infections like urogenital infection and bacterial vaginosis. The cloths are repeatedly used without being sun-dried because of the shame of exposure of the used cloths to men and other women. What also prevents these women from using hygienic safe products is due to unavailability for several kilometers, unaffordability arising out of poverty, and embarrassment to ask for even a sanitary pad, especially from male shopkeepers. In fact, 23% of the girls drop out of school upon starting their menstruation. The Indian government, along with entrepreneurs, and educators have worked hard to ensure all women have access to sanitary products. However, the lack of funds, expensive to afford one-use products, unable to maintain quality of the low-budgeted products, and failure to meet the needs of all women in the country are some problems that are faced.

In Pakistan, 80% women do not have access to sanitary menstrual products. UNICEF reported that the biggest hindrance to sanitary conditions was prevented by the lack of washing facilities. In fact, for a country frequented by natural calamities and insurgencies in some areas, women should be educated and encouraged about using hygienic productssince there is always the likelihood of moving to temporary shelters in such circumstances. It was reported that a stunning number of girls are shocked upon menstruating their first time because they were not aware about it. In only a few years to follow, many drop out of school or stay absent from school when they are menstruating, thus hindering their education.

To sum it up, menstruation has been evolved as a shameful event in this part of the world. Menstruating women are shunned and indoctrinated as inferior and unchaste and they do not even fight against the practices but accept it as normal. Firstly, religion has a significant part to play as it is due to the god-fearing purity seeking individuals that seek to maintain the sanctity of their surroundings from where the concept of sacred and impure arise. But, how can any practice be religious if it causes the already disadvantaged more detriment?

Secondly, unawareness and equating menstruation with shame and secrecy has worsened the situations to where women are not comfortable with their own bodies so much so that they from birth to death are unaware of their own anatomies. Where mothers are themselves not at peace with their body and bodily functions, passing it on to their daughters is difficult and discussing about it with their sons unimaginable. Lastly, this exclusion of men and terming menstruation as a ‘woman thing’ has led to men genuinely having no idea what the deal is about and why is it important for women to be safe, clean, healthy, and rested when they menstruate. Thus, a change is necessary by educating women, by subsiding sanitary menstrual products, criminalizing discrimination against menstruating women, and by including men in this drive.

Source: This article was published by Modern Diplomacy.

During the last 24 hours, 72 Turkish jets have reportedly struck 150 targets inside the Kurdish-controlled Afrin district in north-western Syria in which six civilians and three Kurdish militiamen have lost their lives. And today, Turkish ground troops in armoured vehicles have intruded five kilometres inside Afrin from Syria’s northern border with Turkey.

In addition, Turkey has also mobilised the Syrian militant groups under its tutelage in Azaz and Idlib in Syria, and in Kilis and Hatay provinces of Turkey, the latter of which has a substantial presence of Arabs and Syrian refugees, hence the Kurdish-controlled Afrin enclave has been surrounded from all sides by Turkey and its proxies.

Well-informed readers who have been keenly watching Erdogan’s behaviour since the failed July 2016 coup plot must have noticed that Erdogan has committed quite a few reckless and impulsive acts during the last couple of years.

Firstly, the Turkish air force shot down a Russian Sukhoi Su-24 fighter jet on the border between Syria and Turkey on 24 November 2015 that brought the Turkish and Russian armed forces on the brink of a full-scale confrontation in Syria.

Secondly, the Russian ambassador to Turkey, Andrei Karlov, was assassinated at an art exhibition in Ankara on the evening of 19 December 2016 by an off-duty Turkish police officer, Mevlut Mert Altintas, who was suspected of being a Muslim fundamentalist.

Thirdly, the Turkish military mounted the seven-month-long Operation Euphrates Shield in northern Syria immediately after the attempted coup plot from August 2016 to March 2017 that brought the Turkish military and its Syrian militant proxies head-to-head with the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces and their US bakers.

And lastly, before Turkey’s intrusion in Afrin, the Turkish military invaded Idlib in north-western Syria in October last year on the pretext of enforcing a de-escalation zone between the Syrian militants and the Syrian government, despite official protest from the latter that the Turkish armed forces are in violation of Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Regarding the July 2016 coup plot, instead of a serious attempt at overthrowing the government, the coup plot was actually a large-scale mutiny within the ranks of the Turkish armed forces. Although Erdogan scapegoated the Gulenists to settle scores with his one-time ally, but according to credible reports, the coup was in fact attempted by the Kemalist liberals against the Islamist government of Turkey.

For the last several years of the Syrian civil war, the Kemalists had been looking with suspicion at Erdogan administration’s policy of deliberately training and arming Sunni militants against the Shi’a-dominated government of Bashar al-Assad in the training camps located on Turkey’s borders with Syria in collaboration with CIA’s MOM, which is a Turkish acronym for military operations centre.

As long as the US was on-board on the policy of nurturing Sunni Arab jihadists in Syria, the hands of Kemalists were tied. But after the US declared a war against one faction of Sunni militants, the Islamic State, in August 2014 and the consequent divergence between Washington’s policy of supporting the Kurds in Syria and the Islamist government of Turkey’s continued support to Sunni jihadists, it led to discord and adoption of contradictory policies.

Moreover, the spate of bombings in Turkey claimed by the Islamic State and separatist Kurds during the last couple of years, all of these factors contributed to widespread disaffection among the rank and file of Turkish armed forces, which regard themselves as the custodians of secular traditions and guarantors of peace and stability in Turkey.

The fact that one-third of 220 brigadiers and ten major generals were detained after the coup plot shows the level of frustration shown by the top and mid-ranking officers of the Turkish armed forces against Erdogan’s megalomaniac and self-destructive policies.

Regarding the split between Washington and Ankara, although the proximate cause of this confrontation seems to be the July 2016 coup plot against the Erdogan administration by the supporters of the US-based preacher, Fethullah Gulen, but this surprising development also sheds light on the deeper divisions between the United States and Turkey over their respective Syria policy.

After the United States reversal of ‘regime change’ policy in Syria in August 2014 when the Islamic State overran Mosul and Anbar in Iraq in early 2014 and threatened the capital of another steadfast American ally Masoud Barzani’s Erbil in the oil-rich Iraqi Kurdistan, Washington has made the Kurds the centrepiece of its policy in Syria and Iraq.

It would be pertinent to mention here that the conflict in Syria and Iraq is actually a three-way conflict between the Sunni Arab militants, the Shi’a-led governments and the Kurds. Although after the declaration of war against a faction of Sunni Arab militants, the Islamic State, Washington has also lent its support to the Shi’a-led government in Iraq, but the Shi’a Arabs of Iraq are not the trustworthy allies of the United States because they are under the influence of Iran.

Therefore, Washington was left with no other choice but to make the Kurds the centrepiece of its policy in Syria and Iraq after a group of Sunni Arab jihadists, the Islamic State, transgressed its mandate in Syria and overran Mosul and Anbar in Iraq in early 2014 from where the United States had withdrawn its troops only a couple of years ago in December 2011.

The US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces are nothing more than the Kurdish militias with a symbolic presence of mercenary Arab tribesmen in order to make them appear more representative and inclusive in outlook. As far as the regional parties to the Syrian civil war are concerned, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the rest of the Gulf states may not have serious reservations against this close cooperation between the United States and the Kurds in Syria and Iraq, because the Gulf states tend to look at the regional conflicts from the lens of the Iranian Shi’a threat.

Turkey, on the other hand, has been more wary of the separatist Kurdish tendencies in its southeast than the Iranian Shi’a threat, as such. And the recent announcement by Washington of training and arming 30,000 Kurdish border guards to patrol Syria’s northern border with Turkey and prolonging the stay of 2000 US troops embedded with the Kurds in Syria indefinitely must have proven a tipping point for the Erdogan administration.

By Sheel Kant Sharma*

The year 2017 saw the iconic clock of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists slide to two-and-a-half minutes to midnight. It is set closer than ever to the brink except in 1952 when US-Soviet hydrogen bomb tests within six months of each other had pushed it to two minutes to midnight. In fact, the furthest it came from midnight was 17 minutes in 1991 after the end of the Cold War with a raft of nuclear arms control measures agreed by Washington and Moscow. In the past 26 years, that reassuring distance from doomsday has again diminished steadily as deterioration rather than improvements have been the hall mark of great power relations. Besides, since 2007, the danger of a climate change catastrophe has combined with nuclear peril in the analysis of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists.

The last hopeful moment for this clock was in 2009 when the Nobel Prize for peace was awarded to President Obama. That was an investment in hope aroused by Obama’s pitch on abolition of nuclear weapons and his inclination to drafting a Nuclear Posture Review much less prone to resort to nuclear weapons (all he could eventually muster in 2010 was narrowing the definition of the country facing an “extreme circumstance”). In contrast, last year’s Nobel to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) for its determined campaign for the Ban Treaty had a marked sense of despair. In just eight years, hope has given way to rising unease and hopelessness.

As things stand today, even tentative global rules – written and unwritten – for managing the nuclear age and avoidance of nuclear war have suffered severe damage. The damage appears to have been to the core. These rules as one understood them comprised a seven decade-old informal taboo against nuclear weapons, a tacit assurance among nuclear weapon states about not crossing red lines regarding respective security sensitivities, and observance of the international as well as bilateral treaties and understanding. All that compendium is severely undermined today by a number of threatening developments. A fervent urgency to respond with finality to North Korea’s provocations and North Korean actions in continued defiance are on one end of the spectrum. The weak response to the Ban Treaty by the nuclear weapon states while dismissing its clarion call figures somewhere in the middle. The inherent logic of the Ban Treaty’s prohibition is not challenged by those rejecting it. Among the argumentation adduced for their rejection are the familiar deterrence stability theories and security architecture based on nuclear weapons and also fears about the adverse impact of the Ban Treaty on the long-standing NPT.

A breakdown in communication between Moscow and Washington about the path-breaking treaties of late last century seems to be almost complete with openly voiced intentions on their part to outstrip the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty by testing new medium range missiles. The entente among the P5 about managing a world with nuclear weapons is at its weakest. Politics among nations seem to override today the almost century old wisdom of commonly pursuing agreed restraints on weapons; restraints which commenced with the Geneva Protocol of 1925 and progressively gained heft in the half century after World War II. The chimera still burns of a miracle breakthrough in technology that would trounce one’s adversary by beating all technologies of weapons, both offensive and defensive. Outlaws like North Korea meanwhile resolutely pursue the trodden path to acquire and test old-fashioned nuclear weapons and their delivery systems. The past year saw a harrowing spectacle of it in North Korea’s tests of hydrogen bomb and long range missile capable of hitting mainland US; capped by the threat of a demonstrative atmospheric nuclear test. Were that to happen the comity of nations would backtrack to 1980 when China had last conducted its nuclear test in the atmosphere.

There is no realistic chance in this setting of nuclear ‘haves’ agreeing to move further on reductions or even accept declaratory constraints on use of nuclear weapons. India and China maintain No First Use (NFU) doctrines although given the miasma that prevails, such exceptions are likely drowned in uncertainty.

The roots of this uncertainty stem from widening divergence and lack of trust among Russia, China and the US on security, growing gaps in their approaches to global tensions, including in Ukraine, North East Asia and the Indo-Pacific, and flaring up of dangerous psychoses in West and South Asia against Iran, Syria and in Afghanistan. One captious ground against the ‘deterrence-only’ role of nuclear weapons has been extended deterrence, which seems to be challenged when South Korean president shows his pronounced unease about the dangerous nuclear war rhetoric. South Korean preference for dialogue and sanctions is reminiscent of Helmut Kohl’s Cold War Oestpolitik and the panic of many in Germany as potential victims of deterrence failure rather than beneficiaries of European missile deployment.

The passionate advocacy of the Ban Treaty falls short of carrying conviction with those toward whom it is directed. Only a minority among the nine nuclear-armed states values the merit of the campaign which highlights that the world is just “a tantrum away” from doomsday, to quote from the Nobel ceremony. The latest news reports indicate that a draft US Nuclear Posture Review in US visualises a devastating cyber attack as an “extreme circumstance” for resorting to use of nuclear weapons. A host of questions arise about likely pre-emption or retaliation targets and a repeat of post 9/11 arguments about terror attacks justifying nuclear weapons’ use. On the other hand, reports about Russian possession of an Artificial Intelligence (AI)-driven intercontinental nuclear torpedo portend a new spiral of escalation.

There is, for an optimist, a faint trickle of light that shines on North Korea’s upcoming participation in the Winter Olympics in South Korea and prospect of dialogue or positive turn of events there, Iran deal’s surviving yet another killer deadline and unconfirmed informal contacts between US State Department officials and counterparts in Moscow on these issues. The enlightened appeal of the Ban Treaty in these trying times, however, is for doing much more than clutching at straws in the wind.

* Sheel Kant Sharma
Former Permanent Representative of India to the UN Office in Vienna & the IAEA

By Majid Izadpanahi*

While much of the world was busy celebrating the new year, Iran was enveloped in protests. Spread across 70 cities, these protests began in the Shiite holy city of Mashhad in reaction to endemic inflation that has plagued the Iranian economy.

This demonstration was more significant than the Green Movement in 2009 or any previous demonstrations Iran has faced. Firstly, the Green Movement opposed the election of Ahmadinejad and was driven by the participation of the middle class and restricted to three or four large cities with a clear slogan, “Where Is My Vote?” This protest was much more widespread, targeting external policies perceived to have a direct influence on the current economic downturn and hence the average Iranian’s standard of living.

These policies include Iran’s involvement in Syria, Lebanon and Gaza, leading to slogans like “Let Go of Syria, Think of Us,” or “No Gaza, No Lebanon, My Life for Iran.” Secondly, this protest was spontaneous, organised through the Internet – specifically a messaging application called Telegram – without leadership, and lacked the support of the established reformists as some of these voters have lost their faith in them and President Rouhani. Surprisingly, two conservative and religious cities – Mashhad and Qom – witnessed anti-Islamic Republic and pro-Iranian royal family slogans.

Though triggered by inflation, there are many factors motivating the demonstrations: inflation, unemployment, pervasive corruption and embezzlement, to name but a few. These causes absorbed the nationwide protest organised a few months earlier by people who lost money invested in financial institutions that became bankrupt. These earlier protests led by the normal salaried class comprising a spectrum, from teachers, to bus drivers and labourers, intensified after the earthquake in Western Iran and the lack of governmental aid to the survivors.

Protestors were further aggravated when President Rouhani allocated more funds for religious institutes than other crucial administrative organisations, such as the Organisation of the Environment, which looks after Iran’s many environment-related problems. In short, these protests represent a far wider cross-section of the population than previous protests.

The Government’s Approach

While officials accepted the right to protest and admitted to the existence of economic problems, they accused foreign powers – Saudi Arabia, the US, and Israel – of instigating the demonstrations. Consequently, the government response was three-fold: force, counter-propaganda, and censorship. Riot police was used to crack down on and arrest protestors.

The counter-narrative of a foreign hand was created, stoking nationalist sentiments through mass media and organised pro-government demonstrations. Finally, apps like Telegram, Instagram and Facebook were blocked.

Consequences

All of this leads to two main questions relating to the durability of the protests, and their consequences.

The demonstrations began based on economic motivations but very soon turned into political demands as they correctly blamed the officials’ inability to solve problems. Signs of confusion among Iranian officials over the state of affairs are visible. They failed to grapple with the demands of the demonstrators and resorted to deflection tactics accusing other countries. As long as the disillusionment with the economic function of the government and the grounds for discontent exist, the possibility of recurrent protests remains open.

While previous protests had been supported by reformists within Iran, the current demonstrations can be considered a third force outside the established political system, and beyond the reformist-fundamentalist equation. In fact, this third pole has pushed the reformists and fundamentalists closer to each other, possibly leading to the emergence of a new pro and anti-government equation. In other words, a new political makeup.

Overplaying the foreign conspiracy angle may undermine President Rouhani’s détente foreign policy and bring about a new round of tensions between Iran and the West. The US is planning new political sanctions on Iran due to “the violation of human rights.” The continuation or recurrence of the protests may prevent foreign investments in Iran, especially in the energy sector, preventing any short-term bubbles or deeper economic recovery.

Ultimately, if these protests achieve political amplification well beyond their current significance, the consequences will depend entirely on the reaction of the government to them.

* Majid Izadpanahi
Postgraduate scholar, Centre for Energy Studies, Masaryk University, Czech Republic

By Prashant Dikshit*

In 2009, China launched a pilot project to use the Yuan (China’s official currency and economic symbol) for cross-border settlements. Since then, there have been purposeful campaigns in this direction. The scheme was then developed into a full-fledged framework the very next year, and now, several Chinese companies conduct their business transactions in Yuan with their partners in Hong Kong and some ASEAN countries. Today, emboldened by its growing global economic clout Beijing is keen to push the Yuan forward.

Flaunting currency is not a mere economic move. It becomes a strategic manoeuvre when economics is applied to tilt the balance of power. Having learnt from its experiences in Southeast Asia and in the underdeveloped regions in the African continent, China has begun practicing this strategy in Pakistan. Among other things, it has asked the government of Pakistan to introduce the Yuan as a legal tender in the Gwadar Port Free Zone. Pakistan clearly demonstrated its deep rooted signs of discomfort with the proposal. The government balked at China’s intention and rejected it outright. Pakistan viewed China’s push for the Yuan as an infringement of its sovereignty. The reality is that this is about good risk control. Professions of “brotherly love” are all very well, but Pakistan wants to avoid another Venezuela.

Seemingly to emphasise its freedom, Islamabad said it will finance the Diamer-Bhasha dam itself, calling China’s offer to construct, operate and maintain the project unacceptable. The dam was an important component of the much touted China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) project. There were economic issues as well, namely the high interest rate. Economists have claimed that “Pakistan manages the rupee more closely than China acts to stabilize the Yuan.” However, Beijing succeeded in ensuring the use of the Yuan as the bilateral trade settlement currency between China and Pakistan. As Pakistan’s Minister for Planning and Development, Ahsan Iqbal, pointed out, this implies that the “US dollar may be replaced by Chinese Yuan in China-Pakistan trade.”

Pakistan watchers claim that the country’s elite are seemingly not too keen to either deal in the Chinese currency or to let cheap Chinese goods flooding Pakistani markets and that they are resisting all attempts at imposing Chinese economics in their way of life. The said elites essentially belong to families of military officers and very senior members of the political class and civil servants whose kin are beneficiaries of the US system. On the other hand, the use of the Yuan in informal trade is already underway, especially in Balochistan province, where the China-developed Gwadar port is now operational. With reports emerging of China developing Jiwani as a military port – which Beijing has denied so far – along with nearly 20 high value projects under development, the day is not far when the Yuan will emerge as the informal legal tender all over Pakistan. Meanwhile, Islamabad is so deeply embroiled in the CPEC project that it cannot openly move against the Yuan for fear of annoying their Chinese masters.

In a November 2017 article titled ‘Khush Hal Balochistan or Khush Hal China?’ (A Prosperous Balochistan or A Prosperous China?), Mir Mohammad Ali Talpur, an eminent figure from the Baloch community outlined the cascading impact. He argued that “Gwadar Port is now, like Hambantota, a Chinese port what more will be taken of the resources and land that has been hocked in Balochistan, as Gwadar Port was, by Pakistan will only become apparent as Pakistan defaults on the loans it is so greedily devouring today;” adding that trade at the Khunjerab border in the north was floundering as “only Chinese transporters are allowed to ferry goods,” and that China was raking in 91 per cent of the revenue generated via Gwadar port.

An attendant issue is the role of the Pakistan Army. Grapevine in Pakistan informs that to capitalise on the weak central government in Islamabad after the unceremonious exit of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, the Pakistani military is extremely keen to control all projects linked with CPEC to replenish the likely loss of revenue when the US aid to Pakistan dries out. It would be then that the fault lines in Pakistan’s polity will clearly emerge on the surface, will undoubtedly lead to internal trouble.

The other related ramification would be the removal of the US yoke over Pakistan’s military, which used to control its behaviour. It has also been argued that the operations of the coalition forces in Afghanistan would be affected if the Pakistan Army chooses to work at counter purposes. Meanwhile, despite assurances by Pakistan’s army chief to the country’s senate that relations with India have to be improved, there is no likelihood of a change. In fact, there are graver prospects of Pakistan flaring up turmoil along the Indian border essentially to divert attention from its own actions within the country. Indications are bound to come in shortly and India must remain alert.

* Prashant Dikshit
Former Deputy Director, IPCS

By Benjamin Fox

(EurActiv) — The voting age for next year’s European elections should be lowered to 16 as part of a suite of reforms to revitalise the European project. The proposal is part of the “Renew Europe” initiative which will be launched on 24 January at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

The paper, which was drafted by the WEF following consultations with more than 100 youth, business and political leaders and academics, argues that 17-year-olds are more likely to vote than 18–24-year-olds, and that “those who begin voting early are more likely to carry on doing so”.

Austria is the only EU country to give 16-year-olds the right to vote in national elections, although Scotland did the same for its independence referendum in 2014 and parliamentary elections.

Lowering the voting age across the 27 EU countries that will hold the 2019 European elections has the support of the European Parliament but would require a majority of EU governments to approve a change to electoral law.

The EU will be heavily represented at the Davos forum. Jean-Claude Juncker will attend for the first time as European Commission president while France’s Emmanuel Macron is also scheduled to speak on the final day.

While the Eurozone economy grew by more than 2% in 2017, and unemployment across the bloc fell to a nine-year low of 8.7% in January, the onset of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, and the possible job losses that could result from automation, is expected to dominate many of the fringe meetings in Davos.

“The transition period will be tough. Up to 32% of Germany’s workforce may need to shift occupation by 2030,” the report warns.

In response, it proposes the introduction of a “universal right to learn” in the EU, offering all European adults annual credits for training to help vulnerable workers manage the transition, funded by employers.

Meanwhile, in a bid to cope with the ongoing migration crisis, the EU should introduce “a pan-European migration policy” aimed at directing migrants to address skills gaps in European countries.

That would also include an “identity management system” under which all asylum seekers and refugees would be issued with a biometric card, with the data accessible across the continent.

Close to three million people applied for asylum in Europe between 2015 and October 2017.

By Ryan McMaken*

There is a common assumption among politicians that voters want a lot of government services, but don’t want to pay for them. It’s certainly true that taxpayers don’t like paying taxes, and this is demonstrated in the fact that the federal government runs a deficit virtually every single year. If the taxpayers didn’t mind paying the full cost of government, the feds would be able to collect enough in revenue to pay the bills. As it is, the political realities of public opposition to taxation drive the feds to resort to deficit spending to cover their costs.

In addition to kicking the can down the deficit road year after year, the federal government employs a variety of other tools to mask the true cost of government as well. Tax withholding by employers often hides the true level of taxation from many taxpayers while some taxes are re-defined as non-taxes. The social security tax, for example, is often wrongly said to be not a tax at all, but merely a payment into a trust fund for one’s future retirement.

All of these little tricks and strategies have been employed to help governments squeeze a few more dollars from the taxpayers in the face of what elected officials often regard as a stubborn and mean-spirited opposition to paying one’s fair share.

So while it is indeed true that the voters often resent paying taxes, the claim that “voters want a lot of government services,” on the other hand, is less self-evident. The current partial shutdown of some government operations helps to illustrate the dubious nature of this assertion. If the taxpayers were uniformly appalled and outraged at the thought of a government shutdown, it seems unlikely that the federal government would need to go out of its way to make a big show of what government services were being shut down.

This is a time honored strategy, of course, and even has a name: the Washington Monument Syndrome. For decades, the bureaucrats in the National Park Service have gleefully closed the parks whenever government shutdowns have occurred, and have even threatened to close parks if Congress did not provide sufficient appropriations to please the NPS. The Park Service knows that the closure of parks plays a helpful role in angering American tourists and taxpayers who find themselves traveling a thousand miles to only end up at a closed National Park. According to one blogger, the NPS has even gone so far as to station armed guards with assault rifles and body armor at the entrance to Death Valley National Park. Taxpayers who still think that there is something “public” about the public lands in the National Parks might want to think again.

The National Parks are an extreme case, though, and the federal government knows it. The question remains as to whether or not taxpayers care much about all the other government “services” that may be closed or scaled back. Just how badly do the taxpayers want to make sure that their tax dollars keep going to fund NSA spying on Americans, or the study of wildlife mating habits, or the planting of trees in the front yards of millionaires?

Supporters of government largesse will often cite polls and studies showing the taxpayers support the expansion of this or that program. “Support” for a government program is all well and good when support only requires a nod of one’s head. It’s another matter entirely when one is asked to shell out actual money.

Murray Rothbard knew this well, and he more than once suggested that the best way to determine just how much voters valued a certain government service was to stop taking funds by force and to allow taxpayers to voluntarily pay for government services.

Writing in the wake of the government shutdown and budget deal of 1990, through which taxes were raised following multiple predictions of doom and chaos in the face of government cutbacks, Rothbard suggested a modest proposal to determine just how badly the taxpayers actually wanted those government services that were deemed so essential:

I would like to offer a modest proposal, giving us a chance to see precisely how vital to our survival and prosperity is the Leviathan federal government, and how much we are truly willing to pay for its care and feeding. Let us try a great social experiment: for one year, one exhilarating jubilee year, we furlough, without pay, the Internal Revenue Service and the rest of the revenue-gathering functions of the Department of Treasury.

That is, for one year, suspend all federal taxes and float no public debt, either newly incurred or even for payment of existing interest or principal. And then let us see how much the American public is willing to kick into, purely voluntarily, the public till.

We make these voluntary contributions strictly anonymous, so that there will be no incentive for individuals and institutions to collect brownie-points from the feds for current voluntary giving. We allow no carryover of funds or surplus, so that any federal spending for the year — including the piteous importuning of Americans for funds — takes place strictly out of next year’s revenue.

It will then be fascinating to see how much the American public is truly willing to pay, how much it thinks the federal government is really worth, how much it is really convinced by all the slick cons: by the spectre of roads falling apart, cancer cures aborted, by invocations of the “common good,” the “public interest,” the “national security,” to say nothing of the favorite economists’ ploys of “public goods” and “externalities.”

It would be even more instructive to allow the various anonymous contributors to check off what specific services or agencies they wish to earmark for expenditure of their funds. It would be still more fun to see vicious and truthful competitive advertising between bureaus: “No, no, don’t contribute to those lazy louts in the Department of Transportation (or whatever), give to us.” For once, government propaganda might even prove to be instructive and enjoyable.

To a certain extent, we already know what would happen in this case. While not quite analogous to Rothbard’s Modest Proposal, some taxpayers are able to vote on tax increases at the state and local level. Not surprisingly, when tax increases go to a vote, their success rate is not stellar, and when they do pass, victory requires the help of multi-million dollar advertising campaigns. (For examples, see here, here, here, and here.)

Some people are happy to vote for tax increases, of course, especially if they think someone else will foot the bill. And there is no doubt that the taxpayers are more than happy to use government lands and amenities they have no choice but to pay for. If given the choice, however, it’s less clear that the taxpayers would be clamoring to pay taxes for a $100,000 outhouse in Alaska, a chance to be spied on, or for another war in another country few Americans can find on a map.

About the author:
* Ryan McMaken (@ryanmcmaken) is the editor of Mises Wire and The Austrian. Send him your article submissions, but read article guidelines first. Ryan has degrees in economics and political science from the University of Colorado, and was the economist for the Colorado Division of Housing from 2009 to 2014. He is the author of Commie Cowboys: The Bourgeoisie and the Nation-State in the Western Genre.

Source:
This article was published by the MISES Institute

America has never had a president as deeply unpopular at this stage of his presidency, or one who has sucked up more political oxygen. This isn’t good news for the Republican Party this November or in the future, because the GOP has sold its soul to Trump.

Three principles once gave the GOP its identity and mission: Shrink the deficit, defend states’ rights, and be tough on Russia.

Now, after a year with the raving man-child who now occupies the White House, the Republican Party has taken a giant U-turn. Budget deficits are dandy, state’s rights are obsolete, and Russian aggression is no big deal.

By embracing a man whose only principles are winning and getting even, the Republican Party no longer stands for anything other than Trump.

Start with fiscal responsibility.

When George W. Bush took office in 2001, the Congressional Budget Office projected a $5.6 trillion budget surplus over 10 years. Yet even this propitious outlook didn’t stop several Republicans from arguing against the Bush tax cut out of concern it would increase the nation’s debt.

A few years later, congressional Republicans were apoplectic about Obama’s spending plan, necessitated by the 2008 financial crisis. Almost every Republican in Congress opposed it. They argued it would dangerously increase in the federal debt.

“Yesterday the Senate cast one of the most expensive votes in history,” intoned Senator Mitch McConnell. “Americans are wondering how we’re going to pay for all this.” Paul Ryan warned the nation was “heading for a debt crisis.”

Now, with America’s debt at the highest level since shortly after World War II – 77 percent of GDP – Trump and the GOP have enacted a tax law that by their own estimates will increase the debt by at least $1.5 trillion over the decade.

What happened to fiscal responsibility? McConnell, Ryan, and the rest of the GOP have gone mum about it. Politics came first: They and Trump had to enact the big tax cut in order to reward their wealthy patrons.

States’ rights used to be the second pillar of Republican thought.

For decades, Republicans argued that the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment protected the states from federal intermeddling.

They used states’ rights to resist desegregation; to oppose federal legislation protecting workers, consumers, and the environment; and to battle federal attempts to guarantee marriage rights for gays and lesbians.

When, in 2013, the Supreme Court relied on states’ rights to strike down the heart of the Voting Rights Act, then-Senator Jeff Sessions broke out the champagne. “good news!“ said the GOP’s leading advocate of states’ rights. =

But after a year of Trump, Republicans have come around to thinking states have few if any rights.

As Attorney General, Sessions has green-lighted a federal crackdown on marijuana in states that have legalized it.

He and Trump are also blocking sanctuary cities from receiving federal grants. (A federal judge recently stayed Trump’s executive order on grounds that it violates the Tenth Amendment, but Trump and Sessions are appealing the decision.)

Trump is also seeking to gut California’s tough environmental rules. His Interior Department is opening more of California’s federal land and coastline to oil and gas drilling, and Trump’s EPA is moving to repeal new restrictions on a type of heavily-polluting truck California was relying on to meet its climate and air quality goals.

Meanwhile, the Republican House has approved the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, which would prevent states from enforcing their own laws barring concealed handguns against visitors from other states that permitted them.

For the new GOP, states’ rights be damned. Now it’s all about consolidating power in Washington, under Trump.

The third former pillar of Republicanism was a hard line on Russian aggression.

When Obama forged the New Start treaty with Moscow in 2010, Republicans in Congress charged that Vladimir Putin couldn’t be trusted to carry out any arms control agreement.

And they complained that Obama wasn’t doing enough to deter Putin in Eastern Ukraine.  “Every time [Obama] goes on national television and threatens Putin or anyone like Putin, everybody’s eyes roll, including mine,” said Republican Senator Lindsey Graham. “We have a weak and indecisive president that invites aggression.”

That was then. Now, despite explicit findings by American intelligence agencies that Russia interfered in the 2016 election – the most direct attack on American democracy ever attempted by a foreign power – Republicans in Congress want to give Russia a pass.

They don’t even want to take steps to prevent further Russian meddling. They’ve played down a January report by Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee warning that the Kremlin will likely move to influence upcoming U.S. elections, including those this year and in 2020.

The reason, of course, is the GOP doesn’t want to do anything that might hurt Trump or rile his followers.

The GOP under Trump isn’t the first political party to bend its principles to suit political expediency. But it may be the first to jettison its principles entirely, and over so short a time.

If Republicans no longer care about the federal debt, or state’s rights, or Russian aggression – what exactly do they care about? What are the core principles of today’s Republican Party?

Winning and getting even.

But as a year with Trump as president has shown, this is no formula for governing.

Recent Algerian media reports detailing Saudi propagation of a quietist, apolitical yet supremacist and anti-pluralistic form of Sunni Muslim ultra-conservatism raises questions about the scope of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s commitment to what he has termed ‘moderate’ Islam. So does Saudi missionary activity in Yemen.

The missionary activities suggest that Saudi Arabia continues to see ultra-conservatism as the primary ideological antidote to Iranian revolutionary zeal. Saudi Arabia has invested an estimated $100 billion over the last four decades in globally promoting ultra-conservatism in a bid to counter the Islamic republic. The campaign has contributed to greater conservatism and intolerance in Muslim communities and countries and in some cases fuelled sectarianism.

Saudi support for ultra-conservatism does not by definition call into question the kingdom’s determination to fight violent radicalism and extremism, and counter non-violent political expressions of Islam.

More recently, the kingdom has been willing to surrender control of major religious institutions that it funds and controls when that proves to be beneficial to improving its image, tarnished by negative perceptions of its support for ultra-conservatism.

The grand mosque and Islamic centre in Brussels, Europe’s largest, is a case in point. Saudi Arabia, responding to Belgian criticism of the mosque’s ultra-conservative Saudi management, last year appointed as its imam, Tamer Abou el Saod, a 57-year polyglot Luxemburg-based, Swedish consultant with a career in the food industry.

The appointment followed complaints in parliament about Saudi and other ultra-conservatives who managed the mosque. Senior Saudi officials have responded positively to a Belgian government initiative to prematurely terminate the kingdom’s 99-year lease of the mosque so that it can take control of it.

Prince Mohammed has created expectations of greater social liberalism by vowing to return Saudi Arabia to an undefined form of “moderate” Islam; lifting a ban on women’s driving, a residual of Bedouin rather than Muslim tradition; granting women access to male sporting events; allowing various forms of entertainment, including cinema, theatre and music; and stripping the religious police of its right to carry out arrests.

The reforms notwithstanding, Saudi Arabia has yet to indicate whether it has reduced its long-standing funding for ultra-conservative educational and cultural facilities even though Saudi financing vehicles like the World Muslim League have re-positioned themselves as promoters of tolerance and humanitarianism. The league operates the Brussels mosque.

The League’s secretary general, Mohammed bin Abdul Karim Al-Issa, a former Saudi justice minister, has in the last year argued that his organization was “a global umbrella for Islamic people that promotes the principles and values of peace, forgiveness, co-existence, and humanitarian cooperation” that organizes inter-faith conferences.

Algerian media reported however that the kingdom’s assertion that it promotes moderate and more tolerant strands of Islam may not be universal. “While Saudi Arabia tries to promote the image of a country that is ridding itself of its fanatics, it sends to other countries the most radical of its doctrines,” asserted independent Algerian newspaper El Watan.

El Watan and other media reproduced a letter written by Saudi Sheikh Hadi Ben Ali Al-Madkhali, a scion of Sheikh Rabia Al-Madkhali, the intellectual father of a quietist strand of Salafism that projected the kingdom prior to Prince Mohammed’s reforms as the ideal place for those who seek a pure Islam that has not been compromised by non-Muslim cultural practices and secularism. The letter appoints three prominent Algerian scholars, including Mohamed Ali Ferkous, widely viewed as the spiritual guide of Algerian Madkhalists, as Salafism’s representatives in Algeria.

Similarly, Saudi Arabia has said it would open a Salafi missionary centre in the Yemeni province of Al Mahrah on the border with Oman and the kingdom. Saudi Arabia’s ill-fated military intervention in Yemen was sparked by its conflict with Iranian-backed Houthi rebels, a Zaydi Shiite Muslim sect with roots in a region bordering the kingdom, that dates to Saudi employment of Salafism to counter the group in the 1980s.

Question marks about what Prince Mohammed defines as moderate Islam are fuelled by a widespread assumption that the ruling Al Saud family cannot afford a clean break with ultra-conservatism in general and Wahhabism, its specific Saudi strand, in particular, because it derives its legitimacy from the kingdom’s religious establishment.

Prince Mohammed’s grip on power by virtue of his position as heir to the throne, defense minister, and economic czar that was cemented with last year’s purge of prominent family members, businessmen and officials in what amounted to a power and asset grab may, however, persuade him that the family no longer needs religious legitimacy.

Prince Mohammed’s moves have put an end to rule based on consultation within the Al Saud family and more than ever forced the ultra-conservative religious establishment to endorse his moves in a bid to survive and retain some degree of influence rather than out of conviction. In effect, Prince Mohammed has assumed the kind of power associated with one-man-rule, possibly convincing him that his legitimacy is rooted in his power and image as a reformer rather than ultra-conservatism.

Like with many of his reforms, Prince Mohammed is treading on fragile ground as long as his popularity is based on expectations rather than delivery. There has so far been little in his social reforms at home or declarations about Islam that suggests that he intends to go beyond curbing the rough edges of Sunni Muslim ultra-conservatism and creating the building blocks for an autocratic monarchy capable of performing economically and technologically in a 21^st century world.

Prince Mohammed’s social and ideological reforms no doubt seek to fight political violence. The crown prince has yet to demonstrate that this involves in practice rather than words the countering of an ultra-conservative ideology that breeds intolerance, fosters anti-pluralism, and potentially creates breeding grounds for radicalism.

By Demetrios Ioannou

Tens of thousands of people on Sunday rallied in northern Greece’s biggest city, Thessaloniki, against a ‘name’ compromise with neighboring Macedonia which they say would hurt their national interests.

At the protest, far-right leaders, Greek diaspora groups and clerics called against any UN-sponsored compromise name for their northern neighbor that would include the term “Macedonia”.

“I feel that what they [both countries governments at the UN talks] are trying to do is not right and that’s why I’m here” Dimitris, 23, from the town of Edessa told BIRN.” I accept any other name than Macedonia” for the northern neighbor.

According to the police, about 90 thousand people attended the rally, many coming from other parts of Greece.

Protesters carried Greek flags and banners saying “Macedonia is Greek” and sang the Greek national anthem and the anthem of Greek Macedonia and chanting the slogan “There is only one Macedonia and it is Greek”.

The protest was organized by a rightist civic movement from northern Greece called “Thermaikos Zero Hour”, [Kinisi Thermaikos Wra Miden] made of opponents to the Greek government led by Alexis Tsipras’s Syriza party.
Photo: Demetrios Ioannou

Although hardline clerics attended the protest, it was not officially supported by the Greek Orthodox Church, which is seen as a big player in the Greek political life.

Archbishop of Athens and All Greece, Ieronymos, after a meeting he had this week with Tsipras, said that he is not going to support any of the upcoming protests, as he has “confidence in the Greek government to handle our national issues”.

The so-called name dispute centres on Greece’s insistence that use of the word “Macedonia” implies a territorial claim to the northern Greek province of the same name.

As a result, in 2008, Greece blocked Macedonia’s NATO entry and has also continued blocking the start of Macedonia’s EU accession talks, despite several positive annual reports from the European Commission on the country’s progress.

The protests in Greece come as Skopje and Athens in December rebooted UN-sponsored talks on their dispute after three years of stalemate.

They have agreed to intensify talks in early 2018, expressing optimism that a compromise solution can be reached in the first half of this year, so that Macedonia can join NATO at the July summit of the alliance.

The US and the EU have welcomed the renewed talks. They are seen as key backers of the mission to find a solution that would both secure Macedonia’s Western integration while also limiting Russian influence in the Balkans.

The organizers said they would stage more similar protests in Thesasaloniki and in other places in the coming weeks, urging Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras to hold a referendum on the use of the term “Macedonia” by the neighboring country if any solution is found.

In an interview published on Sunday, Greek Prime Minister Tsipras, who is expected to meet with his Macedonian counterpart Zoran Zaev in Davos next week, said that “If there is an opportunity for a solution, it would be a national stupidity not to make good use of it.

This is not the first time that Greeks rally against their neighbors’ name. In February 12, 1992 a massive protest in Thessaloniki, declaring that “Macedonia is Greek”, gathered an estimated crowd of one million people.

In order to become member of the United Nations, Macedonia accepted the provisional term Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, FYROM, which is still in use pending a solution to the spat. Greek citizens use this term when reffering to their northern neighbor.

Many analysts have pointed out that governments which have professional armies rather than draft-based ones are typically less constrained in the use of force abroad than those that do because regimes have to worry about the kind of losses than can reduce the willingness of its people to serve in the military.

Some fear that if as expected Moscow adopts a law allowing private military companies, the same thing will prove true for the Kremlin because, Irek Murtazin of Novaya gazeta says, “the legalization of private military companies will free the state from responsibility for the loss of its citizens abroad” (novayagazeta.ru/articles/2018/01/21/75221-sluzhu-otechestvu-dorogo).

But he points out that Moscow has more immediate concerns: In Russia today, private military companies are illegal. Those that do exist operate outside the law domestically as well as internationally, and that has set up intense bureaucratic fights between the defense ministry and the FSB.

Conflicts between those two powerful agencies killed an effort to legalize such companies in 2014, when “the Duma rejected the draft of a law ‘Concerning Military-Security Companies.” Now, however, the Russian government is trying again. There is a draft law on the table, and on Tuesday it is slated to be sent for expert evaluation.

Because there is no legal framework for such organizations to operate, those functioning abroad “remain in a semi-legal position, and over their fighters constantly hangs the sword of Damocles” of being charged with a crime. As of October 2013, Murtazin says, 267 Russians were serving time for violating the law against mercenaries.

The issue has come up again because the Vagner Private Military Company sent “several thousand” of its employees to fight in Syria. They were nominally financed by Euro Police, a company controlled by St. Petersburg businessman Yevgeny Prigozhin, who is known as “the cook.”

Vagner units there were supplied with guns and ammunition by the defense ministry which also imposed command on some but perhaps not all of the company’s people. After Putin invited its leaders to the Kremlin without clearing that with the defense ministry, relations between Vagner and the MOD deteriorated sharply.

Unlike the 2014 draft, the proposed new law puts the defense ministry rather than the FSB in charge of the private military companies, something the former is undoubtedly pleased about while the latter is certainly less so. But given the shadowy nature of such operations abroad, the FSB will likely still play a major role.

Some observers, Murtazin suggests in his article, don’t think that the new law is about conflicts at all but rather about money, about allowing Russian private military companies to hire themselves out to firms which need to be protected abroad. That such an interest exists is certain; that it is the only one is unlikely.

The Novaya gazeta commentator suggests that the new draft may be opposed by those it is supposed to benefit: the private military companies themselves. They may prefer, he says, to remain in the shadows where they can operate with fewer constraints and controls. That however may be yet another reason for the push now to adopt a law on them.

There is little doubt that the super-power in the Syrian situation is Russia, and that – despite recent US efforts to bolster the UN’s Geneva peace-seeking initiative – the final settlement, whenever it comes about, will provide Russian president, Vladimir Putin with the major political advantages in the region that he is seeking.

Putin is heavily engaged in constructing a peace process aimed at bringing Syria’s seven-year civil conflict to an end. He kicked off his carefully constructed diplomatic initiative in November 2017, and it may culminate some time in February in a round-table congress in the Black Sea resort of Sochi. Despite his many assurances that his efforts are meant to boost the official and long-running UN peace negotiations in Geneva, hosted by the UN Special Envoy for Syria, Staffan de Mistura, popular perception is that he is building a political process outside of the UN exercise.

In fact the last round of UN peace talks, held in Geneva early in December, went badly. Their collapse was caused by the issue that has bedevilled all efforts at reaching an accommodation – the future of President Bashar al-Assad. Since the rebel forces’ representatives refused to budge on their insistence that Assad should have no future in a post-conflict Syria, the Syrian government delegation refused to meet directly with any of them. De Mistura’s next move starkly illustrates where the real political power in the region lies. Shortly after the Geneva talks ended, de Mistura flew to Moscow to confer with Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov.

As Putin’s peace brokering plans mature, these are some of the outstanding issues. Will he re-establish Syria exactly within its old borders (the US seems to be favoring allowing the Kurds to maintain their semi-autonomous region)? Will he preserve Assad in his presidency? Will he consolidate Iran’s dominance of the political and military establishments in the country? Will he therefore facilitate Iran’s ambitions to establish its so-called “Shia crescent”, an essential factor in its plans for regional dominance, starting in Yemen, running through Bahrain up to Iran and then through Syria to Lebanon?

Putin’s peace initiative started on November 20, when he summoned Assad to Russia for talks. Assad’s visit was brief. He flew in on the Monday evening, held his discussion with Putin, and flew out four hours later.

“The military operation is coming to an end,” Putin told him. “Now the most important thing is to move on to the political questions, and I note with satisfaction your readiness to work with all those who want peace and a solution.”

With the help of Russian airpower and Iranian-backed foot soldiers Assad has been regaining increasing amounts of territory, and now controls more than 70% of the country. The latest success has been the retaking of the Syrian Golan heights from rebels in late December.

Immediately after his meeting with Assad, Putin announced that he had arranged to speak with international leaders, among them US President Donald Trump, Saudi King Salman, and the presidents of Iran and Turkey.  He pushed ahead with these discussions, adding Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi to the list for good measure.

On the Tuesday Putin’s telephone conversation with Trump lasted more than an hour.  The White House later announced that the two had agreed on the importance of the UN-led peace process in resolving the Syrian civil war. According to the Kremlin, Putin told Trump that the Syrian leader had confirmed that he would adhere to the political process, and would agree to constitutional reform and presidential and parliamentary elections.

On Wednesday, November 22, the presidents of Turkey and Iran arrived for their own session with Putin.  During the 3-way discussions, Putin said later, they agreed to support a Syrian peoples’ congress as an initial step to establishing dialogue between the warring sides. It is on the basis of this congress, announced to take place some time in February 2018, that Putin may be pinning his hopes of ending the conflict and setting Syria on a new political and constitutional path.

Reliable reports indicate that, behind the scenes, Moscow has been negotiating with the main armed factions across Syria. Wael Olwan, spokesman for the Fallaq al-Rahman rebels, explains: “It’s better to negotiate with the ones calling the shots, which is Russia, than with the regime.”

“We communicate exclusively with them,” said Hamza Birqdar of the Jaish al-Islam rebel group, “because in reality, when it comes to Assad and his government, they have become toys in the hands of the Russians. They make no decisions… except under Russian orders.”

Moscow appears to have built these ties to local groups in order to have them included in the truce process, perhaps in the hope of ensuring a widespread agreement that will stick. If this is so, it indicates that Russia is far from wedded to the idea of consolidating Assad’s presidency permanently. In fact, since committing his forces to supporting Assad’s struggle against the Free Syrian Army and the other rebel groups, Putin has been noticeably equivocal about Assad’s future. Rather than handing the presidency back to Assad together with a nation restored to its historic borders, Putin has hinted at the possibility of a presidential election in which Assad might stand as one candidate among several. There would be a sort of precedent to fall back on. In late April 2014, Assad himself announced that he would run in Syria’s first multi-candidate direct presidential election. In the event it was boycotted by opposition parties, but the concept is not revolutionary.

Most western nations have asserted that Assad’s early departure was an essential element in any plan for the future of Syria, but reports from the US indicate that the Trump administration is prepared to accept Assad’s continued rule until Syria’s next scheduled presidential election. Given this, Putin may simply decide to strong-arm both Assad and the rebel representatives into agreeing to a presidential election, perhaps in 2021, the formal date for the next poll, as part of a new constitutional order. He would probably be content to allow Assad to continue ruling until the new arrangements could be put in place.

The fact of the matter is that Assad continues to command the support of a large section of Syrian society. Nothing succeeds like success, and despite the police state he ran until 2011, people respond to a strong leader. If Assad were to stand in a fully free, fair and internationally supervised presidential poll, the outcome is far from certain.

By Frank Kane*

It’s that time when I dust off the snow boots, get the overcoat back from the dry cleaner, and try to find the scarf and gloves that are used only once a year. The annual trek up the Swiss Alps beckons, to mingle with the glitterati, movers and shakers, and masters of the universe at the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos.

Some cynics dismiss the Davos bash as an irrelevant talking shop — all hot air in a cold climate — that’s little more than an excuse for some fun in the snow and some time on the piste.

But I always find it an intellectually stimulating occasion, an opportunity to take an early-year sounding of the state of the world. All that sub-zero Alpine air blows away the festive cobwebs and gets you thinking straight again.

And, of course, for a journalist it’s the best networking event in the world. WEF 2018 promises to be the best for many years. Here — in rough order of priority — are the questions I’m hoping to get answered at the event:

1. How will President Trump go down among the global elite that he affects to despise? Having the “America First” populist in the midst of the “swamp” he wants to drain should be fascinating. WEF plenary sessions — the big set pieces that world leaders use to tell their message — are usually indulgent places, but the mood among the audience is transmitted almost by osmosis. Theresa May, the British prime minister, drew some “tut-tuts” from the crowd with her pro-Brexit declarations last year. Will the US president win them over to his anti-globalist ways? Or will they react more noisily to his message? I’m betting he will make some friends, but also confirm his enemies’ worst fears.

2. What will be the global judgment on Saudi Arabia’s dramatic year of change? The Davos constituency of business leaders and financiers have a keen interest in the economic transformation underway in the Kingdom, while the proponents of greater liberalization will applaud moves toward gender equality and cultural change. But there is also likely to be a significant portion critical of Saudi Arabia’s assertive moves in regional foreign policy. Which will prevail in the overall assessment of the Kingdom by its global peers?

3. Will “sustainability” remain the WEF buzzword? The idea of promoting a sustainable planet amid all the private jets, helicopters and Cadillacs might seem bizarre, but environmentally aware policies and initiatives have been the central themes of recent WEF events. Serious business leaders are increasingly factoring in these issues in their strategic plans, and environmental concerns are top of the WEF’s global risks. Will anything concrete emerge in this respect from WEF 2018?

4. Will women make further progress at Davos? Gender equality is another of the WEF’s long-held policy stances. It makes economic sense, as much as being transparently more just in a social and cultural sense, as the Arab world is increasingly convinced. For the first time at WEF 2018, all of the meeting’s seven co-chairs are women. But the event remains a predominantly male affair, in terms of the gender of attendees. “Spouses and partners” are welcomed, but Davos Man still rules, though he is a little less assertive about it in the MeToo age. Will there be a significant change at this Davos? I suspect not much.

5. What is the mood among the “masters of the universe,” the financial and economic titans who run the world and traditionally dominate Davos? They are in a good place at the moment, with global economic growth forecast strong in 2018, world stock markets at record highs and several big “liquidity events” expected this year, not least the record-breaking initial public offering of Saudi Aramco. On the other hand, valuations are at all-time highs, and some are expecting the “Trump boom” to give way to bust later this year. Has the world learned from the global financial crisis? Davos is the place to find out.

6. What does Elton John make of it all? The aging rocker is one of the celebrity attendees at this year’s WEF, along with Hollywood actress Cate Blanchett, rapper-with-a-brain will.i.am, and Bollywood star Shah Rukh Khan. If I get close enough, I want to ask Cate about the making of the moving refugee poem “What They Took With Them,” will.i.am about urban infrastructure investment patterns in the US rust-belt, and Shah about the initiatives of his Prime Minister Modi (also present at Davos) to cut through bureaucratic red tape in Indian business. I will ask Elton, who is giving a talk on leadership, what he thinks of the other “rocket man,” Kim Jong-un, leader of North Korea.

• Frank Kane is an award-winning business journalist based in Dubai. He can be reached on Twitter @frankkanedubai

Greenland’s ice sheet is becoming smaller and smaller. The melting takes place with increased strength and at a speed that no models have previously predicted.

In  Scientific Reports, researchers from the Arctic Research Centre, Aarhus University, and the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources present results that, for the first time, show that the deep bottom water of the north-eastern Greenland fjords is being warmed up by heat gradually lost from the Earth’s interior. And the researchers point out that this heat loss triggers the sliding of glaciers from the ice sheet towards the sea.

Icelandic conditions

“North-East Greenland has several hot springs where the water becomes up to 60 degrees warm and, like Iceland, the area has abundant underground geothermal activity,” explained Professor Soren Rysgaard, who headed the investigations.

For more than ten years, the researchers have measured the temperature and salinity in the fjord Young Sound, located at Daneborg, north of Scoresbysund, which has many hot springs, and south of the glacier Nioghalvfjerdsfjorden, which melts rapidly and is connected to the North-East Greenland Ice Stream (NEGIS).

By focusing on an isolated basin in the fjord with a depth range between 200 and 340 m, the researchers have measured how the deep water is heated over a ten-year period. Based on the extensive data, researchers have estimated that the loss of heat from the Earth’s interior to the fjord is about 100 MW m-2. This corresponds to a 2 megawatt wind turbine sending electricity to a large heater at the bottom of the fjord all year round.

Heat from the Earth’s interior – an important influence

It is not easy to measure the geothermal heat flux – heat emanating from the Earth’s interior – below a glacier, but within the area there are several large glaciers connected directly to the ice sheet. If the Earth releases heat to a fjord, heat also seeps up to the bottom part of the glaciers. This means that the glaciers melt from below and thus slide more easily over the terrain on which they sit when moving to the sea.

“It is a combination of higher temperatures in the air and the sea, precipitation from above, local dynamics of the ice sheet and heat loss from the Earth’s interior that determines the mass loss from the Greenland ice sheet,” said Soren Rysgaard.

“There is no doubt that the heat from the Earth’s interior affects the movement of the ice, and we expect that a similar heat seepage takes place below a major part of the ice cap in the north-eastern corner of Greenland,” said Soren Rysgaard.

The researchers expect that the new discoveries will improve the models of ice sheet dynamics, allowing better predictions of the stability of the Greenland ice sheet, its melting and the resulting global water rise.

By Richel V. Umel

The Philippines launched a new anti-terrorism pact with the United States while it was helping defeat Islamic State-linked militants who had taken over the southern city of Marawi, the government announced Monday.

The joint endeavor, Operation Pacific Eagle, was launched in September 2017, or a month before militants were defeated in Marawi and President Rodrigo Duterte declared fighting over.

The operation became public knowledge after the Wall Street Journal reported last week about improving ties between both nations.

Dozens of Americans remain in the south serving as advisers to Filipino forces, a significant drop from the hundreds who were rotating here nearly 20 years ago when the southern Philippines was considered a petri dish for Islamic militancy.

The targets then were the Abu Sayyaf Group, a kidnap-for-ransom gang responsible for the worst attacks in the Philippines, including bombings, kidnappings and beheadings of foreign hostages.

The group later splintered into smaller factions, including one led by Isnilon Hapilon who would go on to be recognized by the Islamic State (IS) as its leader here. When Hapilon’s faction, aided by foreign militants, laid siege to the southern city of Marawi last year, Americans were among the first to offer help to government troops through intelligence gathering and surveillance.

The five-month battle left more than 1,200 militants, soldiers and civilians dead. Gunmen were defeated in late October after government troops killed Hapilon and other insurgent leaders.

No need to announce

Duterte spokesman Harry Roque said the government did not see a need to announce the new operation. The deal came months after diplomatic relations soured when the Philippine leader threatened to kick out American forces after former President Barrack Obama’s administration expressed concerns about his war on drugs.

Duterte also announced he was seeking an “independent foreign policy” away from Washington – a military ally since 1951 – and toward cooperation with Russia and China, which he had argued were closer geographically.

“We asked help from anyone, from all countries of the world, because the threat of terrorism is not just in the Philippines, it’s a worldwide concern,” Roque said. “So if countries want to give whatever assistance they could and they want to, it’s welcome.”

He said terrorism was a concern shared by other international organizations as well, and stressed that such an arrangement need not be announced.

“I do not know why we have to announce a call for assistance for an anti-terrorism initiative,” he said. “That’s not top secret.”

He said the fact that he was acknowledging any country can provide anti-terrorism assistance should be a welcome development.

“And if assistance would be given, we would gladly accept this assistance,” he said.

Asked whether Duterte’s apparent turnaround signaled that his government would no longer seek military allies elsewhere, Roque said: “Well, you know, an independent foreign policy recognizes there are threats which are common to the entire humanity and the threat of global terrorism is one of them.”

Previously, Philippine Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana said a significant drawdown of American troops helped IS infiltrate local Muslim extremist groups.

At the time, he said about 100 U.S. troops were in the Philippines, mostly for non-combat roles in the southern city of Zamboanga, from where they deployed to Marawi last year. Before that, about 600 American soldiers were deployed to the southern region at any given time.

Felipe Villamor in Manila contributed to this report.

Managing Director of Pars Oil and Gas Company Mohammad Meshkinfam said on Monday that the giant South Pars gas field in the southern port city of Assalouyeh is currently supplying 70 percent of the total natural gas consumed inside the country.

“70 percent of the (natural) gas consumed in the country is supplied by the South Pars gas field,” Meshkinfam said in a meeting with members of Iran’s Parliament Energy Commission. The meeting was also attended by Oil Minister Bijan Zanganeh.

He said that 21 phases of South Pars gas field are now active with the production capacity of 570 million cubic meters per day.

The volume of gas extraction from South Pars gas field is currently 555 million cubic meters per day, the official added.

In cold weather, the residential sector is expected to drive demand for natural gas as consumers burn more fuel for heating homes.

Also, CEO of the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) Ali Kardor said on August 2017 that South Pars gas field is supplying 65 percent of the total natural gas consumed in the country.

Kardor had described the increase in the gas production capacity of the South Pars gas field as one of “major achievements” of the current administration and said that over the past four years, about 300 million cubic meters have been added to the output capacity of the field.

Back in April, the South Pars Phases 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 were inaugurated by Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani.

According to Oil Minister Bijan Namdar Zanganeh, Iran is on pace to boost gas production to 1 billion cubic meters a day by March 2019, roughly the same time that all South Pars phases are planned to be up and running.

The gas field, whose development has been divided into 28 phases, is located in the Persian Gulf straddling the maritime border between Iran and Qatar.

It covers an area of 9,700 square kilometers, of which 3,700 square kilometers belongs to Iran.

It is estimated that the Iranian section of the field contains 14 trillion cubic meters of gas and 18 billion barrels of condensates in place.