The Iranian Army on Tuesday employed a homegrown cruise missile to hit naval targets as part of a large-scale military drill, underway in south and southeast of the country.

On the second say of the massive war game, codenamed Muhammad Rasulullah-5 (Muhammad, the Messenger of God), the Army forces successfully fired a ‘Nasr’ cruise missile from an onshore mobile launcher to destroy a naval target.

The Navy is also going to use long-range cruise missiles in the drill.

In comments on Tuesday, spokesperson for the war game, Rear Admiral Lower Half Mahmoud Mousavi, hailed the Navy for perfect support for the ground and aerial forces in the drill, saying the Navy commandos exercised various offense and defense tactics on Monday.

Navy troops on board Azarakhsh and Shahab rocket-launching boats detonated the hypothetical enemy’s vessels and used Ra’ad assault vessels for minelaying operation, while the coastal artillery exercised coast defense tactics, he added.

The exercises on Monday were overseen by experienced military experts and Navy commanders to assess the weak and strong points, he noted.

The purpose of the war game is to strengthen coordination among the Ground Force, Air Force, Navy and the Air Defense, the commander added.

The war game covers vast areas south of Iran, mainly the coastline stretching to the southeastern Makran region, by the sea of Oman.

The Iranian armed forces hold routine military drills throughout the year.

By Radosa Milutinovic

Milan Martic, who led the police in a rebel Croatian Serb wartime statelet, called Serbian security chief Jovica Stanisic his “true and only commander”, a witness at the Hague war crimes court alleged.

A protected prosecution witness told the trial of Jovica Stanisic at the Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals in The Hague on Tuesday that in 1991, Milan Martic, the interior minister of an unrecognised Croatian Serb rebel statelet called the Serb Autonomous District of Krajina, said that the defendant was his “true and only commander”.

The witness codenamed RFJ-144 said that he saw Stanisic at a training camp for members of the Serb Autonomous District of Krajina’s special police in Golubic near the town of Knin in Croatia.

He testified that at a meeting with commanders of all the rebel statelet’s police stations, Martic said: “This is my true and only commander, Jovica Stanisic [alias] Ledeni.”

Stanisic, the former chief of the Serbian State Security Service, and his deputy, Franko Simatovic, are accused of participating in a joint criminal enterprise aimed at permanently and forcible removing Croats and Muslims from large parts of Croatia and Bosnia, which would then be incorporated into a unified Serb state.

Martic, who later became the president of the unrecognised Republic of Serbian Krajina wartime statelet, was sentenced by the Hague Tribunal in 2008 to 35 years in prison for the persecution of Croats from Croatia’s Knin region.

RFJ-144 also testified that paramilitary forces led by Zeljko Raznatovic, alias Arkan, which operated in 1992 in Slavonia, Baranja and Srem in Croatia killed their prisoners.

Asked if Raznatovic decided “to kill all Croats”, the witness replied: “I do not know, I only know they did not take prisoners… They went into man-to-man combat and killed everyone.”

According to the indictment, Raznatovic’s unit was under the control of the Serbian State Security Service and committed crimes in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia.

While being cross-examined by Stanisic’s lawyer, RFJ-144 said that Stanisic talked to police officials in Golubic like “a father to his children”.

The witness added that Stanisic’s speech was more like “fatherly encouragement” then “giving formal orders”.

Asked how well he knew Martic, the witness replied: “I usually saw him in meetings with [Yugoslav President] Slobodan Milosevic… I did not know him well.”

The trial continues.

By Erik Khzmalyan

Perhaps one of the most quoted predictions regarding the increasing role of water conflicts in global affairs belongs to former vice-president of the World Bank Ismail Serageldin, who in 1995 famously claimed, “Many of the wars of this century were about oil, but wars of the next century will be about water.”

While oil has long dominated the geopolitical thinking of world powers, the new millennium promises to elevate the importance of water resources, potentially triggering conflicts in water-starved regions of the globe. The most obvious and fundamental problem with water management is that 97% of water on earth is impractical for drinking or agricultural purposes since it’s enclosed in the world’s oceans.

As U.S. Army War College Professor Dr. Butts in his renowned article The Strategic Importance of Water wrote, “Only three percent of the water on the earth is fresh and, of this, more than two is locked away in the polar ice caps, glaciers, or deep groundwater aquifers, and is therefore unavailable to satisfy the needs of man.” The previous century did in fact witness several serious stand-offs between neighboring states that were at odds over sharing adjacent water resources.

Consider the conflict between India and Pakistan over the Indus River basin that was exacerbated after the British partition. Had the World Bank not intervened, a violent clash between New Delhi and then the capital Karachi would have been inevitable. The ongoing negotiations brokered by the World Bank resulted in the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960.  Among myriad examples of water conflicts is the famous case of the Argentina-Brazil border dispute over the Alto-Parana basin that took decades to resolve. The agreement was finalized in Itaipu-Corpus Multilateral Treaty of 1979.

The cases of water conflicts are many and the 21st century won’t be immune to major complications that water scarcity may cause. The world has already witnessed the calamitous events unfolding in Syria which produced one of the greatest humanitarian crises of our times. The internal unrest in Syria that led to a civil-war is often attributed to Assad’s oppressive regime. However, what doesn’t really get much attention is the severe drought that forced over 1.5 million  people into urban areas putting immense pressure on social services. The mismanagement of water supplies by the Syrian government further exacerbated the water scarcity. Not hard to guess that those affected took to the streets further contributing to the social unrest that transformed the anti-government protests into a multilayered conflict making Syria a battleground for regional powers.

Almost exactly the same pattern is apparent in Iran, where recent protests signaled the growing frustration of the populace over some of the pressing issues that remain untackled. Among the most urgent problems such as the skyrocketing prices, costly military expenditures at the expense of social services, and high unemployment, one danger is particularly striking: declining water resources, which is poised to become a major national security threat. There are several factors that explain the causes of the Islamic Republic’s drying water reserves. London’s Imperial College’s Kaveh Madani identifies three main factors that have sent Iran’s water supplies into a downward spiral. Iran’s population, Madani claims, has grown exponentially draining the water reserves. The incompetent agricultural sector too has had detrimental effects. And, of course, the mismanagement of water resources that have brought Iran to the verge of a water crisis.

Tehran’s unwise exploitation of water resources is not a new phenomenon. The chain of bad decisions has lasted for many years leading to alarming depletion of water bodies throughout the country. Two major water bodies have particularly suffered. Lake Urmia, one of the largest salt lakes in the world, is on the brink of disappearing. The lake has suffered due to incredibly high agricultural consumption, giving rise to serious concerns that if the pattern continues Urmia will soon cease to exist. And, of course, the Zayandehrood river, which flows through central Iran and was the lifeline of the city of Isfahan (the city owes its existence to the river), is drying too. The approximately two million people who live around the basin have suffered immense hardships as declining agriculture has affected their livelihoods.

But what one cannot ignore is the role of the government that aggravated the water crisis. The Iranian regime has been criticized for deliberately overconsuming water reserves to benefit the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) that was originally created to protect Ayatollah Khomeini from an internal coup. After the Revolution, the IRGC was granted a large stake in Iranian economy which included an ownership of construction companies that freely engaged in various engineering ventures. To illustrate this point in a piece written for Washington Post, Seth M. Siegel claims, “Recklessly, these companies began damming major rivers, changing the historical water flows of Iran. This was done to give water preferences to powerful landowners and favored ethnic communities while also transferring billions from the public treasury to IRGC leaders’ accounts. In all, since the 1979 revolution, more than 600 dam projects have been completed, contrasted with 13 dams built in Iran prior to the shah’s fall.”

To alleviate the massive water shortages and halt the coming hydro crisis, Tehran has reached out its neighbors to gain access to the latter’s reserves. For instance, Iran began actively engaging with Armenia to import water from Lake Sevan since 2012. The purpose was to bring enough water to save Lake Urmia from vanishing. The Armenian side decided not to move forward with the proposal due to political reasons. Speaking of Iran’s attempts to gain access to region’s water resources one wouldn’t be wrong to assume that Tehran will try to engage with Artsakh Republic (also known as Nagorno-Karabakh) as well. The Republic’s Shahumian and Kashatagh regions are known for their ample water resources thus serving as water security guarantors for both Armenia and Artsakh. Moving forward, Tehran will take concrete steps to gain access to these water resources.

In addition to plummeting water resources at home, Iran will face another water related problem as Turkey begins exploiting the Ilisu Dam over the Tigris River. Iranian officials, including President Rouhani, have been quick to condemn Ankara’s construction efforts citing the environmental degradation that it will cause. The Dam is expected to reduce the flow of Tigris into Iraq by 56% which in turn will affect Khuzestan’s Kharkeh River that technically brings life to the Hour-al-Azim Wetland near the Iraq-Iran border.

If Iran’s water crisis continues, the fate of the country could be akin to Syria’s inner migration crisis leading to a massive unrest across the country. It is premature to conclude whether the days of the regime are numbered or not. But the recent protests are symptoms of a growing bubble that can burst at any moment. After all, even local Iranian officials have acknowledged the coming migration crisis due to reckless water use. In 2015, Vice-President of Iran Issa Kalantari (also Head of Department of Environment) warned that if Iran doesn’t dramatically change its water policies close to 50 million people would be forced to leave the republic. Given the current environmental indicators, Kalantari’s predictions are quite alarming.

This article was published by Geopolitical Monitor.com

By Vijay Sakhuja*

Drones operating in swarms are the new threat to militaries. In a recent case, Russian radars stationed around Latakia, Syria detected a swarm of 10 fixed-wing drones strapped with small rockets descend over the Hmeimim air base. Concurrently, another group of three drones were detected heading for Russian Naval CSS point near the city of Tartus. The Russian Pantsir-S anti-aircraft system – known by the NATO codename, SA-22 Greyhound – and rapid firing auto-cannons shot down seven of these drones, and the balance were successfully swatted and crash landed by using electronic warfare assets.

Further, Russia also made public their successes with the Pantsir-S anti-aircraft system in countering drones including destroying the Bayraktar drone from Turkey, Israeli Heron, and the US Navy and Marine Corps’ RQ-21A Blackjack. Apparently, in 2012, a Syrian Pantsir system was reported to have brought down a Turkish reconnaissance jet.

Although aircraft and helicopters have traditionally ruled the skies, in recent times, unmanned vehicles credited with low weight, small size, and ability to carry a variety of payloads and ordnance have found place in military inventories. The efficacy and successes of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for firepower and in intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) missions have been demonstrated in a number of conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and more recently, in Yemen.

The drones fall in the same category as UAVs but are smaller, cheaper, and commercially available, thus offering an attractive option. They have a higher level of automation and their use in commercial operations is well established. Their  effectiveness is further augmented when they are operated in swarms. The concept of ‘swarm drones’ is inspired by bees or locusts which fly long distances in indefinite groups, unlimited in size and number, and apparently without colliding. ‘Swarm drones’ are programmed to follow very simple commands that do not require advanced computers and sensors, and therefore their collective numbers could be of the order of  hundreds and potentially thousands, which can conjure a lethal force on the battlefield.

China is a leader in ‘smart and intelligent drone’ technologies, and in December 2017, during an aerial show at Guangzhou, it set the world record for the largest drone swarm ever deployed. On display were 1,180 drones that ‘danced and blinked’ autonomously with precision for nearly nine minutes, exhibiting the potential future of ‘swarm drone’ technology. China plans to develop next-generation anti-stealth drones and operate these beyond the skies into near space alongside high-altitude airships and hypersonic spy planes.

In the naval domain, the Chinese have set out ambitious plans to build ‘swarm drones’ that can be deployed over large areas for intelligence-gathering missions. These drones can also be strapped with explosives to carry out ‘saturation attacks’ on an enemy ship or even adopt kamikaze tactics to simultaneously dive in to attack from different directions and defeat ship-based anti-aircraft and anti-missile defences.

Likewise, in the US, many advances in ‘swarm drones’ are underway; for instance,  over a hundred  3D-printed disposable Perdix drones – each weighing a few hundred grams – were released from F/A-18 fighter through dispensers used for flares. These can potentially “suppress enemy air defences by acting as decoys or jammers or by locating radar so they can be destroyed.”

The US Navy has plans to use intelligent and smart ‘swarm drones’ that can split into sub-swarms for different missions, as also new swarms to join seamlessly the mother-swarm. The US Marine Corps is conceptualising ‘swarm drones’ in amphibious operations to use them as “the first wave to hit the beach ahead of the humans, scouting, locating enemy positions, and possibly attacking them” as also setting up swarm-versus-swarm wargames by developing “drone catchers” that will capture or neutralise rogue drones.

The US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is keen to use larger aircraft such as the C-130 by which drones are launched and then retrieved based on the mid-air refuelling concept alongside sea-based platforms to capture drones as they come to land.

‘Swarm drones’ can be easily launched and controlled from remote and inaccessible locations. Their role may not be limited to non-kinetic missions such as ‘eyes in the sky’; instead they can do far more combat damage. Their ability to ‘self-organise in sub-swarms’ could be a game-changer in military and naval operations, achieved through coordinated and distributed attacks to saturate defences and breaching an adversary’s A2/AD strategy.

According to market assessments, the drone/UAV industry is set to grow by nearly 20 per cent annually from US$ 17.82 billion in 2017 to US$ 48.88 billion by 2023. Although most of this growth will take place in the civil domain, the ripple effects will be seen in the military where research and development in new unmanned systems will take higher precedence. The next-generation hybrid drone-missile unmanned systems may characterise the future naval realm, thereby challenging conventional monolithic systems. These would complement the ‘stand-off’ rages of the naval missiles and counter the broader A2/AD strategy at sea.

*Vijay Sakhuja
Former Director, National Maritime Foundation (NMF), New Delhi

Kim Dotcom, the founder of file-sharing site MegaUpload, is suing the New Zealand government for $6.8 billion dollars. According to the legal documents provided by the BBC, the claim covers the destruction of his business, loss of reputation, lost business opportunities, legal costs and lost opportunities on the home he was renting.

Dotcom has certainly lost quite a bit, as according to the BBC, MegaUpload would be worth around $10 billion if it were still operating today. Dotcom owned 68 percent of the shares of the company, which was shut down in 2012 in a raid at the request of the FBI. He claims that his arrest, and the subsequent shutdown of his company, was unlawful. “Under the NZ copyright act, online copyright infringement is not a crime,” said Mr Dotcom said to the BBC.

Dotcom may soon be extradited to the US, where he stands to face copyright and money laundering charges. The hearing for that case is set for February 20th.

An initiative group in Tatarstan has announced plans to form an alliance with one or another candidate in the Russian presidential race and to seek the inclusion on the ballot of a referendum on Vladimir Putin’s drive to make instruction in all languages except Russian voluntary.

Radik Gatin, a former advisor to the Duma’s security committee, tells the Idel Ural portal that he and several others are in the process of putting the group together because the republic elite has been unable to stand up to Moscow on this issue and will be exploring various possibilities to defend the rights of Tatars (idelreal.org/a/28989789.html).

He continues that his group is “ready to cooperate with those presidential candidates and political forces ‘that have influence on this issue and declare their willingness to cooperate.” And he indicated that the Tatar appeal will be based on “the generally recognized international legal principle that ‘no one ever can limit someone in his ethnic membership.’”

The exact content of the measure that his group seeks to have a referendum about will be defined later, Gatin says, with the group prepared to modify the language so that the authorities in Kazan and Moscow will be more willing to allow it to go forward.

“We plan to submit documents about the registration of the initiative group for the referendum before the presidential elections” on March 18, and “we have conducted consultations with all the leaders of public opinion at the level of the republic and the federation,” the organizer says.

Gatin says the group will not include radicals even though many of them have expressed an interest in being part of it. Obviously, the group will be open to conversations with such people but they will not be allowed to make its work so radical that the authorities will have an excuse to suppress it.

Precisely because of calculations of this kind, the group represents a significant challenge to Putin, one that he will find it more difficult to counter than he may think. As a result, an issue that many have declared closed because of Putin’s position is anything but; and the stakes involved have become far greater.

By Jill Richardson*

Maybe it’s time America’s psychiatrists reconsider their Goldwater Rule.

The Goldwater Rule simply states that psychiatrists shouldn’t diagnose the mental health of a public figure unless they’ve personally examined the person. Naturally, if any public figures have sought mental health treatment, their doctors would be bound by confidentiality agreements.

In short, at present, if a public figure doesn’t wish to be diagnosed with a mental illness, or if they don’t want the diagnosis made public, then it will remain a secret.

In most cases, this is a good rule. After all, mental illness is still stigmatized.

One of our most successful presidents, Abraham Lincoln, famously suffered from severe depression, but he still did his job well. We wouldn’t want a modern, would-be Lincoln to face discrimination simply because his or her depression became public.

But there’s a circumstance in which I believe the Goldwater Rule is harmful.

There are some mental illnesses that are incurable and rarely treatable that would also make a person unqualified to be president. Imagine a sociopath, or someone with narcissistic personality disorder, for example.

People with narcissistic personality disorder rarely seek treatment, according to University of Kentucky psychologists Cristina Crego and Thomas Widiger.

If they do, it’s often because someone else forced them to do so, like a spouse who threatened to leave unless they went to therapy. But even if they show up regularly for their appointments, they may struggle to do the soul searching required in therapy.

The most hopeful response I’ve ever heard from a mental health professional about the prognosis of someone with narcissistic personality disorder is that maybe, with a lot of time and hard work in therapy, they might get a little bit better.

Narcissistic personality disorder is seriously debilitating, but often the person suffering from it believes that they’re fine and everyone else around them has the problem.

Imagine someone in the Oval Office whose biggest need every day is to feel important and loved by everyone around them, and who responds with rage when they perceive any sort of criticism.

This is a person who cannot do the business of the country or put the needs of the country first because his or her personal needs due to the disorder will rule their lives.

Given that there will be an entire opposing political party who does not like them, not to mention entire shows on television like Saturday Night Live devoted to making fun of them, no president will be loved by all. Every president must deal with criticism every single day.

What happens if the president feels slighted by a foreign leader? He or she could respond with sanctions, war, or even nukes.

Narcissists often don’t think the rules apply to them because they are special. They should be able to do what they want to get what they want. The U.S. president isn’t above the law, and it would be dangerous to elect someone who believes he or she is.

Given that such a person is never, ever likely to seek treatment, nor are they likely to allow a psychiatrist to make an assessment of their mental health public, that means that — should such a person be elected — there’s no way for psychiatrists to warn the public.

If the Goldwater Rule were rescinded, there’s certainly a danger that psychiatrists would publicly misdiagnose a public figure, or public figures with treatable mental illness would face unfair scrutiny.

Yet we must find a way to close the current loophole, which may protect someone mentally unfit for office from expert scrutiny.

*OtherWords columnist Jill Richardson is the author of Recipe for America: Why Our Food System Is Broken and What We Can Do to Fix It. Distributed by OtherWords.org.

(RFE/RL) — U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions has been questioned by the special counsel’s office that is investigating potential collusion between Russia and President Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential election campaign.

The Justice Department on January 23 confirmed the interview, the first time that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office is known to have interviewed a member of Trump’s cabinet, saying it took place last week. It gave no further details.

The interview with Sessions, who was an adviser to Trump in the campaign before being appointed as the country’s top law enforcement official, is another serious development in an investigation that has loomed over the first year of Trump’s presidency.

Sessions recused himself from overseeing the Russia probe last March after media outlets reported he hadn’t disclosed several meetings in 2016 with the then-Russian ambassador to the United States.

U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia attempted to interfere in the 2016 presidential election to the benefit of Republican candidate Trump and to the detriment of Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.

Mueller and at least three congressional committees are separately investigating Russian involvement in the election process.

The Kremlin has denied the accusations, and Trump has repeatedly denied that his team colluded with any Russian efforts.

By Sarantis Michalopoulos

(EurActiv) — Turkey’s accession process is neither formally suspended nor canceled but the European Commission is not working on opening new negotiation chapters, an EU official told EURACTIV.com following Ankara’s fresh all-or-nothing request for full membership.

The official is normally authorised to speak on the record, but this time asked not to be named.

“The accession negotiations are based on Turkey’s own merits and progress in the negotiations, measured against requirements, among which the respect for the rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for international law and good neighbourly relations,” the EU spokesperson emphasised.

The reaction came in reply to statements from Ankara, suggesting that Turkey, which has been a candidate for membership since 2005, will accept nothing less than EU membership.

In an interview with Reuters on 19 January, Turkey’s minister for EU affairs, Ömer Çelik firmly opposed French President Emmanuel Macron’s proposal for a partnership rather than full EU membership for Turkey.

“A privileged partnership or similar approaches, we don’t take any of these seriously. Turkey cannot be offered such a thing,” Çelik noted.

During a visit to Paris earlier this month, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan warned he was “seriously tired” of waiting for the EU to decide whether it wants Turkey as a member or not.

At his State of the Union speech, EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker stressed, “Turkey has been taking giant strides away from the European Union for some time.”

“This rules out its accession to the EU for the foreseeable future,” the spokesperson said.

More than 55,000 people have been arrested in Turkey since the failed July 2016 coup attempt, including journalists, lawyers, opposition politicians and academics, as part of a huge purge of state institutions.

It was in light of those developments in the country that Macron suggested a “partnership” instead of full membership.

Turkey’s accession talks started in 2005 but have been stalled due to Ankara’s unwillingness to apply the Additional Protocol of the Ankara Association Agreement to Cyprus, which Turkey does not recognise as an independent state.

On 25 January, First Vice-President Frans Timmermans and High Representative/Vice-President Federica Mogherini will receive Ömer Çelik.

Migration deal

In the same interview, Çelik pointed out that the EU was not fully honouring its part of a key migration deal agreed in March 2016, underlining that financial aid was “not working well”.

“Technically there’s no reason for Turkey to maintain this deal,” he noted.

According to the Commission, the deal has brought positive results. The arrivals have dropped by 97% and the number of lives lost at sea has decreased substantially. In addition, almost 12,711 Syrian refugees have been resettled from Turkey.

Asked for a comment, the EU spokesperson pointed out that the bloc has delivered on its commitment to contract the full €3 billion promised under the Facility for Refugees in Turkey in 2016 and 2017 before the end of the year (72 projects).

“The EU remains committed to the implementation of the EU-Turkey Statement. “This is an engagement of mutual trust and delivery that requires commitment and continuous efforts from all sides,” the EU official said.

EURACTIV contacted the Turkish Permanent Representation for a comment on the €3 billion issue but did not receive a reply in time for this article’s publication.

EPP: Turkey cannot escape

In the meantime, the President of the European People’s Party, Frenchman Joseph Daul attacked Ankara about Cyprus. The island has been divided since 1974, after Turkish troops invaded and occupied the northern part following a coup on the island.

“Turkey is not getting away with not recognising an EU member state, Cyprus,” he told Cyprus New Agency last week.

Referring to the failure of the Crans Montana conference on the Cyprus reunification talks last June, he said it was a “disappointment” and urged Turkey to facilitate the process by withdrawing its troops.

“We call on Turkey to facilitate a climate conducive for free negotiations, and to contribute concretely to the ongoing efforts for a settlement, including by withdrawing Turkish forces,” the French politician said.

Summit or no summit?

On a visit to Sofia last Saturday (20 January) on the occasion of the start of the Bulgarian Presidency of the Council of the EU, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Germany welcomed a Bulgarian initiative to organise a European Commission-Turkey summit this spring.

Merkel said such a summit, including the presidents of the three European institutions (Commission, Council and Parliament), was a good idea. The summit is planned for March in Varna.

Merkel’s announcement, which came in reply to a journalist’s question, was rather surprising. Erdoğan has been pushing for an EU-Turkey summit during the Bulgarian Presidency. However, such a summit doesn’t appear in the Bulgarian Presidency programme, which is closely coordinated with the EU Commission.

EURACTIV asked the Commission Chief spokesperson Margaritis Schinas on 22 January to comment on the news from Sofia. In his answer, Schinas made it clear that such a summit could only take place under certain conditions.

He said the idea for such a meeting “is there”, but added that the Commission had already said it cannot confirm specific dates.

“Let’s see. This is not a summit in the way of the Leaders’ Agenda summits, it’s not part of the overall “Road to Sibiu” but still it’s a meeting that could take place once we are ready and once the conditions we discussed are also in place”, he said. Sibiu is the location of a summit to be held on 9 May 2019, under the Romanian EU Presidency, and is expected to be the venue for Juncker’s curtain calls.

Asked if the issue of imprisoned journalists in Turkey was part of the conditions, Schinas said “Yes”.

They can be as small as a grain of salt, but tiny crystals that form deep in volcanoes may be the key for advance warnings before volcanic eruptions.

University of Queensland vulcanologist Dr Teresa Ubide said the research provided new information that could lead to more effective evacuations and warning communications.

“This could signal good news for the almost one in 10 people around the world who live within 100km of an active volcano,” she said.

“We haven’t yet reached the ‘holy grail’ of being able to predict volcanic eruptions, but our research is a significant step forward in understanding the processes that lead to eruption.”

Dr Ubide, from UQ’s School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, used a new laser technique to examine the composition of tiny crystals forming deep in volcanoes.

The crystals are created when molten rock – magma – from up to 30 km beneath a volcano starts to move upwards towards the Earth’s surface.

The crystals are carried in the erupting magma, continuing to crystallise and change in composition on the way to the surface.

“They effectively ‘record’ the processes that happen deep in the volcano right before the eruption starts,” said Dr Ubide.

“We’ve found by studying these crystals in a specific volcano that, when new magma arrives at depth, up to 90 per cent of the time it can trigger an eruption, and within only two weeks.”

From this, vulcanologists hope to work out how to better monitor volcanoes – for instance, at what depths underground to look for signs of magma movement before an eruption.

Dr Ubide said it was currently very difficult to predict volcanic eruptions – as evidenced by the eruption at Mount Agung in Bali, which started last November after 2 months of precursory earthquakes.

“The Bali eruption led to the evacuation of more than 70,000 people and caused massive disruptions in air traffic and tourism, affecting more than 100,000 travellers,” she said.

“Volcanic ash and gas clouds rose to heights of up to 4 km above the summit and produced ash-fall in downwind areas.

“Lahars (mudflows) impacted houses, roads and agricultural areas.

“Every volcano is different and requires individual monitoring.”

Dr Ubide’s team tracked eruptions, their triggers and time scales at Mount Etna, on Sicily in Italy, Europe’s most active volcano.

The results could provide important information for future volcanic monitoring efforts at the site, she said.

“We plan to apply the same approach to other volcanoes around the world, especially for countries neighbouring Australia like Indonesia and New Zealand,” she said.

Devices used to manage accounts on the innovative payment system Bitcoin could be improved to provide better protection against hackers, research suggests.

Computer scientists have identified security weak spots in gadgets that manage personal accounts using Bitcoin – a form of digital currency that provides an alternative to conventional money.

They also identified how these wallets – which are popular among the Bitcoin community – might be rectified. Their findings could help technology firms improve how the devices – known as Bitcoin hardware wallets – interact with our PCs.

A team at the University of Edinburgh carried out an in-depth security analysis of the communications system used in popular models of Bitcoin wallet.

They created a simple piece of harmful software, or malware, which was able to intercept messages sent between hardware wallets and computers – where users manage their Bitcoin accounts.

The tests revealed that users’ privacy is not protected. They also showed how easy it is to access Bitcoin funds managed by such devices and divert them into a different account.

Based on their findings, researchers proposed a fix for improving the security of such systems. This would encrypt particular messages sent between Bitcoin wallets and computers, making them much more secure.

Their fix could be incorporated into all models of Bitcoin hardware wallet to offer better protection against hacks, the team says. Their study is published in the journal Information Security.

Dr Andriana Gkaniatsou, of the University of Edinburgh’s School of Informatics, who led the study, said: “A wallet should protect not only our money, but also our privacy. It was surprising to discover how easy it is to access a user’s funds, even when sophisticated hardware is incorporated.

“Unfortunately, there is no silver bullet when it comes to protecting financial digital assets – we need to ensure that all components of the system are equally protected and interact in a secure way.”

Terrorist attacks are known to influence public opinion, but do they also change behaviour? A new British Journal of Sociology study that addressed this question found that Pakistanis in Norway still experience the same level of discrimination, despite claims that Norwegians have become more positive about migrants after the far-right, anti-migrant terrorist attacks of 2011.

The study looked at hiring practices before and after the 2011 terrorist attacks in Norway. The terrorist detonated a car bomb at the government quarters in Oslo, killing 8 people and maiming over 200. He then drove to the summer camp of the youth organization of the Labour Party, at the island of Utøya, where he shot and killed 69 people, most of them teenagers. The attacker identified himself as a fascist and a Nazi, and he said the attacks were a response to the large-scale immigration to Norway of non-Europeans, especially Muslims.

Both before and after the attacks, job applicants with a typical Pakistani name were significantly less likely to get a job interview compared with those with a typical Norwegian name. The ethnic gap in call-back rates was very similar in both time points.

“Our experiments show that the terrorist attacks did not change employers’ hiring practices even though the public opinion reacted to the attacks,” said lead author Dr. Gunn Elizabeth Birkelund, of the University of Oslo.

Among recently returned veterans, a new study says those who are married or living with a partner are at higher suicide risk than soldiers who are single, and older married female veterans are at the greatest risk.

While one might assume soldiers returning from deployment would find comfort and support reuniting with a spouse or loved one, the transition to a domestic setting can cause stress, according to the analysis by researchers at the University of Connecticut and U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

For some veterans, the transition back to a domestic home environment–and all of the pressures, roles, and responsibilities that come with it–only adds to their internal struggles.

“It certainly makes sense when you think about it,” says Crystal Park, UConn psychology professor and one of the study’s co-authors. “There are added pressures that come with maintaining a relationship and meeting household needs. People may have expectations when they’re away and when they return it’s not what they imagined, the romance may not be there. It’s just the daily grind and that can drive up stress levels and increase feelings of despair.”

The findings are based on the responses of 772 recently returned veterans who participated in the Survey of Experiences of Returning Veterans (SERV), a longitudinal study overseen by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

Given the recent influx of women into the armed services, the survey sought to gauge the experiences of female veterans, in particular. As a result of a targeted recruiting campaign, women represented more than 40 percent of those surveyed, which is more than double the actual representation in the military.

In the survey, the average age of veterans was 35. They had served in Iran, Afghanistan, and surrounding areas as part of Operations Enduring Freedom, Iraqi Freedom, and New Dawn. Most of them–62 percent–served in the Army. Seventy-five percent reported exposure to combat.

More than 20 percent of those surveyed reported thoughts of suicide, with 6 percent reporting a past attempt and current thoughts of suicide. Significantly, the study confirmed prior reports of female veterans, in general, being at increased risk of suicide relative to men.

Younger veterans in their 20s, both male and female, reported much less suicide ideation than older vets in their 40s and 50s who completed the survey. Park suspects the finding may be due to the fact that many older veterans of recent conflicts were members of the National Guard or military reserves who were called into service.

“A lot of the people who went over there weren’t active duty military,” says Park. “They were people who signed up for something but probably never anticipated they would be going to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban. They had jobs. They had kids. They had a life that was much different than someone who chooses to enlist in the military.”

The survey also looked at the role veterans’ religious feelings and spirituality might play in increasing or decreasing suicide risk.

Researchers found that veterans who had negative attitudes about religion and spirituality–meaning they felt God was punishing them or that God had abandoned them–were at significantly higher risk for suicide, even after accounting for depression and other variables.

Interestingly, the researchers found that positive feelings about religion and spirituality–feelings that God is a partner in your life and someone you can turn to for guidance, support and strength–did not significantly reduce veterans’ suicide risk.

Most importantly, Park says, the study clearly showed that spiritual struggle among veterans is a separate and independent risk factor for suicide and not just a reflection of people’s depression.

“This suggests that people are experiencing some profound spiritual struggle over and above any depression they might have,” says Park. “What people experience, what they do, and what they witness can have profound negative effects on them when they come back.”

The findings emphasize the importance of religion and spirituality in veteran suicide prevention efforts, the researchers say, and underscore the need for counseling and supports that are both gender specific and tailored to the needs of veterans during their initial reintegration into civilian life.

Addressing suicidal behavior among veterans is a major public health concern. It is estimated that 20 veterans die daily by suicide and 18 percent of all suicide deaths in the United States are attributed to current or former military personnel.

But Park says the issue is far greater than those statistics reflect.

“There are a lot more veterans out there thinking about suicide and who are in despair and we really do owe them some kind of help for these issues,” says Park. “People are having profound spiritual struggles in their lives that can’t simply be linked to depression and medicated away. It’s more of an existential crisis. When you think about what our country asks soldiers to go and do and then think that there won’t be any consequences to their spiritual life as a result, it’s kind of ridiculous.”

By George Pickering*

“Patients dying in hospital corridors.” So went the headline which appeared on the BBC’s website last week, detailing the newest outrages which have emerged from Britain’s crisis-beset healthcare system. This most recent revelation came as a result of an open letter sent to the prime minister by 68 senior doctors, offering details of the inhuman conditions which have become common in the National Health Service’s hospitals.

The letter, which collected statistics from NHS hospitals in England and Wales, found that in December alone over 300,000 patients were made to wait in emergency rooms for more than four hours before being seen, with thousands more suffering long waits in ambulances before even being allowed into the emergency room. The letter further noted that it had become “routine” for patients to be left on gurneys in corridors for as long as 12 hours before being offered proper beds, with many of them eventually being put into makeshift wards hastily constructed in side-rooms. In addition to this, it was revealed that around 120 patients per day are being attended to in corridors and waiting rooms, with many being made to undergo humiliating treatments in the public areas of hospitals, and some even dying prematurely as a result. One patient reported that, having gone to the emergency room with a gynecological problem which had left her in severe pain and bleeding, a lack of treatment rooms led hospital staff to examine her in a busy corridor, in full view of other patients.

While it’s tempting to believe that these extreme cases must be a rare occurrence, the fact is that such horror stories have become increasingly the norm for a socialised healthcare system that seems to be in a permanent state of crisis. Indeed, as the NHS entered the first week of 2018, over 97% of its trusts in England were reporting levels of overcrowding so severe as to be “unsafe.”

Almost as predictable as the regular emergence of new stories of this kind is the equally unwavering refusal of British commentators to consider that the state-run monopoly structure of the system itself might be to blame. Many, including the prime minister herself, have pointed to the spike in seasonal illnesses such as the flu at this time of year, to distract from the more fundamental flaws of the system. However, officials from Public Health England recently went so far as to openly dismiss this as a major cause of the current healthcare crisis, clarifying that current levels of hospital admissions due to the flu are “certainly not unprecedented.” The aging of the population, and local councils’ failure to provide more non-hospital care have also been blamed.

By far the most commonly suggested remedy, however, is simply to inject more taxpayers’ money into this failing system. Indeed, the belief that Britain’s perpetual healthcare crisis is solely the result of funding cuts by miserly Conservative politicians is so widespread that it is almost never challenged, least of all by the trusted experts within the system itself, many of whom stand to benefit from increased funding.

However, the popular caricature of the NHS as suffering from chronic underfunding is simply a myth. In fact, even when adjusting for inflation, it is clear that government funding to the NHS has been increasing at an extraordinary rate since the turn of the millennium, much more quickly than during the early years which its supporters look back on so fondly.

Indeed, under the Conservative government of 2015–16, almost 30% of Britain’s public services budget was spent on its monopoly healthcare system, compared with around 11% in the NHS’s first decade.

One commonly heard soundbite from supporters of the current system is that the Conservatives have allowed healthcare spending to slump to historically low levels; all it would take to return the NHS to the levels of success it supposedly previously enjoyed would be to increase its funding back to the same level it previously enjoyed, or so they say. However, to believe such a statement one would have to make two separate misinterpretations of the statistics, both so basic that they would strike shame into even the dullest high school math students: firstly, it is not the absolute amount of spending on the NHS which has fallen under the Conservative-led governments of 2010–18, but merely the rate at which spending is continuing to increase, even when adjusting for inflation. Second, the only reason that the rate of increase seems to have fallen is because of how disproportionately high it had been been under the infamously spendthrift Labour governments of 1997–2010.

Not only is the NHS not underfunded, but it suffers from dismally low efficiency in terms of healthcare bang per buck compared with similarly developed countries. This suggests that no matter how much its funding is increased, the current set-up is prone to chronically waste that money away.

To overcome these problems, reforms to the fundamental nature of the system itself are desperately needed, to increase the economic freedom of healthcare providers in the UK as well as the freedom of choice of consumers. In short, as long as British healthcare is organised as a taxpayer-funded state monopoly it will continue to fail, just as the other nationalised monopolies of the 1970s failed. To get to a point where the British public would even consider reforms of that kind, however, would require the breaking of a taboo that has defined the past 70 years of British politics.

About the author:
*George Pickering is the Almoayyad Fellow in Residence at the Mises Institute this summer, and is a student of economic history at the London School of Economics.

Source:
This article was published by the MISES Institute

To ensure a stable Afghanistan, convincing the Taliban to negotiate, the United States must cooperate with China and Pakistan.

By Ehsan M. Ahrari*

President Donald Trump desperately needs to win the ongoing war in Afghanistan. But the Central Asian state of 35 million people continues to offer hard choices and harsh realities written in the blood of hundreds of thousands of warriors from many nations. Trump, much like his predecessor Barack Obama, struggles to understand that the United States and an entity like the Taliban measure victory and losses in different ways. For the Taliban, victory means outwaiting the foreign invader. So the Taliban may be winning, at least for now. But that may not last long as the United States does its utmost not to lose by crushing its opponents in that country and ensuring stable governance that is friendly to the West.

The Taliban know that their capacity to absorb losses in their home territory is near infinite. This is not true for the United States. For a democratic country like the United States, it is imperative to defeat the Taliban, weakening it as a fighting entity so much that it accepts America’s conditions for peace. Such defeat is unlikely. Taliban forces control large parts of Afghanistan. Most Afghans, if asked about the ostensibly unending war, would suggest that the pendulum swings in favor of a Taliban victory. Many top US security personnel would agree, but never say so publicly. So, the grim possibility of losing in Afghanistan now or later remains intact.

In the United States, a huge community of defense and civilian personnel earn a living counting on the endless nature of this war without saying so. Many top politicians understand that there is no victory in sight in Afghanistan. But they have little choice but to curse the status quo, while taking few steps to change it. That might be one reason why the Afghan war never really entered the public debates of 2016 presidential election. As candidate, Trump had no clue about resolving that conflict, while his opponent, Hillary Clinton, could not address the issue without opening a Pandora’s box of criticism about Obama’s own inability to defeat the Taliban.

General John W. Nicholson, Jr., commander of the US forces in Afghanistan, declared his resolve to bomb the opium fields owned by the Taliban, hoping that destroying this financial arm weakens their will to fight. In principle, this conclusion is reasonable though it ignores the Taliban’s fervent resolve to continue the fight. Published reports suggest that the Taliban have stockpiled billions of dollars after years of opium trade and other illicit activities.

Brigadier General Lance Bunch sounded optimistic about fighting the Taliban under the new national security strategy approved by Trump. “The cornerstone of the new strategy is what Bunch called a ‘dedicated air interdiction campaign’ that is designed to deny the Taliban the huge profits it has reaped for years from Afghanistan’s illicit opium trade,” reported The Washington Examiner. “The new authorities allow U.S. commanders to target Taliban networks and revenue sources, as well as back up Afghan forces on the ground in ways they couldn’t before. The other major change is that U.S. military advisers are now embedding with Afghan forces who are closest to combat….”

The plan is to use the same tactics against the Taliban as used against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. But the United States must also demonstrate capacity to think critically and differently from past policies, and this requires cooperation with other countries.

The war in Afghanistan must be fought on two fronts – the military front and, most critically, the diplomatic front. From the perspectives of operational warfare, the US military maintains an upper hand in Afghanistan. However, capacity to win strategic victory over the Taliban involves at least two regional actors, Pakistan and China, and a willingness to accept that the Taliban are bound to play a role in any future government for Afghanistan. Such acceptance on the part of the Trump administration would lead to another US policy development: It should encourage Pakistan and China to take necessary steps in bringing the Taliban to the negotiating table.

One of the most promising developments related to the Afghan conflict for the United States is that China is in near dire need to stabilize Afghanistan for the success of its Belt and Road Initiative in Pakistan and Central Asia. China’s government has attached high stakes, making huge economic and political commitments, in this mega-strategy. China recognizes that the Taliban are primarily concerned with winning a role in Afghanistan’s future government. Unlike ISIS, they are not driven by the desire to bring about global jihad. That conclusion is among the chief motivating factors underlying China’s endeavors to engage the Taliban. China, fully cognizant that jihadists from its Xinjiang province have long-established ties with the Taliban, strives to engage this political force.

Pakistan values China as a great power, and the two regard each other “all weather friends.” Pakistan may have decided that, in the absence of traditional US-Pak strategic ties, it should remain focused on Chinese strategic priorities that complement Pakistan’s own desire to play a role in Afghanistan’s peace process. Pakistan is also in desperate need to stabilize Afghanistan without escalating India’s presence there. Pakistan already accuses India of using its diplomatic presence in Afghanistan to destabilize Baluchistan. India categorically denies that charge.

The United States understands that Pakistan regards any increased presence of Indian security and diplomatic personnel in Afghanistan as a red flag. Neither Obama nor Trump took measures to address Pakistani apprehensions related to India’s presence. So, any attempt to reengage Pakistan in the peace negotiations must take these apprehensions into consideration. One option worth considering is to encourage both South Asian neighbors to work on a framework of cooperation.

Trump’s quintessential transactional approach to foreign policy showed its face in the State Department’s January 4 announcement on suspending security aid to Pakistan. Forewarning came with Trump tweeting a few days earlier that his country “foolishly” gave Pakistan more than $33 billion and got “nothing.” If the United States expected Pakistan to buckle under the pressure, the exact opposite happened.

It must be pointed out that even using Trump’s transactional approach to dealing with America’s friends, allies and even rivals requires cooperation from Pakistan and China. The real basis for these two countries’ cooperation is already there: Both want Afghanistan to stabilize and become a peaceful state. The specifics of achieving that outcome necessitate the imminent use of quiet diplomacy instead of public scolding as if Pakistan were a vassal state. Also, any engagement of China and Pakistan to stabilize Afghanistan requires major involvement of the US departments of State and Defense. Trump’s decision to reduce the significance of the State Department at the expense of his reliance on the military for resolving regional conflicts is among the most serious challenges facing the United States. Thus far, the Trump administration has provided little recognition of the need for a nuanced approach in stabilizing Afghanistan.

Reports once suggested Trump could replace US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson with CIA Chief Michael Pompeo or Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley. Neither potential successor has the same diplomatic experience or exposure to Pakistan, South Asia or China as Secretary of Defense James Mattis, who would become the logical choice to play a lead role. To be assured of America’s long-term commitment to peace and stability in Afghanistan, Pakistan and China need assured political commitment, which the State Department can provide through patient and intricate negotiations. Tillerson’s removal would signal that the Trump administration is only interested in finding quick resolution to the conflict before leaving the area.

The United States must pursue a multifaceted diplomatic option for resolving the Afghan conflict, or the chances of ultimate defeat remain very much alive.

*Ehsan Ahrari is adjunct research professor at the Strategic Studies Institute of the US Army War College, in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, and the CEO of Strategic Paradigms, an Alexandria, VA-based foreign and defense policy consultancy. He specializes in Great Power relations, strategic affairs of the world of Islam and anti-terrorism. His latest book, The Islamic Challenge and the United States: Global Security in an Age of Uncertainty, is published by the McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2017. His website is: www.ehsanahrari.com. Views contained in this essay are strictly private.

Confrontations between nuclear-armed states in Northeast and South Asia conform to a historical pattern of brinkmanship mixed with caution. But with risks still serious, a more effective response is required.

By Rajesh Basrur*

The spectre of nuclear war, once thought to be receding with the end of the Cold War, is back. In recent months, three confrontations have occurred between nuclear powers. North Korea conducted a possible thermonuclear test in September 2017 and announced in November that it had tested an intercontinental ballistic missile with the capability to target the American mainland.

Washington reacted with tightening sanctions, military exercises, and preparations for a possible war. In South Asia, India’s troops stopped the Chinese from constructing a road in Doklam, an area disputed by Bhutan and China close to the Indian border. In the meantime, border tension between India and Pakistan escalated with heavy small arms fire, shelling and occasional small-scale troop engagements at the Line of Control (LoC) separating their forces.

History Repeating Itself?

Though a serious crisis has not yet occurred, the confrontations conform to patterns of events leading up to past crises between nuclear powers. These include US-Soviet crises in Berlin (1961) and Cuba (1962), Sino-Soviet border clashes in 1969, US-China fighting during the Vietnam War (1964-69), the Kargil conflict between India and Pakistan in 1999, and a second crisis between the two in 2001-02.

All of these have featured tussles over territory, differences in political systems setting democracies against authoritarian polities (including a military-dominated hybrid regime in Pakistan); hostile image construction; and the pronounced use of rhetoric and threats aimed at each other but also at reinforcing domestic support. In each case, though, the prospect of a nuclear conflagration has induced a measure of caution – avoidance of major military thrusts (notable in the considerable fighting that took place in the 1969 and 1999 crises), the opening of negotiations between the two sides, and, sometimes, explicit stabilisation agreements.

The current episodes of brinkmanship and verbal duels exhibit the same pattern. In each case, as tensions have risen, a line of communication has been opened. North Korea has expressed a willingness to talk, while – despite hesitations – the United States has done the same; and North and South Korea have attempted to build bridges by coming together at the 2018 PyeongChang Winter Olympics.

Chinese and Indian forces wound down their confrontation and their Special Representatives met in December 2017 to defuse border tensions. And the Indian and Pakistani National Security Advisers met secretly at least four times in third countries to work toward stability. These are encouraging developments, but we cannot be sanguine about their stabilizing effects.

Potential To Spin Out of Control

None of the three issues has approached resolution. North Korea and the US remain at loggerheads: the US announced on 16 January 2018 that it had deployed nuclear-capable B-52 and B-2 bombers in Guam and was preparing conventional forces for military action. Tensions remain high on the India-China border: Indian troops ejected a Chinese civilian road construction crew at Tuting in the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, which is claimed by China, in December 2017; and reports have come in that Chinese forces have built up their presence in Doklam.

Cross-border firing between Indian and Pakistani forces continues to exact its human toll on the LoC. In each instance, notwithstanding moves to seek stability, the political differences that raised tensions remain in place.

There are additional problems that could cause any of them to spin out of control. First, local military commanders may take initiatives, causing clashes that will be difficult to reverse. This applies not only to South Asia’s tension-ridden land borders, but also to the Northeast Asian seas. Second, a local skirmish can quickly escalate owing to uncertainty about the adversary’s capability and the element of surprise.

On land borders, the presence of radar-evading capabilities such as cruise missiles is a factor; the short distances separating India’s forces from those of China and Pakistan place serious constraints with respect to response times. At sea (and above it for air forces), the absence of clear red lines is problematic in Northeast Asia.

Third, in the event that localised conflict does break out, it may quickly morph into nuclear conflict amidst rising tensions if conventional attacks accidentally target nuclear forces or command and control systems. Finally, since all complex systems are subject to what sociologist Charles Perrow calls “normal accidents,” a false alarm of impending nuclear attack during a crisis might set off a nuclear response.

The erroneous missile alert in Hawaii on 13 January is a warning that is hardly exceptional – such incidents have occurred regularly in the past. A similar error during a crisis could conceivably set in motion a series of escalatory reactions culminating in nuclear conflict.

Reducing Risks

What might be done to reduce the risk? At the unilateral level, Pyongyang and Washington should tone down their rhetoric, which generates not only public alarm, but tensions down their chains of command. The Trump administration needs to accept that North Korean nuclear reversal is an unrealistic objective and to undertake a policy shift from coercion to a mix of deterrence and negotiation.

Beijing must rethink its opposition to formalising the disputed Line of Actual Control (LAC), which separates Chinese and Indian troops. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has already said publicly that an agreement on the LAC will not have a bearing on the border dispute. Islamabad, already under some pressure from the US to do this, needs to make good on an old commitment not to allow terrorist groups to attack India from Pakistani territory.

And New Delhi should, in tandem, rethink its Cold Start doctrine, which is centred on lightning thrusts and salami slicing of Pakistani territory for bargaining purposes. All four states should tighten internal controls over their militaries and avoid delegating authority to local commanders to take military initiatives locally.

Bilaterally, each pair can agree to stand down forces, reduce potentially offensive deployments, and ensure efficient crisis control systems are in place for communications during emergencies and in the event of accidents. These moves can be replicated at the multilateral level to generate a wider stabilising momentum.

Having pursued nuclear nonproliferation with a modicum of success, the major nuclear powers need to exercise their responsibility for making the world safer more fully. If they are not yet ready for a nuclear ban, they nevertheless owe it to themselves and the rest to find creative ways of avoiding multiple cold wars. It is not a good idea to wait for the next crisis to make the first move.

*Rajesh Basrur is Professor of International Relations at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

The Belt and Road Initiative is a unique opportunity to connect continents through infrastructure, cultural and technological exchange in order to drive sustained economic progress, agreed participants at a Caixin debate.

“The Belt and Road Initiative is perfectly in sync with the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2018 about creating a shared future in a fractured world,” said Shahid Khaqan Abbasi, Prime Minister of Pakistan. He added, “The Belt and Road Initiative is a physical manifestation of the bond between countries that have existed through history” and can result in “freer movement of people, goods and ideas, and a greater culture of openness.”

“Singapore welcomes the Belt and Road Initiative,” said Chan Chun Sing, of the Office of the Prime Minister of Singapore. As a financial hub, Singapore can provide support to bring about a more tightly integrated global economic system. “We should move beyond the perspective of a zero-sum game,” he stressed, and create more interdependencies.

Financial sustainability is key to the long-term success of the initiative, said Jin Liqun, President of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), People’s Republic of China, which is instrumental in its funding. “We should never do a project that would be a white elephant,” he warned, such as loss-making showcase projects by politicians built with public money.

“Protectionism is a reality you have to live with,” he added. “But when we promote connectivity and infrastructure projects which can bring people together with shared benefits, I think there will be less market for protectionism.”

Broad consultation is crucial, participants agreed. “The size and scale of the project cannot be done by any one country, and it cannot be done by the private sector alone or the public sector alone,” said Michael S. Burke, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of US infrastructure firm AECOM.

He emphasized the challenges of tax regulation. “For a 30-year project, we need certainty about the regulatory environment because there are plenty of other uncertainties.”

Clean and green infrastructure is another shared priority. “We will be able to finance infrastructure projects without leaving a big footprint on the environment,” said Jin Liqun, stressing the need to work in the interests of local communities. “Instead, we should be able to improve the environment.”

Although the initiative is spearheaded by China, to succeed it must unite multiple stakeholders. “The Belt and Road is more than just an infrastructure project, it is a crucial engine for building a more socially inclusive tomorrow,” said Ren Hongbin, Chairman, China National Machinery Industry Corp. (Sinomach), People’s Republic of China. “It belongs to everyone. This will be a tremendous opportunity for China to help to build a better system that allows the world to participate in the next phase of growth for the world economy.”

Kirill Dmitriev, Chief Executive Officer, Russian Direct Investment Fund, Russian Federation, agreed. “The fractured world is being discussed in Davos and the Belt and Road Initiative is one of the best ways to address this. President Xi’s message of inclusivity contrasts very poignantly with some of the other messages we hear about division.” He went on to stress that “we need good story-telling about the shared benefits of the project.”

It is still early days for the Belt and Road Initiative, with many obstacles to overcome. But as Prime Minister Abbasi reminded participants: “The desserts have already started to come in.”

By R. Upadhyay

The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill was passed by the Lok Sabha on December 28, 2017 to make the practice of instant triple talaq prevailing in Indian Muslim society a criminal offence with three years imprisonment and fine to the accused husband.

However, its future is apparently found hanging in balance as the Rajya Sabha failed to pass it due to disagreement between the Government and the Opposition. Certainly, the behaviour of the Opposition members in the Upper House must have disappointed the Muslim Women for now.

But their struggle against the unjust gender injustice will remain a challenge to the Muslim orthodoxy if they don’t understand the direction of the wind is blowing in their favour of those whose struggle has at least succeeded in dividing the Muslim community- where a sizeable section particularly the modern Islamic scholars has widely welcomed the struggle to reform the Muslim Personal Law.

Some Views of the Community:

Shaista Amber, the president of All India Muslim Women Personal Law Board said, she would travel across the country to expose the “real face” and anti-women attitude of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, which criticised the Centre for a bill that proposes to criminalise the Islamic practice of instant divorce. Muslim clerics … https://scroll.in/latest/862829/clerics-should-not-create-hurdles-for-tr….

Even before the Bill was passed in Lok Sabha, All India Shia Personal Law Board wanted a strict law against triple talaq. It said, the “Centre should draft a strict law against triple talaq, similar to the one against Sati”. https://scroll.in/latest/834892/shia-board-wants-a-strict-law-against-tr…

As far back as on 26 September, 2016, Sultan Shahin, Founding Editor, New Age Islam on behalf of Asian-Eurasian Human Rights Forum in a General Debate in UN Human Rights Council Geneva s raised the issue of instant triple talaq practised by Muslim husbands in India and throwing their wives out of their homes. He urged the community members, “We Muslims must revisit our theology in the light of the needs of the 21st century. We are not living in the 7th century and can neither fight those early battles nor organise our societies in that medieval fashion”.

Another Muslim author Muhammad Yunus in an article in New Age Islam dated 22 April 2017 observed, “The members of AIMPLB, who are adamantly persistent in negating it (the gender justice to Muslim women) under the cover of Islam are traitors of Islam, in addition to being Gender Terrorist.”( http://www.newageislam.com/islam,-women-and-feminism/muhammad-yunus,-new…).

Faizan Mustafa, the vice-chancellor of NALSAR University of Law in Hyderabad and a leading expert on constitutional law in an interview to Al Jazeera on Supreme Court verdict against instant triple talaq said, “My opinion is that the Muslim community should take this initiative and start reforming their laws”. (http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/08/faizan-mustafa-india-t…

The AIMPB: Self Proclaimed body to protect Muslim Orthodoxy:

Contrary to the wind blowing in direction of reform in Islamic personal laws, the radical Islamists under the banner of All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) are still holding backward ideologies in this developing country and found to be adamant to fight tooth and nail against this Bill. They don’t want any reform in Islamic laws as they would lose their main weapon to keep the Indian Muslims under their perpetual control. This self-acclaimed representative body of Indian Muslims which has been opposing any reform in Muslim Personal Law since its formation in early seventies of last century had even filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court defending the practice of triple talaq and polygamy.

On December 24, the Board’s spokes person Maulana Khalil- ur-Rehman Sajjad Nomani said, “The board is of the view that the triple talaq bill is against the Constitution, rights of women and Shariah (Islamic law). Apart from this, it is also an attempt to interfere with the Muslim personal law. If this bill becomes a law, then women will face a host of difficulties”.

Likewise, Asaduddin Owasi, the president of All India Muslim majlish-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen and also a member of AIMPLB was found to be aggressively vocal against this Bill.

Shaping of Musim Orthodoxy:

Drawing inspiration from Islamist mystics and scholars like Shaikh Ahmad Sarhindi (1564- 1624), Shah Wali Ullah (1704-1762) and Saiyid Ahmad Barlevi (1786-1831) the Islamists never tolerated any reform in medieval Islam or compromise with non-Muslims and gave shape to Islamic orthodoxy in the sub-continent under the political dominance and military power of various Muslim invaders like Arab, Persian, Turk and Mongol and their post-Moghul followers.

They thus launched institutionalised Islamic revival movements like Deoband, Nadwa, Ahl-e-Hadith, Jamaat-e-Ulema-Hind, Tabliq Jamaat and Jamaat-e-Islami to keep the Indian Muslims away from the general milieu of the country. At the same time, after India got independence, AIMPLB was formed as a representative body of the followers of above Islamist mystics and their followers and not as the representative body of entire Indian Muslims. The Board took it upon itself as a religio-political opposition body against the government whenever the latter tried for any reform in Muslim Personal Laws.

Shaikh Ahmad Sarhindi (1564- 1624)

Ahmad Sarhindi, popularly known as Mujaddid (Renovator of Islam) who had traced his descent from Caliph Umar worked as an oppositional religious leader and declared the religious ‘liberalism’ of Mogul Emperor Akbar for accommodating a couple of Hindus and Shia Muslims in his court as heterodoxy. He tried to influence the courtiers of Akbar and continued his tirade against the Hindus as well as Shia Muslims aggressively when Jahangir ascended the throne of Delhi. He is widely known among the Muslims for his letters written in Persian not only to his disciples but also to the influential Muslims in the court of Jahangir. His letters exercised great influence in turning the ‘heterodoxies’ of Akbar to orthodoxies, which were pursued by all the subsequent Muslim rulers from Jahangir to Aurangzeb. Although, he was imprisoned in Gwalior jail for his discourteous behaviour of not bending before emperor Jehangir, the latter was subsequently so much influenced by his writings on orthodox Sunni Islam that he ordered his release and offered huge gifts to him. His tomb at Sarhind in Patiala is still an object of veneration (Islamic Encyclopaedia, Vol. I, Page297).

Shah Wali Ullah (1704-1762)

Shah Wali Ullah another Islamic mystic of the Sufi tradition of Sunnism who claimed his lineage from Quraysh tribe of Prophet Mohammad and of Umar, the second caliph was found more concerned with the political disorder after the death of Aurangzeb and the fading glory of Muslim power. A contemporary of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703-1792) an orthodox Sunni Islamic leader from Arab who launched the Wahhabi movement, Wali Ullah was also proud of his Arab origin and was strongly opposed to the dilution of Islamic culture in the cultural cauldron of the sub-continent. “Waliullah did not want the Muslims to become part of the general milieu of the sub-continent. He wanted them to keep alive their relation with rest of the Muslim world so that the spring of their inspiration and ideals might ever remain located in Islam and tradition of world community developed by it”. (The Muslim Community of Indo-Pakistan subcontinent by Istiaq Hussain Qureshi, 1985, page 216). “In his opinion, the health of Muslim society demanded that doctrines and values inculcated by Islam should be maintained in their pristine purity unsullied by extraneous influences” (Ibid. page 215).

The political rise of non-Muslims like Maratha, Jat and Sikh powers was so unbearable to Wali Ullah that he took it as a consequent danger to Islam of its political heritage and therefore raised the slogan of ‘Islam is in danger’ which is profoundly embedded to his hate-non-Muslim ideology. Successive Muslim thinkers drew inspiration from his religio-political thought that was based on the ‘Persio -Islamic theory of kingship’ (Shah Wali Allah and his Time by Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi, page 397). His religio-political mission to bring the Muslim society in India to the Prophet era for the political unity of the then Muslim rulers made a permanent crack in Hindu–Muslim relations in this sub-continent and undermined the self-pride and dignity of integrated Indian society.

Wali Ullah translated the writings of Sarhindi from Persian to Arabic to inspire the Muslim Indians to fight unitedly against the Marathas to save the ‘subjugation of Muslims’ by the Hindus. Since he didn’t believe in Indian nationhood or any national boundary for Muslims he wrote a letter inviting Ahmad Shah Abdali, the king of Afghanistan to attack India (Third battle of Panipat 1761), in which Marathas were defeated.

A great Muslim thinker and promoter of one of the most emotional chapters of Islamic revivalist movements in Indian subcontinent Wali Ullah’s religio-political thought brought the Arabian Indians under perpetual siege of Islamic orthodoxy. The on going Hindu-Muslim communal controversy in contemporary India is deeply rooted to his political Islamic theory. The most significant contribution of Wali Ullah(Allah) for his community is that his teachings kept alive the religious life of Indian Muslims linked with their inner spirit for re-establishment of Islamic political authority in India. It was the political theory of Wali ullah that kept the Indian Muslims under emotional social disorder and deprived them of a forward-looking vision.

Ahmad Barelavi (1786-1831):

Waliullh’s son Abd al Aziz (1746-1823) carried forward the legacy of his father and as a result India faced violent communal disorder for decades. Aziz’s disciple Saiyid Ahmad of Rai Bareli under the deep influence of political Islam propounded by Wali Ullah and the jehadi spirit of Sunni extremism of Maulana Wahab of Saudi Arabia launched jehad against the non-Islamic power of the Sikh kingdom of Ranjit Singh with a view to restore Dar-ul-Islam (A land, where Islam is having political power). Though, he was killed in battle of Balkot in May 1831, he is considered to be a martyr for the cause of Islam.

Post Moghul Revivalist Movements:

Tired of their failures in re-establishing Muslim rule particularly due to the firm grip the British established on this country after the failure of Sepoy mutiny in 1857, the post-Mogul Islamists kept their violent movement in suspended animation for decades and rather launched institutionalised Islamic revival movement by opening Darul Uloom at Deoband in Uttar Pradesh to inculcate Islamic education among the Muslims with an objective to transform them to the Prophet era of the faith for restoration of lost Islamic Islamic power in this Non-Muslim majority country.

Contrary to Deoband movement, a British loyalist Sir Syed Ahmad Khan (1817-98) launched the Aligarh movement to inculcate modern education to the community in the pattern of British system of education. With the full support of the British he founded the Aligarh School in 1875 which was upgraded in 1877 to a college and named Mohammedan Anglo-Oriental College, the forerunner of the Aligarh Muslim University.

One of the objectives of the Aligarh movement was to prevent the Muslims from joining the Congress which Sir Syed condemned as anti-British and anti-Government. In his view a Hindu-Muslim alliance could only be disadvantageous to the Muslim community, which was much smaller in number, educationally backward, politically immature, and economically insecure. Alliance with the Hindus against the British could only lead to the loss of British patronage and to the exploitation and subjugation of the Muslims by the overwhelming Hindu majority. Thus began modern Muslim political separatism in India. ( https://academy.gktoday.in/article/islamic-reform-movements-of-british-i…).

Both the movements remained counterproductive for the Muslim society. Instead of producing doctors, engineers, scientists or educationists, Deoband produced Ulema and Aligarh created political separatism which ultimately divided the sub-continent. Although, Pakistan was created on the basis of religion for the Muslims, about 40% of its population stayed back in India and the Muslim orthodoxy under the banner of Jamiat-Ulema-e-Hind, the Ulema association of Deobandis aligned with Indian National Congress and became the self-acclaimed representative body of Indian Muslims. It is an irony of fate that after partition, Pakistan had refused to accept the Anglo-Mohammedan law and reformed its personal law in 1961.

The Deobandi leaders formed AIMPLB in 1973 to fight against any attempt of the secular and democratic government to initiate reform in Muslim Personal Laws framed by the British. So mch so, in last August when Supreme Court declared the medieval practice of instant triple talaq void and the Lok Sabha passed the Muslim Women Bill 2017, the board members strongly opposed it on the plea that it was an interference in the religious rights of the Muslims. The Bill was however not passed in Rajya Sabha due to vote bank politics of opposition.

Contrary to the stand of AIMPLB, rational sections of Muslim intellectuals are constantly writing against the war of radical Islamists who continue to misguide the community members against giving right to equality to their women and thereby opposing any reform in their personal laws. Unfortunately, hardly any Urdu news paper ever raised this issue or demand for restoring the Islamic criminal laws which were banned by the British. In India Muslims are not governed by the Islamic punishments for criminal offences like amputation, whipping, and beheading. If AIMPLB is so particular why is it that they have they not ever demanded punishment to Muslims for criminal offences as per Shariat? They want to follow a part of Sharia that helps them to keep the Muslim women subjugated but avoid medieval punishments based on Quran and Hadith.

The March of the Reformist Movement Cannot be Stopped:

AIMPLB is not ready to understand that larger majority of Muslim women are found restive against the prevailing practice of polygamy and halala and future of the Bill may be hanging in balance for some time to come. But it looks that it may not remain so for long.

The Bill which has provided a momentum to the movement for reform in Muslim personal law is just a landmark beginning and not an end of struggle of Muslim women against. It is a wakeup call for the Muslim society. The Muslim orthodoxy therefore must understand that for modern world, triple talaq or instant divorce, polygamy and Halala are the evils emanating from the personal laws instituted for Muslims by the British. They had accepted the Indian Panel Code for criminal offences and there is no reason why they should have any objection if triple talaq is also brought under criminal offence. They must see the writings on wall; revisit their theology in the light of the need of the hour and march with the time. It is in the larger interest of the community itself.

For many years scientists tinkered to find a perfect replacement for the damaged or dysplastic inner ear. Cochlear implants receive a sound, convert it into electrical stimuli and send these impulses directly to the auditory nerve, thereby giving hearing impaired children the chance to connect to the world of sounds and noises.

It has so far been assumed that these children reach the language level of children with normal hearing much later. Previous studies showed that from the moment of having the device implanted, children need longer to attain the important steps of learning their mother tongue — for instance, being able to distinguish the rhythm of their mother tongue from that of another language. This could imply that developmental milestones necessary to start school are also delayed, although they reach all the other developmental stages needed.

A current study at the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences (MPI CBS) in Leipzig and the University Medical Centre Dresden has now revealed something different: “We observed that when deaf children get their implants, they learn words faster than those with normal hearing. Consequently, they build up certain word pools faster”, says Niki Vavatzanidis, first author of the underlying study and scientist at MPI CBS and the University Medical Centre Dresden. Normally, children need fourteen months to reliably recognise that known objects are named incorrectly. Children with an artificial cochlea were already able to do so after twelve months.

The reason for this finding could be that children with cochlear implants are older when they are first exposed to spoken language. Those with normal hearing learn aspects of language, such as the rhythm and melody of their mother tongue, from birth and even in the womb. In deaf children, this only starts at the time of their cochlear replacement, at the age of around one to four years. By this time certain brain structures necessary for language acquisition are already well developed. “It is not just the memory, but also the broader knowledge about their surroundings that is more formed. They already know about objects in their environment and have accumulated non-linguistic semantic categories”, states Vavatzanidis. For example, they already know that objects such as cups or meals could be hot and that heat could be something harmful without knowing the word “hot”.

The neuroscientists examined these relations with the help of thirty-two children with cochlear implant in both ears. They carried out a test after twelve, eighteen and twenty-four months after implantation that tested their ability to recognise words: The young study participants were shown pictures of objects which were named either correctly or incorrectly. In parallel to this, the scientist analysed the brain activities of the little ones using electroencephalography (EEG). If the researchers detected an effect in the EEG known as N400, they knew that the child registered the incorrect word. This means they had established a stable connection between objects and their names. They had learnt the word.

“Children with cochlear implants could help us understand the general processes of language acquisition and determine which single steps are age-dependent”, Angela D. Friederici explains, study leader and head of MPI CBS. “We now know that age does not affect how fast children learn words. On the contrary, they seem to catch up even if they were previously disadvantaged.” Upcoming studies should now focus on why some of the affected children, despite these findings, struggle to reach the level of their contemporaries with normal hearing.

France’s President Emmanuel Macron outlined his agenda to create a more competitive France and address the concerns of many French citizens on globalization. He told participants at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting: “The objective is very simple and straightforward – make France more competitive, more innovative, in order to finance … a fair system.”

“France has been very much affected by structural change and its relationship with globalization. I have to fight with a nationalist party because there are many fears in my own country – because we didn’t deliver properly,” said Macron. “Some people think the solution is to get out of globalization. And that gives me a special responsibility of building a France that is open to the rest of the world, and standing beside those who have been forgotten and left behind by globalization – and to show that it benefits the middle and lower classes.”

Macron outlined to participants the five pillars of his reform plan: education, investment and capital, acceleration and flexibility, fighting climate change, and what he called “cultural change”.

He pledged €15 billion over the next five years to train and reskill workers. He urged special attention to the education of women, not just in France but globally, noting that women make up two-thirds of the over 750 million people who don’t possess basic literacy skills.

Under the rubric of investment and capital, Macron highlighted France’s corporate tax rate cuts and capital gains tax refunds, measures, which he said, have accelerated France’s recovery and “reinforced France’s attractiveness”.

Macron defined acceleration and flexibility in terms of realigning France “on Germany and Northern Europe”, shifting from “rules defined by law” towards rules “defined by consensus” and by reducing total costs associated with energy, housing and transport to make the French economy more nimble and responsive.

The French president said he would “make France a model in the fight against climate change” his fourth pillar, and announced his intention to close all coal-fired power plants in France by 2021.

Attributing France’s penchant for regulations, laws and taxes to something rooted in French culture, Macron said that in the past six months his administration has worked “like crazy” to reduce the number of regulations. He underscored the importance of visibility as critical to guaranteeing predictability, and thus stability. France, he said, is a “nation of entrepreneurs”, but cultural norms raise obstacles to entrepreneurship.

Now, however, with his reform agenda under way, “France is back – back at the core of Europe. Because we will never have French success without European success. All of these initiatives and reforms have a natural counterpart, which is European strategy.”

He went on to say: “If we want to avoid fragmentation of the world, we need a stronger Europe. It’s absolutely key. In my view we have to redesign a 10-year strategy to make Europe an actual economic, social, green, scientific and political power.”

Macron also called for a more robust International Monetary Fund with a broader mandate that would include regulatory authority over parts of the financial system that currently escape regulation – including cryptocurrencies and the shadow banking system.

He voiced concern over the ability of large tech firms to avoid effective taxation and regulation. “At what point are we going to stop innovation?” he asked, noting the potential for unfettered tech companies to do substantial damage to social interests.

Macron also expressed concern over the “race to the bottom” between countries competing for corporations and the jobs they create through ever-lower corporate tax rates. “We need to renounce unbridled tax optimization,” he said.