Dozens of militants were killed as Saudi-backed mercenaries and their allied Emirati soldiers fought in the southern Yemeni city of Aden Sunday, local medical staff said, deepening a rift between forces that had been on the same side.

The worst clashes yet between UAE-backed southern separatists and forces loyal to Saudi Arabia and fugitive Yemeni president Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi risk crippling their once united war effort against the impoverished Arab country.

Gunmen were deployed throughout most districts of Aden on Sunday and there was heavy automatic gunfire and explosions in the southern port city, according to Reuters witnesses.

Armed separatists wrested a key military base and several government buildings from pro-Hadi forces.

The clashes come as a deadline imposed by the separatists for the fugitive government to resign expired on Sunday.

In a statement late on Saturday before the clashes began, the Saudi-led coalition urged all parties to seek “calm and restraint, adhering to the language of a calm dialogue.”

Yemen’s defenseless people have been under massive attacks by the coalition for almost years but Riyadh has reached none of its objectives in Yemen so far.

Since March 2015, Saudi Arabia and some of its Arab allies have been carrying out deadly airstrikes against the Houthi Ansarullah movement in an attempt to restore power to fugitive former president Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi, an ally of Riyadh.

Over 14,000 Yemenis, including thousands of women and children, have lost their lives in the deadly military campaign.

Kazakhstan’s President Nursultan Nazarbayev has said that Iran nuclear deal – known as JCPOA – became a practical example in solving most complicated issues by means of negotiation.

Nazarbayev made the remarks while addressing a meeting of the UN Security Council on non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction on Thursday.

‘We should definitely bring political trust and a systemic dialogue back to the international affair,’ Nazarbayev said, adding that ‘Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) may serve as a good example.’

The Iran nuclear deal has demonstrated a possibility of a successful multilateral diplomacy in the sphere of non-proliferation, the Kazakh president said.

This agreement became possible thanks to the atmosphere of trust establishing which is where Kazakhstan had made its contribution as well, he added.

‘I hope for further successful implementation of the JCPOA regardless of certain complications with fulfillment of their obligations by some of the parties to this Agreement.’

Hailing the partnership between Africa and the United Nations as “solid, and grounded on sound principles of human rights and good governance,” Secretary General, Antonio Guterres told leaders gathered in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, for the African Union Summit, that with Africa in the lead, “we can and will do more” to bolster successful cooperation throughout the continent.

“I stand here on behalf of the United Nations system and reaffirm our strong commitment to the member states and the people of Africa,” Mr. Guterres told the 30th Ordinary Session of the Assembly of the African Union (AU) on Sunday, adding: “I strongly believe Africa is one of the greatest forces for good in our world.”

The UN chief said that in just his first year in office, the Organization has entered a “new era” of partnership with the AU, recalling the holding of the first UN-AU Annual Conference at the summit level, as well as the signing of two landmark framework agreements, respectively on enhanced partnership in peace and security, and, just yesterday, on implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the African Union’s Agenda 2063.

Spotlighting these and other initiatives as key examples of the successful work the two organizations are carrying out across the continent, Mr. Guterres said this partnership could be further strengthened in five key areas: addressing corruption; cooperation in peace and security; inclusive and sustainable development; climate change; and international migration.

Combatting the “far-reaching and devastating” impact of corruption, tax evasion and illicit financial flows, a main theme of this year’s AU Summit, “requires an unimpeachable commitment to transparency and accountability,” he said, commending the decision to highlight this scourge, and offering the strong support of the UN. He also welcomed the designation of 2018 as African Anti-Corruption Year.

Specifically on international migration, the UN chief expressed that the global phenomenon not only powers economic growth, reduces inequalities and connects diverse societies but also help ride the demographic waves of population growth and decline

“We must maximize the benefits of orderly migration, while stamping out abuses and prejudice,” he said, highlighting the benefits of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration for all countries.

“I urge you to bring your moral leadership and unique experience to this important collective priority for 2018,” added Mr. Guterres.

On the peace and security sector, the UN chief expressed his appreciation to African governments for contributing troops and police to UN peacekeeping operations to help save lives and keep the peace around the world.

He, however, noted that UN peacekeeping is not the solution to all crisis situations, and said that partnership with the African Union and sub-regional organizations can be the means to address the varied contexts which necessitate peacekeeping, including peace enforcement and counter-terrorist operations.

On inclusive and sustainable development, Secretary-General Guterres expressed that the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and African Union’s Agenda 2063 are mutually reinforcing, and underscored the need to ensure sufficient means of implementation to ensure sustainable development.

But he acknowledged that while poverty elimination is a shared priority across the tow agendas, significant gaps persist, particularly with regard to industrialization, water, energy, infrastructure and the environment. “We must place quality education within the reach of all,” he underscored.

In that context, he urged all UN Member States to uphold their commitments to official development assistance ODA), outlined in the Addis Ababa Action Agenda on financing for development

Mr. Guterres also said the international community has a role to play in combating tax evasion, money laundering and the elimination of illicit financial flows that deprive Africa of its essential resources.

The UN chief also stressed that women and young people must lead the development agenda, stressing that: “Women’s full participation makes economies stronger and peace processes more successful.”

He said that around the world, there is skepticism about multilateralism. But he strongly believed that moving forward together, “the United Nations and the African Union can show that multilateralism is our best and only hope.”

On January 15, millions of Americans commemorated Martin Luther King’s Day. His famous speech, ‘I Have a Dream’ was repeated numerous times in media outlets as a reminder of the evil of racism, which is being resurrected in a most pronounced way in American society.

But that is only one version of Dr. King that is allowed to be broadcast, at least in polite company. The other, more revolutionary, radical and global King is to remain hidden from view.

Exactly one year before he was assassinated, on April 4, 1968, Dr. King delivered a truly scathing speech that challenged not only the state apparatus by the liberal hierarchy which posed as if they were his allies. It was called: “Beyond Vietnam”.

“We must stop now,” he said, his voice thundering. “I speak as a child of God and brother to the suffering poor of Vietnam. I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroyed, whose culture is being subverted.”

Then, he added these words, which sent much alarm among those who sought to isolate anti-war efforts from King’s own struggle:

“I speak of the – for the – poor of America who are paying the double price of smashed hopes at home, and death and corruption in Vietnam.”

Unlike the more famous speech ‘I Have a Dream’ – delivered in the 1963 ‘March on Washington’ – ‘Beyond Vietnam’ pushed past the boundaries of what is acceptable by ‘liberal’ America into whole new territories, where Dr. King’s anti-war and global solidarity values were unapologetically linked to the fight against racism and poverty at home.

On that day, the American civil rights struggle courageously broke free from the confines of American exceptionalism, to join a worldwide movement of struggles against racism, colonialism and war.

Unsurprisingly, Dr. King’s speech angered many members of White communities who were directly or indirectly affiliated with the Washington establishment.

Merely three days after the speech, the New York Times countered in its editorial: “There are no simple answers to the war in Vietnam or to racial justice in this country. Linking these hard-complex problems will lead not to solutions but to deeper confusion.”

In fact, there was no ‘confusion’, but total and complete clarity and coherence. To be truly meaningful, human rights values cannot be sectionalized and isolated from one another.

Yet, what alarmed the so-called liberals is the intellectual growth and awareness of the civil rights movement at the time, which matured enough to the point of pushing for greater integration among all struggles.

A more vibrant and empowered King, aged only 38 years at the time, seemed to have fully fathomed the link between the oppression of poor, Black Americans at home and the oppression of poor Vietnamese peasants abroad. They were all victims of what he dubbed the “giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism.”

Right there and then, King had achieved a revolutionary and terrifying idea that might have contributed to his assassination a year later, for many of his allies outside the Black communities began disowning him.

But this passage in particular gave me a pause, as I reflected on the plight of millions of refugees and poor migrants forced to leave their homes in Africa and the Middle East, driven by wars, corruption and extreme want.

“A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies,” he said.

“On the one hand, we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life’s roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day, we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life’s highway.”

The metaphor of the road – to salvation, freedom, safety – was particularly emotive and foretelling.

If Dr. King was alive, he would have certainly placed the refugees as a top priority in his “revolution of values.”

Africa in particular, is being robbed. Tens of billions of dollars are being siphoned out of the continent, while Black men and women are being sold for slavery, in Libya and elsewhere.

Libya was torn apart by the NATO-led war that left the country without a government. The war on Libya channeled massive armaments to neighboring African countries, leading to new wars or resuscitating old conflicts.

According to the United Nations, there are nearly 700,000 African refugees in Libya who hope to reach Europe. The latter, which has fueled the Libya conflict, has taken no responsibility for the crisis.

The International Organization for Migration (IOM) reported that 2,550 refugees and migrants died trying to cross to Europe from the Libyan coast in the first 9 months of 2017. One of every 50 persons who embarks on the journey dies on that tragic “Jericho Road.”

They do so while knowing the risk, because staying in Libya or going back home could mean a far worse fate.

While in Libya news reports speak of ‘slave markets’, in Israel, the country’s immigration ministry is offering civilians lucrative jobs to ‘locate, detain and monitor’ African refugees, who are all being pushed outside the country and thrown into other perilous regions.

In the US, the government and media, selectively exploit the legacy of Dr. King, but behave in ways that are completely contrary to the true values of that noble man.

The US military is expanding its operations in Africa faster than in any other part of the world. This means more weapons, more political instability, coups, wars and eventually millions more of poor men, women and children being driven to flee, often to their own demise.

The legacy of Dr. King, as presented in mainstream media, has become about the whitewashing of a racist, militaristic and materialistic system, although King himself has championed the exact opposite.

“Now let us begin,” he concluded in his anti-war speech. “Now let us rededicate ourselves to the long and bitter, but beautiful, struggle for a new world.”

50 years after his assassination, maybe it is time to truly listen.

Novak Djokovic, on returning to competitive tennis at the Australian Open, caused something of a a stir that a revolt in the game was brewing.  Was it about ball boys or girls, or his smooth unblemished victory against the unfortunate Donald Young?  Umpires and adjudications?  Nothing of the sort.  It was tennis players, and the old issue of remuneration.

At the first press conference, journalists picked up a scent from the ATP Tour player council president, a particularly pongy one, on a potential insurrection.  It was supposedly taking various forms: players pondering a potential boycott of next year’s Australian Open or a breakaway player’s union that would supply muscle in future negotiations.  A meeting of various players, orchestrated by Djokovic, had supposedly involved a lawyer to clarify the finer points of Australian labour law.

“Some of you have written a story that has been a little bit exaggerated,” shot back the Serb at the post-match conference. “You’ve taken things out of context. I saw that you’ve portrayed me as someone who is very greedy, asks for more money and wants a boycott.”

It was not a hard thing to do.  Monte Carlo, his domicile, doesn’t burden its residents with tax.  He was also the first player to earn more than $100 million in prize money, hardly a sign of struggling penury or starvation. In terms of athletes raking in the fortunes, Djokovic ranks highly – very highly.  On that score, it is also worth nothing the promise by Australian Open director Craig Tiley to boost the tournament prize money from $55 million to $100 million over the next five years.

Players, however, seemed to be reading from a different scoresheet.  What seemed to be a closed gathering of up to 150 players turned out to be a conversation “about certain topics.  I don’t think there is anything unhealthy about that.”  Otherwise, “not of much of what you have [written] is true.”  The turning rumour mill was not helped by a request by Djokovic to Tiley, and all non-players, to leave the meeting room.

Leaving aside the incongruent symbolism – the man with money bags, getting together with those of equal stature – pontificating about wanting more revenue, the plausibility, let alone wisdom, of having a union is harder to dispel.

“The problem with all of this,” claimed the first ranked player Rafael Nadal, “is when you talk about money.  At the end of the day is not about money.” While not wanting to be drawn specifically on Djokovic’s intervention, Nadal’s broad support, in a manner of speaking, was clear. For him, “at some point [it] is good that the players speak between each other about what we want or what we don’t want.”  Do not forget, he urged, the lower ranked players, for them to “have better money to survive.”

Tennis, in that sense, remains almost singular in being one of the top-tier sports of the world that lacks such a representative body for its players.  It is the golden goose that seemed to slip through the net, and sports officials are relieved to that end.

It would be a mistake, for instance, to attribute the characteristics of a union to the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP), which doubles up as both player association and organiser of the entire competitive circuit bar the four grand slams.  As former slam winner Andy Roddick notes, it was simply not possible “for an entity to represent both sides of a negotiation.  I’m amazed it’s not talked about more.”

Andy Murray’s mother, Judy, chimed in: “Totally agree.  What about an umbrella union that represents men and women?  That would give the players a much stronger voice to challenge the Slams and the joint ATP/WTA events. Better together.”

Support is certainly present for a move amongst players to a more standardised negotiation format.  This is probably unsurprising given the existence of collective bargaining agreements that undergird other codes.  The National Basketball Association has one which ensures a handsome distribution of 50 percent of the league’s revenue to players, along with 16 days off during the playing season.

In tennis, the return for players is a meagre 7 percent, certainly over the four grand slams (Australian, French, US Opens and Wimbledon), though these are managed by the International Tennis Federation and the respective national bodies in each host country,

As Braham Dabscheck notes, the professionalization of sports, the imposed restrictions on player mobility and ease of contracting, coupled with the phenomenon of sports broadcasting, altered the balance.  “Beginning in the 1940s and ’50s, players increasingly formed associations and challenged employment rules in the courts.”

Dabscheck further notes that such player associations advance a whole suite of programs and policies, from community projects to advancing the welfare agenda of players once they have retired.  And while it is easy to muddle the stars and tennis aristocrats with the toiling plebs, the issue remains.  Tennis has yet to join that regulated side of sports, remaining the great, and for administrators, defiant outlier.

A recent study published in Rheumatology suggests that women with rheumatoid arthritis suffer a greater decline in physical function following menopause. After studying 8189 women with rheumatoid arthritis, researchers found that pre-menopausal women experienced a slower physical decline than those that were post-menopausal.

Physical function is an important aspect of study in patients with rheumatoid arthritis as it impacts their quality of life. Women experience rheumatoid arthritis at a rate three times greater than men, and also have more severe decline and increased disability, yet the sex-based differences in the condition remain poorly understood.

Previous studies have shown that women with rheumatoid arthritis experience shifts in their disease surrounding reproductive and hormonal life events, such as childbirth. During pregnancy, women have decreased incidence of rheumatoid arthritis, yet they have an increased incidence of disease development and flare during the post-partum period. Similarly, women who experience early menopause are more likely to develop rheumatoid arthritis compared to those who experience normal or late menopause.

Given these connections between hormonal or reproductive life events and rheumatoid arthritis in women, researchers conducted an observational study to investigate the association of menopause with functional status in women with the disease. The results indicate that menopause has a significant impact on the level and rate of functional decline in women with rheumatoid arthritis and is associated with a worsening progression of the effects of the disease.

“Further study is needed as to why women with rheumatoid arthritis are suffering a greater decline in function after menopause,” said the paper’s lead author, Elizabeth Mollard. “Not only is this decline causing suffering for women, it is costly to both individuals and the healthcare system as a whole. Research is specifically needed on the mechanism connecting these variables with the eventual goal of identifying interventions that can maintain or improve function in postmenopausal women with rheumatoid arthritis.”

Researchers at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have built a superconducting switch that “learns” like a biological system and could connect processors and store memories in future computers operating like the human brain.

The NIST switch, described in Science Advances, is called a synapse, like its biological counterpart, and it supplies a missing piece for so-called neuromorphic computers. Envisioned as a new type of artificial intelligence, such computers could boost perception and decision-making for applications such as self-driving cars and cancer diagnosis.

A synapse is a connection or switch between two brain cells. NIST’s artificial synapse–a squat metallic cylinder 10 micrometers in diameter–is like the real thing because it can process incoming electrical spikes to customize spiking output signals. This processing is based on a flexible internal design that can be tuned by experience or its environment. The more firing between cells or processors, the stronger the connection. Both the real and artificial synapses can thus maintain old circuits and create new ones. Even better than the real thing, the NIST synapse can fire much faster than the human brain–1 billion times per second, compared to a brain cell’s 50 times per second–using just a whiff of energy, about one ten-thousandth as much as a human synapse. In technical terms, the spiking energy is less than 1 attojoule, lower than the background energy at room temperature and on a par with the chemical energy bonding two atoms in a molecule.

“The NIST synapse has lower energy needs than the human synapse, and we don’t know of any other artificial synapse that uses less energy,” NIST physicist Mike Schneider said.

The new synapse would be used in neuromorphic computers made of superconducting components, which can transmit electricity without resistance, and therefore, would be more efficient than other designs based on semiconductors or software. Data would be transmitted, processed and stored in units of magnetic flux. Superconducting devices mimicking brain cells and transmission lines have been developed, but until now, efficient synapses–a crucial piece–have been missing.

The brain is especially powerful for tasks like context recognition because it processes data both in sequence and simultaneously and stores memories in synapses all over the system. A conventional computer processes data only in sequence and stores memory in a separate unit.

The NIST synapse is a Josephson junction, long used in NIST voltage standards. These junctions are a sandwich of superconducting materials with an insulator as a filling. When an electrical current through the junction exceeds a level called the critical current, voltage spikes are produced. The synapse uses standard niobium electrodes but has a unique filling made of nanoscale clusters of manganese in a silicon matrix.

The nanoclusters–about 20,000 per square micrometer–act like tiny bar magnets with “spins” that can be oriented either randomly or in a coordinated manner.

“These are customized Josephson junctions,” Schneider said. “We can control the number of nanoclusters pointing in the same direction, which affects the superconducting properties of the junction.”

The synapse rests in a superconducting state, except when it’s activated by incoming current and starts producing voltage spikes. Researchers apply current pulses in a magnetic field to boost the magnetic ordering, that is, the number of nanoclusters pointing in the same direction. This magnetic effect progressively reduces the critical current level, making it easier to create a normal conductor and produce voltage spikes.

The critical current is the lowest when all the nanoclusters are aligned. The process is also reversible: Pulses are applied without a magnetic field to reduce the magnetic ordering and raise the critical current. This design, in which different inputs alter the spin alignment and resulting output signals, is similar to how the brain operates.

Synapse behavior can also be tuned by changing how the device is made and its operating temperature. By making the nanoclusters smaller, researchers can reduce the pulse energy needed to raise or lower the magnetic order of the device. Raising the operating temperature slightly from minus 271.15 degrees C (minus 456.07 degrees F) to minus 269.15 degrees C (minus 452.47 degrees F), for example, results in more and higher voltage spikes.

Crucially, the synapses can be stacked in three dimensions (3-D) to make large systems that could be used for computing. NIST researchers created a circuit model to simulate how such a system would operate.

The NIST synapse’s combination of small size, superfast spiking signals, low energy needs and 3-D stacking capability could provide the means for a far more complex neuromorphic system than has been demonstrated with other technologies, according to the paper.

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has condemned a new wave of arrests of journalists in Egypt as the authorities clamp down even harder on media freedom seven years after the massive demonstrations in Cairo’s Tahrir Square and two months before Field-Marshal Abdel Fattah el-Sisi runs for reelection as president.

Around 15 journalists and citizen-journalists have been questioned, arrested and imprisoned in the past four months, or have simply disappeared, and so far only two of them have been released. According to the information obtained by RSF, there have in all been around 30 names on a list of journalists sought by the security services.

The victims of the new wave of arrests include at least six journalists suspected of working with Mekameleen TV, an opposition TV channel linked to the banned Muslim Brotherhood that is broadcast in Egypt but is based in Turkey.

According to several Egyptian newspapers, the authorities are systematically rounding up Mekameleen TV contributors on the basis of information obtained by questioning intermediaries – now also detained ­– who were buying video from journalists on behalf of the TV channel.

Other freelance journalists – the exact number cannot be determined because of a lack of transparency on the part of authorities­ – have also been detained for allegedly spreading false information. All risk being tried for “membership of a banned group,” a charge widely used in political trials in Egypt.

“Seven years after a revolution in the name of democratic ideals, Egypt’s media freedom record is now disastrous,” RSF said. “Egypt has become one of the world’s biggest prisons for journalists, the crackdown gets harsher all the time, and media freedom has been completely throttled. There is now an urgent need for President Sisi to stop suppressing the country’s last independent voices and to stop treating journalists as his enemies.”

Mekameleen TV and critical journalists

Egyptian government hostility towards Mekameleen TV is not new. Arrests were made after the TV channel broadcast recordings of conversations in 2014 and 2015 that were very compromising for the army, but most of those detained in the first “Mekameleen affair” ended up being released.

This time, Egyptian human rights groups such as the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information (ANHRI) fear that those suspected of collaborating with Mekameleen TV are in the “police cooler” – an expression used for those arrested sometimes almost at random in the street or cafés who remain in provisional detention until prosecutors find something to justify their arrest.

No one knows the exact number or identity of those held. According to the occasional information emerging from hearings held to extend provisional detention, anything from five to ten people have been arrested in the latest Mekameleen affair. According to ANHRI, the only things they have in common is that they are “young and post on social networks or demonstrate.”

Ahmed el Sakhawy, a journalist suspected of working for Mekameleen TV who was arrested at his home on 25 September, was held incommunicado and was reported missing for 27 days. He is now one of those accused in the Mekameleen affair.

Neither the Egyptian authorities nor the Mekameleen TV management have so far responded to RSF’s request for information.

The journalists recently detained on suspicion of “spreading false information” or “membership of a banned group” also include Mohamed Hassan al Husseini, a young freelance cameraman who was arrested on a Cairo business street on 12 September as be was about to do a report on price hikes.

His family spent more than two weeks without any news of him. Asked about the possible reasons for his arrest., an Egyptian official speaking on condition of anonymity replied: “Some countries don’t like [journalists] covering embarrassing subjects.”

At least 27 journalists and citizen-journalists are currently detained in connection with their work in Egypt, which is ranked 161st out of 180 countries in RSF’s 2017 World Press Freedom Index.

Saudi Arabia’s Specialized Criminal Court convicted two Saudi human rights activists on January 25, 2018, solely for their human rights advocacy, Human Rights Watch said Sunday.

The charges against Mohammad al-Oteibi, sentenced to 14 years in prison, and Abdullah al-Attawi, sentenced to 7 years, included “forming an unlicensed organization” and other vague charges relating to a short-lived human rights organization they set up in 2013. None of the alleged “crimes” listed in the charge sheet resemble recognizable criminal behavior, and none of them took place after October 2013.

“Mohammad bin Salman’s reputation is tarnished by his justice system’s relentless campaign against government critics and human rights activists,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “Saudi Arabia should never have jailed al-Oteibi and al-Attawi on spurious charges, and their cases should be raised every time the Saudi government voices their plainly inadequate commitment to reform.”

Al-Oteibi and al-Attawi formed the Union for Human Rights along with two others in April 2013, but they were unable to obtain a license for the group because Saudi Arabia generally did not allow independent non-charity nongovernmental organizations at that time. Al-Oteibi fled to Qatar in March 2017, seeking protection from Qatari authorities, but Qatar deported him back to Saudi Arabia in May. The deportation violated customary international law’s prohibition on refoulement – that is, not to forcibly return anyone to a place where they would face a real risk of persecution, torture or other ill-treatment, or a threat to life.

Saudi human rights activists with direct knowledge of the case confirmed the convictions and sentences. Al-Oteibi and al-Attawi can appeal within 30 days.

Less than a month after the Union for Human Rights was formed, and after it issued several statements on social media, members were summoned for investigation. All of the founders promised to close the organization.

Nevertheless, in late April 2013, the group’s founders applied for registration with the Social Affairs Ministry, since reorganized as the Labor and Social Development Ministry. The ministry rejected the application in May.

In the rejection letter, which Human Rights Watch reviewed, the director general of charitable associations and institutions wrote that, “…in studying the application it became clear that it is not in line with the regulation on charitable foundations and associations … we advise you to await the issuance of the law on civil associations and institutions, which provides for the establishment of civil associations in the area of human rights.” Authorities issued the associations law in November 2015.

Authorities summoned al-Oteibi and al-Attawi again in March 2014, and both pledged to stop issuing statements and reports and not to participate in TV interviews.

According to the charge sheet, al-Oteibi and al-Attawi faced vague charges including for “their participation in forming an association and announcing it before acquiring the necessary license,” and “their participation in drafting, issuing, and signing a number of statements … over internet networks that include offending the reputation of the kingdom.” Al-Oteibi also was charged with “making international human rights organizations hostile to the kingdom by publishing on a social media site false reports about the kingdom…”

Though all the founders signed the pledge to halt all human rights activism, the charge sheet states that after monitoring his compliance with the pledge, “it became clear that [Mohammad al-Oteibi] continued with his previous path and a number of his violations of it were documented…” The “violations” the charge lays out, however, refer only to activities that supposedly occurred prior to the pledge, including “meeting members of and sympathizers with dissolved [Saudi Association on Civil and Political Rights]. The last meeting was on September 14, 2013.”

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

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

Saudi activists and dissidents currently serving long prison terms based solely on their peaceful activism include Waleed Abu al-Khair, Abdulaziz al-Shubaily, Mohammed al-Qahtani, Abdullah al-Hamid, Fadhil al-Manasif, Sulaiman al-Rashoodi, Abdulkareem al-Khodr, Fowzan al-Harbi, Raif Badawi, Saleh al-Ashwan, Abdulrahman al-Hamid, Zuhair Kutbi, Alaa Brinji, and Nadhir al-Majed. The activists Issa al-Nukheifi and Essam Koshak are currently on trial.

“Outlandish sentences against peaceful activists and dissidents demonstrate Saudi Arabia’s complete intolerance toward citizens who speak out for human rights and reform,” Whitson said.

Erosion in the international consensus on rebuilding the country must be reversed before it’s too late.

By Rakesh Sood

The attack by the Taliban gunmen at the Intercontinental Hotel in Kabul last weekend was a grim reminder of the deteriorating security environment in Afghanistan. The siege at the hotel lasted more than 12 hours and claimed 22 victims, including 14 foreigners, before the gunmen were neutralised.

Days earlier, in an interview with CBS, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani had said that Afghanistan is “under siege”, with “21 international terrorist groups operating in this country” and “factories producing suicide bombers”. He acknowledged that without U.S. support, the Afghan national army would not “last more than six months” and the government would collapse. This is a bleak assessment indeed coming from an insider who has seen the situation unravelling.

Deteriorating situation

Over the last 16 years, civilian casualties have mounted to 31,000, increasing progressively to over 4,000 a year. The Afghan security forces are losing nearly 7,000 men a year, an attrition rate difficult to sustain and twice the number of casualties that the international coalition forces suffered from 2001 till 2014 when they ceased combat operations and embarked on Operation Resolute Support to “advise, train and assist” the Afghan forces.

The U.S. has contributed significant blood and treasure, spending over a trillion dollars (considerably more if long-term veterans’ care is included) and losing more than 2,400 lives in pursuing the longest war in its history. Of this amount, about $120 billion has been spent on reconstruction and development, more than the inflation-adjusted expenditure under the Marshall Plan for rebuilding Western Europe after World War II. The rest of the international community has also contributed. India is a significant partner, having spent over $2 billion on humanitarian assistance, infrastructure building and human resource development, with an additional billion dollars committed.

U.S. President Donald Trump is determined to bring about a change in American policy and while authorising a limited increase in U.S. troop presence by 4,000 soldiers, has also been critical of Pakistan. On January 1 he tweeted: “The United States has foolishly given Pakistan more than 33 billion dollars in aid over the last 15 years, and they have given us nothing but lies & deceit, thinking of our leaders as fools. They give safe haven to the terrorists we hunt in Afghanistan, with little help. No more!” The tweet has been followed by a suspension of all military assistance to Pakistan. This has resulted in resentment in Pakistan but whether this will bring about a change in its army’s behaviour remains to be seen.

Eroding legitimacy

Meanwhile, the legitimacy of the National Unity Government (NUG) consisting of Mr. Ghani as President and Abdullah Abdullah as Chief Executive (a newly created position) is increasingly under question. Cobbled together after the disputed 2014 election with political backing from the Obama-Kerry team, the Chief Executive’s position was to be legitimised through a constitutional amendment creating the post of Prime Minister, which has not happened. Without a clear division of power and responsibility, relations between the President and his Chief Executive have remained strained. With presidential elections due next year, it is clear that the NUG experiment will not be repeated. It is hardly surprising that since end-2016, there are growing questions about the legitimacy of the present arrangement.

Meanwhile parliamentary elections, which were originally due in 2015, are yet to be held. Electoral reforms to ensure greater transparency have not been implemented. The decision to issue new election cards based on biometric voter registration has remained stillborn. The seven-member Independent Election Commission (IEC) and the five-member Electoral Complaints Commission were finally constituted in November 2016 after prolonged political wrangling between the President and the Chief Executive but the chairman of the IEC was sacked recently. While July 7 has been announced as the date for Wolesi Jirga (lower house) elections, most Afghans are certain that elections this year are highly unlikely.

Given that elections are funded by the international community and one election is likely to cost $250 million, it is highly probable that the presidential and parliamentary elections will be clubbed together in the middle of 2019, for reasons of economy. However, whether these elections can be held at all will depend upon security. Currently, Taliban controls over 50 districts while another 120 districts are contested, leaving more than 200 districts where the Afghan government exercises control. In other words, the current security situation will not permit elections to be held in nearly 45% of the territory of Afghanistan. This is enough to raise doubts about the legitimacy of any electoral outcome. It is true that the Taliban cannot secure a military victory as long as the U.S. is present, but it is equally true that their ability to disrupt peace, prevent reconstruction and hamper elections continues to grow.

Emergence of warlords

In December, Mr. Ghani announced that he had accepted the resignation of Balkh Governor Atta Mohammad Noor. Mr. Atta issued a denial, refused to step down and declared that he would arrest the new appointee Engineer Dawood if he entered the province. Mr. Atta is an influential leader of the Jamiat-i-Islami and had been in his current position for 13 years, emerging as the regional strong man. In earlier times, he had backed Dr. Abdullah but now he calls him ‘a snake’. When Kabul announced that his signatures were invalid and no provincial payments including salaries to officials would be forthcoming, Mr. Atta coolly declared that he would take control of the customs revenues from the Hairatan land port on the Uzbek border. He has been addressing public rallies questioning the authority of the government in Kabul.

The message has not been lost on other regional strong men. Vice President Abdul Rashid Dostum, the Uzbek leader, in Turkey since last May, has supported Mr. Atta. Mr. Dostum was forced into voluntary exile amid investigations into allegations that he had arranged for the kidnapping of a political opponent who had then been raped and tortured by him and his guards. Further west, Ismail Khan, a former minister in the Karzai cabinet and governor of Herat, can take charge of the lucrative trade route with Iran. In Kandahar, police chief Abdul Razik, who has been in his position since 2011, has resisted attempts to shift him. To his credit, he has delivered a measure of security in Kandahar, in sharp contrast to neighbouring Helmand. He also controls the Spin Boldak crossing into Balochistan. In doing so, he relies as much on his loyal Achakzai militia as on the official police.

The global imperative

The last two years have witnessed a significant shift in Russia’s position. While it has denied U.S. reports of having supplied weapons to the Taliban, Russia acknowledges that it has opened up communication channels and is prepared to both provide a venue and facilitate peace talks. At the recently concluded Raisina Dialogue in Delhi, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs Igor Morgulov described the Islamic State as the principal threat to Afghanistan and the region. He questioned as to how its fighters had been brought into northern Afghanistan in unmarked helicopters when the airspace is under U.S. control. The U.S. flatly rejects such insinuations and questioned Russian and Iranian motives in weakening the Kabul government by giving recognition to the Taliban.

After the fall of the Taliban in 2001, there was an international consensus on rebuilding Afghanistan and ensuring that it should not become a source of regional and global instability. That consensus has eroded over the last 16 years. Further, the Afghans who had returned in large numbers determined to reclaim their country and rebuild it are frustrated at the steady decline in both security and governance. The newly created Afghan institutions are unable to address the challenges without significant international support, both financial and material. However, with a breakdown in the international consensus, it may not be long before the slow fuse reaches ignition point. And 2019 may well become the critical year.

This article originally appeared in The Hindu.

By Wang Li*

In the wake of publication of a white paper titled “China’s Arctic Policy”, a wide range of questions are raised on Beijing’s intention, goal, means and behaviors in the future. It is quite understandable whenever a rising power, like China with the largest population and the second largest economy of the world, claims its legitimate right, either afar or near, the responses from the international society are always arguable, controversial and disputable as well. Due to this, it is necessary to examine the core concepts in first Arctic policy document of China.

Since the 1990s, China has substantively taken part in the Arctic affairs and carried out its extensive activities in Arctic and Antarctic research, which include five Arctic and 28 Antarctic missions, one state-owned Arctic Yellow River station and a protocol with Finnish company Aker Arctic Technology to construct a second ice breaker by 2014.Moreover, China has insisted that the future of the Arctic concerns the interests of the Arctic States, the well being of non-Arctic States and that of the humanity as a whole. Surely, the governance of the Arctic requires the participation and contribution of all stakeholders. As a major stakeholder and a responsible country, China is ready to cooperate with all relevant parties in terms of the basis of the principles of “respect, cooperation, win-win result and sustainability”.

In terms of legitimacy, China argues that all states should abide by international treaties such as the UN Charter and the UNCLOS, as well as general public law. Due to this, all states should firstly respect the sovereignty, sovereign rights, and jurisdiction enjoyed by the Arctic States in this region. China is not a member of the Arctic states club, but meanwhile, China insists on the respect of the rights and freedom of all non-Arctic states to carry out activities in this region in accordance with the law and conventions involved. Recently, China and Russia have held a series of talks on the possibilities of linking China’s Belt and Road Initiative to Russia’s plan of the Arctic development strategy. Consider Sino – Russian strategic partnership of consultation, China is ready to cooperate with Russia and all other relevant states to address the challenges brought by the changes in the region. Also as a rising economic power, China is willing to contribute to building a community with a shared future for mankind in terms of peace, stability and prosperity in the region.

In a practical term, the publication of the White Paper on China’s Arctic policy will be conducive to stepping up the norms and policy guidance for China’s activities in the region and provide the international society with a comprehensive and transparent understanding of China’s policies and propositions. It will serve to facilitate pragmatic cooperation between China and all relevant parties. Within the past decade, eleven countries have realized the need to appoint their own Arctic ambassadors. These ambassadors are used for analysis and situational assessments in the emerging “grand Arctic game,” with the ultimate aim of exploiting mineral resources and using the Arctic route for shipping cargo from Europe to Asia. In 2008, the U.S. Geological Survey released an assessment revealing that the Arctic accounts for about 13 percent of its undiscovered oil and 30 percent of its undiscovered natural gas, and 20 percent of its undiscovered natural gas liquids, not to mention the potential commercial benefits of cargo transportation through the Arctic or exactly the Northern Sea Route.

China is the largest consumer and importer of energy resources in the world but its vast geographical distance from the Arctic limits Beijing’s opportunity – at least in contrast to Arctic Council members (Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the U.S.) – to set the agenda and form a strategy for taking advantage of new Arctic opportunities. Yet, China claims the first Asian state to show interest and it has held normal talks with all member of the Arctic Council. Beijing argues that under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Arctic Ocean is a shipping commons, and that climate change has negative impacts on Chinese food security, especially with the flooding of its coastal areas.While China vows to respect the status quo in the Arctic,it also identifies itself as a “near-Arctic state”.

This concept has already become ingrained in the lexicon of Chinese scientists who are responsible for Arctic research.As a matter of fact, China has emphatically suggested the environmental monitoring, Arctic life protection and concerns about indigenous peoples. Beijing’s rhetoric aims at defining the Arctic as an international zone where changes must make sense for all countries and climate change is a core task for the highest levels of diplomacy. Alongside France and Germany, China sees an oil spill in the Arctic similar to that which occurred in 2010 in the Gulf of Mexico would have disastrous outcomes for global security. So it is spending around $60 million annually on polar research, is building a China-Nordic Research Center in Shanghai, and plans to increase the research staff by a factor of five, to 1000.

True, “scientific” diplomacy alone will not seem to be helping China join the most influential and important Arctic council as a permanent member state. Yet, making a challenge to the status quo by force is more than a disaster. Be aware of this reality, China presents its policy goals on the Arctic as follows: to understand, protect, develop and participate in the governance of the Arctic. Specifically, China stays committed to the existing framework of international law including the UN Charter and UNCLOS, and to building a community with a shared future for mankind in the Arctic region.No doubt, China pursues its own interests, but it will pay due regard to the core interests of the Arctic countries and the broader international community.

About the author:
*Wang Li is Professor of International Relations and Diplomacy at the School of International and Public Affairs, Jilin University China.

Source:
This article was published by Modern Diplomacy

By Dr Anastasia Aladysheva*

According to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) and the Financial Tracking Service (FTS), the number of people in need of humanitarian aid in 2017 rose to 141.1 million and they were located in 37 countries.

The Global Humanitarian Appeal stood at nearly $13 billion as of November 2017, which represented 58 per cent of the total fund target set for humanitarian assistance.(1) The gap between the appeal target and funds raised, however, has been widening in recent years (Figure 1), as has the number of people affected by disasters—both natural and human-induced (Figure 2).

The least funded countries towards their targets in 2017 were Senegal, which had 18 percent of its target funded, primarily for projects in the food security and nutrition sector; and Peru, which was 18.5 percent funded, primarily for water and sanitation projects.

The best covered country in terms of funding was Afghanistan, where 70 percent of funding requirements were met by donors, which included 100 per cent of the funding needs identified for food security and agriculture. Gross domestic product in these countries lags behind the world’s average: in Afghanistan it was just US$ 561 GDP per capita in 2016, in Senegal the figure was US$ 958 and in Peru US$ 6045.(2)

When disaster strikes, most efforts are directed at coordination and the first essential relief work (providing water, food, medicine and shelter). In the first 72 hours following the disaster, UNOCHA sends skilled first response staff to start coordinating assistance efforts between the government, and local and international actors. Many disasters are characterized as ‘sudden onset’, meaning that they abruptly disrupt basic services and infrastructure and must be addressed quickly by a multiplicity of actors in order to save lives. However, even in such situations, when a complex and immediate response is required, evaluations of humanitarian assistance are important.

In addition to the monitoring and evaluation efforts already in place in many international organizations, which track whether aid reaches the intended beneficiaries, the methodology set out below—adapted from evaluations used to assess development programmes—might help to answer similar questions in the humanitarian aid sphere:

• What is the magnitude of the impact of aid?                      
• What are the impacts of aid provided by a particular agency?
• How sustainable are these impacts?
• What amount of assistance is needed and at what frequency should it be delivered?
• Did certain groups within the affected population benefit more than others? If so, in what ways and to what extent were their livelihoods improved?
• Were there any unintended or negative consequences?
• Could aid be delivered in a more cost-effective way?

Since one of the international criticisms of humanitarian assistance is its lack of sustainability, addressing these questions in the recovery and resilience phases, which follow the relief phase in the three to six months after the disaster strikes, is especially important. The earthquake in Haiti in 2010 is one example of aid that failed to prevent an outbreak of cholera, which affected 6 per cent of the population over two years.(3) In Nepal, two years after the 2015 disaster, 70 percent of the affected population are still living in temporary shelters.(4) Recurring drought in Somalia continues to bring hunger to vulnerable populations despite international efforts to tackle the hunger crisis year after year.

Consider, for example, the provision of supplementary nutrition to impoverished households with young children during a food crisis. There are several ways to provide this nutrition: food delivery, food vouchers or cash. There are also several channels of distribution, for example by distributing the assistance to the head of household or directly to the mother of the young children. What is the most effective way to provide the nutrition assistance given the particular country context? If providing assistance to the head of household leads to the optimal distribution of resources across all household members, this is the optimal solution.

If, however, in contexts where the head of household is nearly always male, it leads to an unequal distribution of resources by limiting access by young children and women, then providing it to mothers may benefit the disadvantaged members of the household. Providing assistance directly to a woman rather than a man, however, could put a woman at risk in the most male-dominated societies. Famine is not always about there not being enough food. Providing food vouchers or cash in the absence of functioning food markets, however, will not be an effective solution. An impact evaluation helps to answer some of these questions.

What is the magnitude of the impact of aid? To be able to understand the process of how joint humanitarian efforts affect selected nutritional and health outcomes, nutritional, health and other data should be collected, ideally both before and after the assistance is distributed at the individual, household and community levels.

What are the impacts of aid provided by a particular agency? To answer this question, it is important to define an identification strategy that is able to attribute impact to a particular intervention. First, it is desirable to have a comparable ‘sample’ to which it was not possible to provide an intervention, or which received an intervention at a later stage, to compare with the intervention group that received assistance. Having a control group helps to eliminate parallel ‘shocks’ that may influence both groups at the same time and which are not due to the intervention. To guarantee fair allocation and comparability, both samples must be selected on a random basis before the intervention—in a randomized control trial.

In a humanitarian context, however, it is often the case that large areas or a large number of the population are affected (a high co-variability problem), or there would be ethical considerations around the agency delaying assistance any longer than necessary. Therefore, withholding assistance from a certain group of the population could not be considered. However, when resources are limited, or the intervention has potential side-effects as in public health programmes, (5) random selection could still be considered. The impact is the difference between the intervention group and the comparison group before and after the programme (see Table 1).

Another solution would be to start evaluating the programme after the intervention. In such cases, the evaluation team must rely on existing data available on the community before the disaster.

How sustainable are these impacts? In this case, researchers return to collect additional waves of data at a later stage (medium to long term). The nature of the intervention defines the timeline of the evaluation. In the case of nutritional programmes, the research team may come back after six months, one year or even longer, depending on the scale of the programme and the availability of resources.

What amount of assistance is needed and at what frequency should it be delivered? An impact evaluation team should perform rigorous statistical analyses using the data collected. It is therefore important to ensure that the data contains full information on the outcome indicators that the implementation team was aiming to improve, such as health indicators, the dietary diversity of all household members, and so on. Questions specific to the intervention should be formulated—and if possible piloted in advance—in a such a way that it is possible to learn detailed lessons about the impact of the programme.

Did certain groups within the affected population become better off than others? If so, in what ways and to what extent were their livelihoods improved? The most vulnerable are usually hit the hardest by disasters. Together with the implementation team, the impact evaluation team should help to identify the intervention target group. During humanitarian emergencies, it is important that data on displacement and an existing census or similar data are accessible to the research team.

Were there any unintended or negative consequences? When providing household-targeted interventions, it is essential to understand how resources are redistributed among all members of the households and whether certain groups have restricted access. Therefore, even though this requires more financial resources, surveying all household members is essential.

Could aid be delivered in a more cost-effective way? Impact evaluations using randomized control trials(6)(7) can and have helped to identify the type of assistance—providing in-kind food, food vouchers or cash—that is most efficient or appropriate—in terms of both cost and effectiveness—for the target population and the conditions on the ground. The implementation and research team should identify the needs of the population and the context in which the intervention will take place before the intervention starts, using interviews during field visits and desk research.

To summarize, all the nuances of the intervention must be considered in order to be able to design an impact evaluation. Therefore, the implementation and impact evaluation teams should synergize to guarantee that all the available information is accessible to both.

The main advantage of a rigorous impact evaluation is that it contains a set of components that have been tested in many development programmes and that in combination can help to tease out unbiased impacts. Some methodologies—such as randomized control trials—are flexible enough to be adjusted to the humanitarian context and complement the existing monitoring and evaluation methodologies of humanitarian agencies. The key recommendations to humanitarian agencies are therefore:

• Learn about where disasters may unfold and where assistance may be most required. Many natural disasters happen in the same geographic areas. Collect comprehensive data on the populations and local environments likely to be affected that will be useful in times of disaster.
• Prepare and design impact evaluations in advance that are specific to the types of intervention the agency conducts.

As the climate changes, it is highly likely that the number and scale of disasters will grow in the coming years. The need for humanitarian assistance is therefore also likely to increase. This creates an urgency to ensure that humanitarian aid is spent in the most effective and efficient way.

About the author:
*Dr Anastasia Aladysheva is a Senior Researcher with the Peace and Development Programme.

Source:
This article was published by SIPRI

Notes:
1. UNOCHA. https://www.unocha.org/story/global-humanitarian-appeal-hits-record-225…

2. Data from the World Bank, <https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?name_desc=false&gt;.

3. Cook, J., ‘7 years after Haiti’s earthquake, millions still need aid: The resilience of the Haitian people has endured through years of natural disasters’, Huffpost, 1 Dec. 2017, <https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/haiti-earthquake-anniversary_us_58…;.

4. Ojha, H., Baldry, E. and Shrestha, K., ‘Two years after the earthquake, why has Nepal failed to recover?’, Reliefweb, 12 May 2017, <https://reliefweb.int/report/nepal/two-years-after-earthquake-why-has-n…;

5. Lorenc, T. and Oliver, K.  J., ‘Adverse effects of public health interventions: a conceptual framework’,  Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, vol. 68, no 3 (Mar. 2014), pp. 288–290.

6. Aker, J.C., 2013. Cash or Coupons? Testing the Impacts of Cash versus Vouchers in the Democratic Republic of Congo. SSRN Electronic Journal, pp.1–51.

7. Hidrobo, M. et al., Impact evaluation of cash, food vouchers, and food transfers among Colombian refugees and poor Ecuadorians in Carchi and Sucumbíos. documents.wfp.org.

Facing dreadful shortages in its stockpile of Iranophobia necessary to scuttle the much-dreaded Iran nuclear deal, the Trump administration is now trying a more nuanced game by throwing an indirect jab, through Yemen. Thus, on Monday, January 29th, Washington is playing host to the UN Security Council members, by providing an exclusive tour of the missile debris that allegedly carries Iran’s signature, followed by a White House hospitality where Mr. Trump can, for a moment at least, shed his notorious UN-bashing habit and try to persuade the Council members about the imminent threat to world peace posed by Iran’s ballistic missiles.

Basking in this glory is, of course, the combative ambassador Nikki Haley, who is contemplating a relatively easy sell after the December dress rehearsal, when she played missile expert and claimed to show “irrefutable” evidence of Iranian mischief behind the Yemense Houthis’ missile attacks on their Saudi adversary, even though some of that evidence, according to a UN panel of experts, also showed some “US-made components” without however anyone in Washington on New York bothering to focus on that particular finding, which can of course be troublesome if, God forbid, it is traced to a US supplier.

Assuming for a moment that the Houthi rebels have somehow smuggled those US-made components to upgrade their pre-war arsenal of missiles, the question then is what would prevent them to also smuggle Iran-made components, given the state of lucrative arms black market today? Another question is how come the Saudis have not made the similar cry about the Houthi missile that was supposedly intercepted on January 20th?

The likely answer is that the so-called Iran “evidence” is a one-shot deal, somehow procured, and here one cannot rule out the role of sinister copy cats particularly by the ever industrious Israelis, and that the more recent missile has none of the Iranian fingerprints, in which case one must ask why would the Houthis need Iran’s assistance in the first place for their (short-range) missiles when they already have plenty to play around with, loosely stated.

But of course, it is perfectly legitimate to ask the much more pressing question regarding the inhuman, on-going atrocities against a whole population in Yemen perpetrated by the Saudis and their allies, who have managed to trap the UN in one of its most shameful episodes — of imposing a one-way arms embargo on the Houthis while giving green light to the US and British-backed Saudi-led coalition to throw Yemen back to the stone age, above all by their indiscriminate bombings of civilian infrastructure, hospitals, schools, markets, etc., thus causing what the UN has labeled as the largest humanitarian disaster in the world today.

Seeking to deflect attention from the Saudi war crimes and US’s own complicity, the Trump administration is now zeroing in on Iran’s conventional missiles in order to, as the saying goes, hit several birds with one stone, that is, on the one hand to cast blame for the Yemen war on Iran and its alleged “proxies” in Yemen and, on the other, to gain leverage in its current bid to introduce fresh restrictions on Iran’s missile program, pegged to the Iran nuclear accord as one of the 4 provisions introduced by the White House in its “fix it or nix it’ frenzy.

Concerning the latter, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, has now announced the formation of “working committees” consisting of US, France, England, and Germany, on various Iran (nuclear and non-nuclear) issues, stating that it has not yet been decided if Iran should be “engaged” on some of those issues at some point.

In other words, acting as the ‘New Rome,’ Washington now is clearly deluding itself that it can dictate terms to Iran, as if Iran is a helpless Melos where, to quote Thucydides, “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must;” the new American tendency to replace the demons of Iranian “hegemony” with this totally disrespectful attitude, disrespectful of Iran’s power and regional clout, is symptomatic of a perpetual misperception denude of balance and objectivity, inviting disaster. This is a crucial point that, one can only hope, one of the brave ambassadors courted in Washington on Monday, can raise with their hosts, who have few ideas of how to promote peace in war-torn Yemen, and plenty on how to fuel it further by demonizing Iran.

Conventional electronics rely on controlling electric charge. Recently, researchers have been exploring the potential for a new technology, called spintronics, that relies on detecting and controlling a particle’s spin. This technology could lead to new types of more efficient and powerful devices.

In a paper published in Applied Physics Letters, from AIP Publishing, researchers measured how strongly a charge carrier’s spin interacts with a magnetic field in diamond. This crucial property shows diamond as a promising material for spintronic devices.

Diamond is attractive because it would be easier to process and fabricate into spintronic devices than typical semiconductor materials, said Golrokh Akhgar, a physicist at La Trobe University in Australia. Conventional quantum devices are based on multiple thin layers of semiconductors, which require an elaborate fabrication process in an ultrahigh vacuum.

“Diamond is normally an extremely good insulator,” Akhgar said. But, when exposed to hydrogen plasma, the diamond incorporates hydrogen atoms into its surface. When a hydrogenated diamond is introduced to moist air, it becomes electrically conductive because a thin layer of water forms on its surface, pulling electrons from the diamond. The missing electrons at the diamond surface behave like positively charged particles, called holes, making the surface conductive.

Researchers found that these holes have many of the right properties for spintronics. The most important property is a relativistic effect called spin-orbit coupling, where the spin of a charge carrier interacts with its orbital motion. A strong coupling enables researchers to control the particle’s spin with an electric field.

In previous work, the researchers measured how strongly a hole’s spin-orbit coupling could be engineered with an electric field. They also showed that an external electric field could tune the strength of the coupling.

In recent experiments, the researchers measured how strongly a hole’s spin interacts with a magnetic field. For this measurement, the researchers applied constant magnetic fields of different strengths parallel to the diamond surface at temperatures below 4 Kelvin. They also simultaneously applied a steadily varying perpendicular field. By monitoring how the electrical resistance of the diamond changed, they determined the g-factor. This quantity could help researchers control spin in future devices using a magnetic field.

“The coupling strength of carrier spins to electric and magnetic fields lies at the heart of spintronics,” Akhgar said. “We now have the two crucial parameters for the manipulation of spins in the conductive surface layer of diamond by either electric or magnetic fields.”

Additionally, diamond is transparent, so it can be incorporated into optical devices that operate with visible or ultraviolet light. Nitrogen-vacancy diamonds — which contain nitrogen atoms paired with missing carbon atoms in its crystal structure — show promise as a quantum bit, or qubit, the basis for quantum information technology. Being able to manipulate spin and use it as a qubit could lead to yet more devices with untapped potential, Akhgar said.

Everyone is talking about Bitcoin. It is everywhere. In fact, Bitcoin is a payment system, a cryptocurrency which is being used worldwide and known as the first digital currency that is decentralized as it works without a single administrator or a central bank. The network is configured peer-to-peer as the transaction is done between users by the use of cryptography with no intermediary involved. The transactions are stored in a distributed ledger known as a blockchain and network nodes verify these transactions. I

t was in August 2008 when bitcoin.org was registered and in the same year, Satoshi Nakamoto authored a paper titled Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System which was sent to cryptography mailing list. The bitcoin software was executed as an open source code and was released in January 2009 when Nakamoto mined the first block on the chain for 50 bitcoins’ reward, called genesis block. Amazingly, the identity of Nakamoto remains unknown till today.

The bitcoin works the same way as the paper money with some notable differences. The primary form of the currency is data which is traded online, by the use of wallet software, peer-to-peer or as an online service. It can be used to book hotel, shop online, order pizza or coffee, buy ticket or buy games. The bitcoin can be exchanged by the services, products or goods with people who use it or through mining. By February 2015, more than 100,000 vendors and merchants were using bitcoin as a payment. In 2017, the currency has jumped up exponentially and around 6million users are recorded using cryptocurrency wallet out of which majority used bitcoin as a payment according to the research done recently.

Nonetheless, in recent days, the use of bitcoin has seen drastic increase due to many features. International payments are being done because it is easy and cheap. There are no regulations associated with it and no country involved. There is no central bank but its demand is boosting up day by day. In addition, there is no credit card fees and due to this reason, bitcoin is getting popular in small enterprises. Besides, there are majority of individuals all over the world who are purchasing it as an investment hoping to get benefitted from the high value. The money transferred between two individuals through bitcoin cannot be traced and identity of receiver and sender also remains unknown that’s the reason it is becoming a popular choice for transferring funds amongst criminals.

If we look at how it works, we come to know that this digital currency is stored in a digital wallet which exists on user’s computer or in cloud. This wallet allows the user to receive or send bitcoin, save money or pay for services or goods. But importantly, unlike other money and bank accounts, FDIC does not insure bitcoin money.

There are many weaknesses and drawbacks of bitcoin currency but there are two major ones; first, if wallet is stored in cloud, it’s server can be hacked and companies can flee with clients’ bitcoin. A second weakness is if it is stored on computer, it can be deleted accidentally or by viruses and whole data can be gone.

The biggest strength of bitcoin is that there is no capital control of it. No government controls or places limits on the amount of money which can be taken out or withdrawn from the country.

Though it is hard to identify one factor which helped the bitcoin to maintain its meteoric rise but there are number of global events which conspired the perfect storm for bitcoin rise.

In 2013, in order to bail out the banking institutions from collapse, the Cyprus government limited the ATM withdrawals to 260 euro per day and later on this amount was squeezed to 100 Euro. This decision made a drastic impact on individual’s ability to transfer funds abroad. Later in 2015, when Greek government sensed the emerging threat of Euro leaving, it also limited the use of ATM withdrawals and in addition it blocked all international card transactions. This governmental decision left Greeks citizen destitute who remained unable to access their funds abroad. Soon after the Cyprus and Greece made capital controls on their banking institutions, the price of bitcoin surged because it was the digital and unstoppable way to eschew capital controls. It easily allowed Cypriots and Greeks to transfer their assets and money abroad.

Undoubtedly, avoiding capital control became one of the sole reason for bitcoin to come into mainstream in Greece as evident from bitcoin ATMs which are soon to be an ordinary ATM in Greece whereas it is still a novel idea in rest of the world. In China, bitcoin is still enduring popularity where Government has restricted the money at $50,000 to be taken out from the country which is a serious problem for majority of ultra-rich Chinese.

Moreover, Bitcoin received a strong boost as Donald Trump was elected as the US President. His proposal on taxing money transfer from USA to Mexico led to a surge in interest in cryptocurrency. In April 2017, Japan started accepting tokens as a lawful currency and Russia also shown its intention to regulate the currency in 2018 in order to fight money laundering.

These events led to the surge of bitcoin value which has witnessed two thousand percent increase in the year 2017. The value tracker of cryptocurrency Coindesk placed the value of one bitcoin equivalent to $997.69. on January 1, 2017. On December 2017, the value reached $19,343.

Many countries like Australia, Japan and China are taking serious notes about lack of control over the virtual currency and are in process of making regulations.

The future of bitcoin is uncertain due to lack of consumer protection rights but many hope that it will be used for buying and selling of every stuff and most importantly illegal transfer of money will get most use of it.

*Zaheema Iqbal is a student of International Relations at National Defense University, Islamabad. Her areas of interest are radicalization, extremism, terrorism, cyber security, cyber warfare, cyber terrorism, cyber threats, critical infrastructure, cyber vulnerabilities and can be reached at zaheemaeckbaull@gmail.com. 

The chance to get rich quick by investing in a penny stock, even if it is widely suspected that the stock price is being manipulated, is too tempting for some investors to resist.

New research from the University of Chicago Booth School of Business finds that some investors actually seek out stocks suspected of “pump-and-dump” schemes, despite the risks and warnings from financial experts, in hopes of winning big, akin to the lottery.

In the working paper, “Who Falls Prey to the Wolf of Wall Street? Investor Participation in Market Manipulation,” from Chicago Booth Professor Christian Leuz, Leibniz University of Hanover’s Steffen Meyer, Humboldt University of Berlin’s Maximilian Muhn, Harvard’s Eugene Soltes and Goethe University of Frankfurt’s Andreas Hackehtal, the group of economists examine the German stock market, asking who invests in these schemes and how often.

Contrary to the popular understanding that people who invest in these stock schemes are duped into doing so, the researchers find evidence that some investors participate knowing the risks, taking a gamble that they will eventually win big.

“We identify several distinct types of investors, some of which should not be viewed as falling prey to these frauds,” the researchers say in the paper. “For these investors, speculation or gambling are more likely to be the motive.”

Few strategies for financial fraud are as broadly familiar as pump-and-dump schemes–in which promoters acquire a position in a cheap stock that is highly illiquid and artificially raise the price by disseminating false or misleading information. The limited liquidity leads to fast price increases when demand for the stock rises. Once the stock reaches a high enough price, the promoters sell their shares causing a rapid decline in the share price and significant losses for other investors.

The tactic is common in capital markets around the world, and have featured prominently in films such as The Wolf of Wall Street and Boiler Room. But little has been known about which investors take the bait.

“We identify several distinct types of investors, some of which should not be viewed as falling prey to these frauds,” the researchers say in the paper. “For these investors, speculation or gambling are more likely to be the motive.”

The researchers examined 421 pump-and-dumps between 2002 and 2015, based on data from the Germany regulatory authority and the trading records of more than 110,000 individual investors in Germany.

Of these investors, 6,569 individuals–nearly 6 percent of the sample–took part in pump-and-dump schemes, investing an average 11.4 percent of their portfolio’s overall value and sustaining an average loss of nearly 30 percent.

The average investor in these schemes was an older, married male not residing in a big city, who had a high self-assessed risk tolerance, the researchers find. Blue-collar workers, retirees, and the self-employed were also more likely to invest in these schemes.

While these characteristics describe investors who participate in touted stocks, they don’t necessarily predict who participates. Past trading behavior is a better indicator, the researchers say. More than 35 percent of pump-and-dump investors were day-trading in penny stocks or were frequent traders with short-term horizons, taking substantial risks and trading aggressively before they participated in the schemes.

The research provides several insights that could help regulators design effective investor protection against pump-and-dump schemes. Interventions–such as prompts to take more time before making investment decisions and to think about whether funds look suspicious–could help protect some investors. But, the researchers warn that these techniques are less likely to work for the subset of investors who intentionally seek out such schemes for the sheer thrill of it and the possibility of big, quick gains.

Brexit is one the greatest threats to women’s rights and social inclusion, a new study in the Journal of Social Policy and Society reports.

Researchers from the University of Surrey and University of Canterbury, New Zealand, investigated the potential impact of Brexit on gender equality in the UK and examined the country’s previous voting record in the Council of the European Union on such issues.

They found that gender equality in the UK is potentially at risk following the country’s withdrawal from the European Union, as business interests have historically taken precedence over women’s rights when negotiating terms with the EU. Silence on this issue during ongoing Brexit discussions, which have focused mainly on trade, and a recent vote against amendments to the European Withdrawal Bill that was aimed at safeguarding rights under the 2010 Equality Act, has led researchers to the conclusion that gender equality policies are likely to become watered down as a result.

This perceived attack on fundamental rights is further strengthened by the UK’s poor record in protecting the rights of women. Researchers point to the UK’s resistance of the Pregnant Workers Directive, on the basis that it was going to be too costly for employers, as a clear example of business interests taking precedence over those of females.

Additionally the UK’s restrained position on gender balance on corporate boards and a desire to avoid regulation in this area, shows a preference to preserve the status quo within businesses, which is often discriminatory towards women. Researchers warn that the exit of the UK from the EU could lead to the collapse of fairness standards in the industry without minimum EU standards.

Professor Roberta Guerrina, Head of Politics at the University of Surrey, said: “Brexit poses the greatest modern day threat to women’s rights and gender equality policies in the UK. European legislation affords a degree of protection to women in the UK, but once we leave Europe there is no guarantee that the same levels of protection will remain intact.

“Women’s reproductive rights are particularly vulnerable to attack. As business production remains more valued than reproduction, the interests of business are likely to trump other fundamental principles such as equality in the workplace.”

Mathematicians have devised a way of calculating the size of a tsunami and its destructive force well in advance of it making landfall by measuring fast-moving underwater sound waves, opening up the possibility of a real-time early warning system.

The sound waves, known as acoustic gravity waves (AGWs), are naturally occurring and can be generated in the deep ocean after tsunami trigger events, such as underwater earthquakes.

They can travel over 10 times faster than tsunamis and spread out in all directions, regardless of the trajectory of the tsunami, making them easy to pick up using standard underwater hydrophones and an ideal source of information for early warning systems.

In a new study published in the Journal of Fluid Mechanics, scientists from Cardiff University have shown how the key characteristics of an earthquake, such as its location, duration, dimensions, orientation, and speed, can be determined when AGWs are detected by just a single hydrophone in the ocean.

More importantly, once the fault characteristics are found, calculating the tsunami amplitude and potential destructive force becomes more trivial, the researchers state.

Lead author of the study Dr Usama Kadri, from Cardiff University’s School of Mathematics, said: “By taking measurements of acoustic gravity waves, we basically have everything we need to set off a tsunami alarm.” Underwater earthquakes are triggered by the movement of tectonic plates on the ocean floor and are the main cause of tsunamis.

Tsunamis are currently detected via dart buoys – floating devices that are able to measure pressure changes in the ocean caused by tsunamis. However, the technology relies on a tsunami physically reaching the dart buoys, which could be problematic if the buoys are close to the shoreline.

The current technology also requires the distribution of a huge number of buoys in oceans all around the world, which is very costly.

“Though we can currently measure earthquakes using seismic sensors, these do not tell us if tsunamis are likely to follow,” Dr Kadri continued.

“Using sound signals in the water, we can identify the characteristics of the earthquake fault, from which we can then calculate the characteristics of a tsunami. Since our solution is analytical, everything can be calculated in near real-time.

“Our aim is to be able to set off a tsunami alarm within a few minutes from recording the sound signals in a hydrophone station.”

AGWs are naturally occurring sounds waves that move through the deep ocean at the speed of sound and can travel thousands of metres below the surface.

AGWs can measure tens or even hundreds of kilometres in length and it is thought that certain lifeforms such as plankton, that are unable to swim against a current, rely on the waves to aid their movement, enhancing their ability to find food.

The current tension in Russo-American ties is likely to persist in the next few years. Would it have an impact on ASEAN?

By Christopher Cheang*

Russia-US relations are strained by well-known differences: Ukraine, Syria, arms control issues, perceived Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential election, and the long-held Russian standpoint that the West, especially the US has been meddling not only in Russia’s domestic affairs but also in the former Soviet republics, its perceived sphere of influence.

However, this troubling aspect of international relations has not had any discernible impact thus far on ASEAN and its relationship with both major powers. Russia does not appear to seek to challenge the US in ASEAN, unlike in the Ukraine or Syria, judging by the words of the Russian Ambassador to Singapore, Andrei Tatarinov. This was the message that came across from his presentation at the Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS), on 28 September 2017.

Russia’s Policy in Asia

The ambassador stressed that “Russia’s policy in Asia is deliberate and focused, aimed at a truly stable balance of power and pursuing a cohesive regional agenda. The clear commitment of Russia is to ensure stability, security and prosperity in Asia, to develop relations with the regional partners, both in bilateral and multilateral formats”. He said these objectives were outlined clearly in the new Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation approved by President Vladimir Putin in November 2016.

Secondly, ASEAN itself does not have any troubling issues in its relations with Russia – there is neither an ideological challenge nor a perceived national security threat posed by Russia. Hence, there are no political obstacles to any ASEAN interest in enhancing its political, economic/trade links with Russia.

Thirdly, as argued in an earlier commentary, Russia’s foreign policy focus is on Europe and the West, despite its declaratory statements to the contrary. Russia’s military and diplomatic resources are currently concentrated in the Middle East, specifically Syria. Hence, ASEAN is not on Russia’s list of immediate foreign policy priorities to which substantial resources must be devoted.

Fourthly, China perceives ASEAN and the Asia-Pacific region as its sphere of influence, and is challenging the US in the whole region. Hence, it would neither look kindly upon nor countenance any Russian attempt to assert its influence in the region vis-à-vis the US and act as another factor in the big power struggle for influence.

Fifthly, the US too would not have an interest in seeing Russian power and influence rise in ASEAN. ASEAN’s economic/trade links on the whole with the US are stronger than those with Russia. It is inconceivable that these links would drastically weaken or disappear in the foreseeable future, even in the face of an isolationist America under President Donald Trump.

Possible Challenge to ASEAN

Russia and the US have taken a number of measures against each other over the last year, including actions against each other’s media outlets. The most significant measure taken by the US against Russia which bear watching was the December 2017 National Security Strategy (NSS) which identified Russia and China as competitors and rivals to US power, influence and interests.

Another critical move was the August 2017 US sanctions bill, entitled Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act. The sanctions bill appears to be of real concern to Russia – President Putin himself made his concerns known during a meeting with chief editors of the Russian media on 11 January 2018, stressing that Russia “will respond accordingly”. “Any steps towards any restrictions and, obviously, any unlawful sanctions,” he added, “will damage rather than improve our relations with the United States.” The sanctions bill too might become an issue for ASEAN to deal with as well.

An insightful commentary on the bill by a Russian academic reveals Moscow’s concerns in some detail. Professor Konstantin Khudoley, writing in the December 2017 issue of the respected journal, Russia in Global Affairs (RGA), argues that the bill “sets the most stringent policy towards Russia throughout the post-Soviet years”.

He concludes that the sanctions “are aimed at pushing Russia out of global economic and political processes as much as possible and sidelining it to the periphery of the world economy and politics”. The sanctions bill range from Russian activities in the financial, energy, cyber-security sectors to foreign sanctions evaders and human rights abusers in Russia.

The bill also requires the US Treasury, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of State, to submit to the appropriate congressional committees not later than 180 days (due by the end of January) a detailed report. This report would focus on senior political figures and oligarchs close to President Putin, their net worth and those of their family members, “indices of corruption” relating to them, and the identification of their non-Russian business affiliations.

ASEAN Relations with US, Russia

The challenge would be whether the detailed provisions and above all, their full implementation, could affect, in one way or another, ASEAN’s current and future economic/trade links with Russia. Much would depend on the US’ perception of these links.

It is an accepted fact that big power rivalry and tussle over influence has been, is and will continue to be present in ASEAN. Thus far, the principals involved are China and the US. However, economic ties have all too often fallen victim to political and geostrategic and geopolitical considerations.

ASEAN values its current relationship with the US and Russia on all fronts. But it also places a premium on its ability to make decisions on its own, based on the merits of the case(s). One might find instructive the view of Fyodor Lukyanov, Editor-in-Chief of the RGA and a leading observer of Russia’s foreign policy, when he wrote recently in RGA that “Russian-American relations are not the core of world politics that overshadows the rest, as it used to be”. “It is impossible now,” he added, “to force other countries to do what the “heavyweights want.”

*Christopher Cheang is a Senior Fellow at the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

Austerity policies lie at the heart of soaring homelessness across England, with serious health implications for those affected, argue experts in The BMJ.

Mark Fransham and Danny Dorling at the University of Oxford say action is needed on issues of welfare reform and the housing market to help those caught up in this crisis.

The number of people officially recorded as sleeping on the streets of England rose from 1,768 in 2010 to 4,751 in 2017, but charities estimate the true figure to be more than double this, they write.

There has also been an increase in homeless families housed by local authorities in temporary accommodation, rising from 50,000 in 2010 to 78,000 in 2017. And in London alone there are an estimated 225,000 “hidden homeless” people aged 16-25 – arranging their own temporary accommodation with friends or family.

Homelessness also carries both physical and mental risks to health, including respiratory conditions, depression, anxiety, unintentional injury and excess winter mortality, they add. At the extreme end, when last calculated (for 2001-09) single homeless people had an average age at death of 47 years, compared with 77 years for the general population.

Fransham and Dorling argue that the recent rise in homelessness has its roots in welfare reform and the housing market, almost entirely accounted for by an increase in families losing their privately rented housing.

They point to likely causes, including upward pressure on housing costs coupled with reduced availability of affordable social housing since the early 1980s, reduced funding for supporting vulnerable people with their housing (cut by 59% in real terms since 2010), and restrictions on housing benefit for lower income families.

What can be done to help those caught up in this crisis, they ask?

They point to several initiatives, such as the development of specialist primary healthcare services for homeless people, and the “housing first” model, which provides a secure tenancy for rough sleepers before associated problems like substance misuse and ill health are addressed.

This approach has been given some of the credit for the success of Finland’s strategy, the only European country where homelessness has recently fallen, they explain – and is now being piloted in Liverpool, Manchester, and Birmingham, with estimated potential annual savings of £3m-£5m.

“What is needed is a comprehensive strategy that improves services for vulnerable people, an increased supply of affordable housing, more security of tenancies, adequate cash benefits to cover the rising cost of housing, and more efficient use of our existing housing stock,” they conclude.