By Sarantis Michalopoulos

(EurActiv) — Europe has to decide what to do in case the US makes good on its threat to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal and re-impose sanctions on Iran. The alternative is to agree to tighter terms proposed by Washington that could hit European companies.

The EU says it fully supports the nuclear deal and some analysts and MEPs say it should not cave in to pressure from Washington. Others, however, say it should comply with demands from its biggest security partner.

In light of growing concerns in the business community, an EU spokesperson told EURACTIV.com that the bloc always seeks to protect the interests of its companies.

“We would not speculate about hypothetical situations. The EU always seeks to protect the legitimate interests of its economic operators,” the spokesperson said when asked whether the bloc has a contingency plan to protect European investors if Washington ultimately decides to pull out of the deal reached in July 2015.

After almost two years of delicate negotiations, China, France, Russia, the UK, US and Germany and the EU – known as the P5+1 – agreed with Tehran in Vienna on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) to rein in Iran’s nuclear programme in exchange for relief from nuclear-related economic sanctions.

But the Trump administration has called the deal an “embarrassment” that is not in the US national interest and needs to be “corrected”.

“This is the last chance… I hereby call on key European countries to join with the United States in fixing significant flaws in the deal, countering Iranian aggression, and supporting the Iranian people. If other nations fail to act during this time, I will terminate our deal with Iran,” the US president warned last month.

“If Iran does not comply with any of these [new] provisions, American nuclear sanctions would automatically resume.”

For its part, the EU has stated it will remain “fully committed” to implementing the nuclear deal. Brussels has stood by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has conducted numerous inspections in Iran and said that the country has complied with all its commitments.

“It is a deal that prevented a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, next to us. That brought security in the region and to young people in the country. That was the European way and it was thanks to us because we were the mediator,” EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said recently.

But the EU business sector is anxious that American sanctions would affect EU companies that operate in Iran and also have commercial activities in the US.

EU businesses worried

Luisa Santos, director for international relations at BusinessEurope, which represents EU-based enterprises, said that the business community backs the nuclear deal.

“If one of the partners decides to consider putting into question that agreement, therefore deciding on additional sanctions on Iran that do not take into account what the other partners are doing, that creates a problem for us,” Santos said.

She added that the problem lies in the extraterritorial nature of the US sanctions, under which companies that are in any way involved with the US might be affected even if the EU maintains the current situation.

“It’s a factor of risk that we have to take into account,” she insisted.

Need for contingency planning

According to Steven Blockmans, the head of EU foreign policy at the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), the EU will be “forced” to act independently of the US on JCPOA.

“Just like it had to do when the US walked away from the Paris climate agreement, UNESCO, and the Middle East peace process by recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel,” said Blockmans.

Blockmans noted that the EU institutions, France, Germany and the UK should stand firm in support of the principle of ‘pacta sunt servanda’, one of the cornerstones of international law.

“The EU should remind the US that it should stick to its own commitments and not undermine the authority of the UN Security Council, which signed off on the nuclear deal by including the text in an annex to a legally binding resolution.”

As for the economic implications, Blockmans stressed that if and when new US sanctions come into effect, EU companies will face a binary choice: doing business in Iran or continuing operations with a US dimension.

“Without European protection of their investments against the long arm of US sanctions, companies are likely to stop trading with Iran. This is not in the interest of the EU and its member states. They should, therefore, start contingency planning,” the CEPS expert said.

The same view is shared by Knut Fleckenstein, the vice-president of the Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, who believes that the bloc must be prepared for US foreign policy priorities to have an impact on European policy.

“The EU definitely needs a ‘plan B’ to protect EU companies in this worst-case scenario. It is the Commission’s duty to prepare such a plan and to have it ready to hand when needed. Of course, I hope the plan never needs to be applied and that President Trump re-thinks his current approach.”

The German MEP stressed the deal’s significance for security in the region, as well as in Europe, but warned that the EU has its eyes closed to what is currently happening in Iran.

“It must not be ‘either/or’ but ‘both’. We need progress on human rights issues and a fully implemented nuclear deal that has already been proven to be successful. However, Iran-related concerns lie outside the JCPOA and should be addressed separately and in the regional context.”

EU should listen to America

But not all agree with this approach. The Wilfried Martens Centre for European Studies, the official think tank of the centre-right European People’s Party (EPP), takes a different view on the issue, saying that the EU should understand the “rightful concerns” voiced by the US Congress.

Roland Freudenstein, a policy director at the centre, said there are some deep flaws in the current nuclear deal, which have been identified by Washington.

“Verification of Iranian compliance is not assured, and Iran’s race to a nuclear capability has been merely slowed down a bit. Besides, the deal does not cover Iranian development of missile systems and other weaponry, not to mention Iran’s worldwide export of terrorism,” Freudenstein noted.

For these reasons, says Freudenstein, the EU should work with the Americans on a unified position on how to correct these flaws or impose new sanctions on Iran.

“And no one in Brussels should encourage European companies to do business with a regime that sends spies to Europe to prepare to kill Jews (as was the case in Germany) and is responsible for massive war crimes in Syria.”

Freudenstein went further, stating that the US is a NATO ally guaranteeing Europe’s security against very real conventional and nuclear threats.

“And for decades to come, Europe will not be able to deter enemies and defend its territory in the same manner. So we should ask ourselves why Americans should continue to defend us if we openly oppose them in crucial questions of international security – especially our own security, in the case of Iran,” he added.

“I don’t think we’re hostages, we just need to be a little less lecturing vis-à-vis the Americans and instead try to work out a common position. And we certainly shouldn’t consider the Mullahs in Tehran our friends, however ‘moderate’ they try to appear. They’ve just been shown the finger by their own people.”

Is there a middle solution?

In an op-ed published by EURACTIV on Friday (2 February), Elmar Brok, a centre-right MEP and close ally of Chancellor Angela Merkel, said the EU should follow a dual strategy on the issue.

“On the one hand, we must do our best to preserve the nuclear deal and keep up talks. On the other hand, we must clearly point at any violation of human rights,” Brok said.

The German politician also admitted that the lifting of nuclear-related sanctions had a positive impact on trade and economic relations with Iran.

But he made it clear that the EU would never accept the Iranian fight against the Jewish state of Israel, the Iranian missile programme, the meddling in the proxy wars in Yemen, Iraq, and Syria, or its policy in Lebanon.

By Dr. Subhash Kapila*

United States recent primacy to Indo Pacific security in its National Security Strategy 2018 and India’s primacy to its Act East Policy are implicitly focused on checkmating belatedly, China’s hegemonistic control over South East Asia, and this leads to increasing strategic convergences between the US and India

South East Asia security concerns centring on China’s threatening moves in South China Sea maritime expanse stood underwritten in what appears to be convergent strategic interests with India hosting all the ten Heads of ASEAN for its Republic Day Parade 2018 and visits of US Defense Secretary Mattis to Vietnam and Indonesia.

Noteworthy is the fact that while Communist China has maintained a sustained focus in establishing its hegemony on South East Asia, the United States mandatory focus on the region has been subject to distractive attentions. India’s strategic attention commenced with PM Narasimha Rao’s enunciation of Look East Policy in the 1990’s.

China has loomed menacingly over the South East Asia region for decades which China considers as its strategic backyard and therefore its rightful preserve. In earlier decades, China was on an ideological crusade to convert South East Asia to Chinese brand of communism. It failed. China then switched to resort to ‘soft power’ diplomacy to make political inroads into the region. It was successful partially.

From the last decade onwards, China switched to use of ‘Hard Power’ to enforce its illegal claims to the South China Sea maritime expanse. Its military adventurism has paid off primarily because of United States China Hedging policy of the last decade.

China has unopposed established military control over the South China Sea and also in the bargain divided ASEAN. But it has come at great strategic costs to China which it may presently be dismissive of.

Resultantly in 2018, United States and India now have a shared strategic convergence and stake in the security and stability of South East Asia. The United States is now seriously embarked on various initiatives to bolster Indo Pacific security and India concurrently adding more substance to its ‘Act East Policy’

In both cases, what is implicitly visible is the strategic aim of checkmating China’s threatening moves in Western Pacific and the Indian Ocean. The South East Asia region has a pivotal role to play towards this end.

South East Asia’s geostrategic significance lies in the geographical reality that either some share common land borders with China while others stand located astride the strategic waterways of navigation through the South China Sea. Within South East Asia confines are located the strategic chokepoints of the Malacca Straits, Lombok Straits and the Soya Straits which China perforce needs to traverse to give shape to its maritime ambitions of achieving a substantial naval presence in the Indian Ocean.

The United States and India have convergent strategic interests therefore which can briefly be summed up as follows: (1) Checkmate China’s hegemonistic designs over South East Asia (2) Checkmate China’s unchallenged maritime sway over the South China Sea (3) Pre-empt China from establishing control over the strategic maritime chokepoints stated above.

Towards this end-aim both the United States and India seem to have made appreciable progress even though much more has to be done. United States and India have given primacy to ASEAN as a regional grouping whose unity needs to be bolstered up against China’s divisive attempts.

Since the China Threat to South East Asia is military and maritime in nature essentially, what is visible in 2018 are a two pronged strategy being given emphasis, coordinated or not, of building-up the South East Asia Navies’ capacity to face China’s maritime strength.

Concurrently, United States and India, both bilaterally and multilaterally are engaged in joint naval exercises with South East Asian Navies.

The United States and India are not alone in this task of building-up South East Asia’s regional capacities for ensuring security and stability in a comprehensive manner. Japan and Australia too have lined up in this effort too. This virtually adds up to an international effort in shoring up the security and stability of South East Asia.

The revival of the Strategic Trilateral and the Quadrilateral of the above named countries is an indicator that the China Threat, in whatever form or manifestation, indicates that the United States, India, Japan and Australia have recognised strategic challenges that China poses to South East Asia and to their stakes in the region.

Fortunately, United States and India have a convergence on the pivotal role that Vietnam and Indonesia can play in the security and stability of South East Asia. India has a head -start over the United States in terms of strategic ties with Vietnam and Indonesia. The United States is engaged in a catch-up effort to solidify its strategic linkages with these two vital leading South East Asia nations.

United States and India fortunately have robust strategic partnerships with the small but powerful State of Singapore which also hosts US Navy presence sitting astride the Malacca Straits

Concluding, it needs to be stressed that South East Asia region and in particular the South China Sea maritime expanse cannot be left to the mercy of China’s hegemonistic designs. South East Asia’s security and stability, the unity of ASEAN regional grouping and the maintenance of freedom of navigation through the global commons should be the primary focus of United States and India’s security establishments sustained by joint endeavours.

*Dr Subhash Kapila is a graduate of the Royal British Army Staff College, Camberley and combines a rich experience of Indian Army, Cabinet Secretariat, and diplomatic assignments in Bhutan, Japan, South Korea and USA. Currently, Consultant International Relations & Strategic Affairs with South Asia Analysis Group. He can be reached at drsubhashkapila.007@gmail.com

By Dr. S. Chandrasekharan

The impending visit of Indian Foreign Minister to Nepal even before the new government is formed should be welcomed. This visit was preceded by two calls from Indian Prime Minister inviting K.P.Oli to visit India and the response of Oli is very encouraging. In turn, Oli invited the Indian PM to visit Mukthinath and Lumbini and significantly not Janakpur.

Relationship between Nepal and India should be strictly reciprocal

If the relationship had gone sour earlier by the indirect support of a blockade, the fact that India has finally realised its folly and making a course correction is all the more encouraging. It should be added that Oli should be really thankful to India as his party could not have come to power with an overwhelming majority but for the anti Indian platform on which he carried on the election campaign.

Oli may also need to make a course correction as he was seen earlier of deliberately leaning towards China in the last few months of his last government. Nepal needs India as much as India needs Nepal and a state of confrontation will not help in the long run. UML’s manifesto has an ambitious economic agenda and it cannot be fulfilled without active and wholehearted support of India.

At the same time, India should be open to any discussion and review of the Indo-Nepal Friendship Treaty which in the present globalised world is an anachronism. We should leave it to Nepal as to what kind of relationship it wants including security, work permits or the open border but ensure at the same time that all facilities and beneficial relationship are strictly reciprocal.

Indian policy makers should also be aware that the Nepali Congress and its affiliates with democratic credentials are still a force to reckon with and should not be neglected. To me, the setbacks they had faced in the recent elections are of their own doing and the party should be expected to bounce back under a bright and capable younger leadership with a good strategy to recover its lost ground.

Stability and Prosperity Thrown to the Winds:

In the elections for the federal constitution of 2015, the electorate voted overwhelmingly for the Leftist alliance in the hope that at least now there could be stability and economic progress for the next few years. It looks that the people are going to be disappointed.

First, is the arrogance of the main party- the UML. It was expected that once the UML has won an overwhelming majority, it would be generous in dealing with other parties.

The Madhesi parties particularly the RJP-N and the SSF-N were very sincere in approaching the Leftist Alliance for seat adjustments for the National Assembly elections which eventually could pave the way for the parties to join the government. All they had asked was a promise that the constitutional amendment that would do justice for the Madhesi cause would be carried out. It was declined.

It is learnt that the leftist alliance was not willing to do so now and it claimed that it will be done only on rationale (whatever it means) and the necessity. They had also pointed out that the two mainstream parties had considerable number of votes from province number 2 in the elections and that the demand of the two main parties cannot be taken as “representative.” It is sad that the UML lost an opportunity to go for reconciliation and have an “inclusive” government that would have been beneficial to all.

The Nepali Congress has equally been petty in refusing to accommodate the Madhesi groups in the National elections. Having been decisively defeated in the national elections, the party could have been more generous in accommodating other well meaning groups. It is said that it is the Terain leaders within the Nepali Congress who are opposing the inclusion of the major Madhesi groups within their party. It is sad indeed.

Merger Problems

The talks between UML and the Maoist Centre is not going on smoothly. There are even differences over the timing of the merger. The Maoist leader wants to have a complete merger before the formation of the government while the UML would like to go slow.

A party unity coordination committee as well as a special task force of both parties have been formed. The two leaders- Oli and Dahal have met twice over the merger, but there seems to be many thorny issues that cannot be resolved in the immediate future.

The coordination committee has not met so far and the two parties are stuck both on ideology and leadership. While the UML is willing to share power in leading the government, the party — particularly the rank and file are not willing to give up the leadership of the united party.

The Maoist centre is unwilling to give up the leadership of the party either and the members are not willing to have a subordinate position for its leader Dahal in the unified party. Dahal himself has rejected outright the second highest position in the party.

Ideology is going be another sticking point- while UML would go for a people’s multiparty democracy, the Maoist leaders are not willing to accept any downgrading of the people’s war of theirs and Maoism in the united party government. Dahal is reported to have said that the Maoist Centre does not want to lose its proud history and that they have not abandoned Maoism. Then why go for the merger then unless it was to make it winnable in the elections?

UML’s Problems

It is almost certain that the rank and file of UML that has won a decisive victory in the elections will not accept anyone other their own leaders to lead the unified party. They feel that the Maoist Party joined the mainstream only 12 years ago and will have to wait.

Many of the cadres of the UML have suffered at the hands of the Maoists at the time of the people’s war. I recall an incident during the first election for the interim government. Over a hundred UML cadres had to seek shelter in the Police post in Rasuwa when the Maoist cadres attacked them during the election campaign. There were many more.

There is a justifiable fear that the party- the UML with its ideology will be swallowed up by the Maoists in due course.

The two leaders Oli and Dahal may agree but the party cadres at the ground level may not accept a total merger.

It looks that finally the two parties – UML and MC-N may ultimately end up as two entities in running the government.

Iran has four homegrown satellites awaiting launch, Minister of Communication and Information Technology Mohammad Javad Azari Jahromi said.

In an address to a Saturday conference on space technology, Azari Jahromi said Iran has made great headways in developing research satellites, such as those used for measurement or telecommunication purposes.

Three satellites are in the final pre-launch stages before going to orbit, while another one is all set for launch, he added.

Iran has in recent years made advances in the space technology thanks to the efforts made by its local scientists.

The country successfully launched its first indigenous data-processing satellite, Omid (Hope), into orbit in February 2009.

In late July 2017, Iran inaugurated the Imam Khomeini National Space Center with the successful test-launch of a homegrown satellite carrier dubbed Simorgh.

The center, home to Iran’s first fixed launch platform, administrates the development, launch, and navigation of Iranian satellite carriers.

Designed and built in compliance with international standards, the Imam Khomeini National Space Center is going to handle all space projects in the low‑Earth orbit (LEO).

By Talmiz Ahmad*

The day after two bomb blasts killed 40 people in Benghazi, Libya, last month, local military commander Mahmoud Al-Werfalli, already wanted for war crimes by the European Union, publicly executed 12 people in his custody. Five more bodies were discovered the day after, with notices attached to them stating they were extremists.

The military arrested more “terrorists” as slogans supporting the bombings appeared on city walls.

With Libya wracked by widespread conflicts after the fall of Muammar Qaddafi in 2011, the UN had attempted national reconciliation with the Libyan Political Agreement (LPA) in December 2015 that put in place a Presidential Council in Tripoli with executive powers and the House of Representatives (HOR) in Tobruk as the legislative body.

However, this effort at national unity has not worked, with the two power centers functioning independently, backed by well-armed militia with ethnic, tribal and religious affiliations.

This brew of internecine conflict has grown more complicated with the military prowess and political ambitions of a soldier from the Qaddafi era, General Khalifa Haftar. An associate of Qaddafi from the revolution of 1969, he fell out with his leader in the 1980s and took refuge in the US. Twenty years later, in May 2014, he launched Operation Dignity to cleanse the country of terrorists, encompassing all militant groups — the Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Qaeda and later Daesh.

The Libyan National Army (LNA) headed by him now controls much of eastern Libya, including the oil-producing facilities of Ras Lanuf, Al-Sidra, Zawaytania and Brega in the Libyan oil crescent on the Mediterranean coast. Haftar is nominally under the Tobruk-based HOR but appears to be a largely independent political player in national affairs.

The government in Tripoli, headed by Fayez Al-Sarraj, gets its military support from militia groups in Tripoli and Misrata, the latter having some of the most powerful militias in the country.

Militant veterans of the Afghan war first came to Libya in the late 1980s, and, after Qaddafi’s removal, set up Ansar Al-Sharia Libya (ASL). While linked with several assassinations, including the killing of US diplomats in Benghazi in 2012, they also sought popular support with the provision of local services, health care and religious teaching. In May 2017, under attack from Haftar’s forces, the ASL quietly disbanded itself, with its members merging with local populations and waiting to fight another day.

Daesh fighters from Syria first established themselves in the eastern town of Derna in 2014. A coalition of Misrata-based forces evicted Daesh from Derna in 2015 and Sirte in 2016. They are now dispersed — westward to Sabratha, southwest to Sabha, and southeast to the Sudan border.

What is of global concern is that Daesh, centred at Sabratha, is at the heart of numerous militant attacks in the region and in Europe, including those in Paris, Brussels, Manchester, Germany and Italy. Aaron Zeilin has noted that “Libya now stands as the fourth-largest foreign fighter mobilization in global jihadist history, behind only the current war in Syria, the Afghan jihad of the 1980s, and the 2003 Iraq war.”

With the defeat of Daesh’s proto-state, the movement can be expected to rely increasingly on “lone-wolf” operations, with Libya at the heart of such threats.
The breakdown of state order in Libya and the proliferation of militia controlling different regions has meant that large tracts of the country and coastline are without effective security forces or are controlled by militia that are part of region-wide trafficking networks dealing with human beings, drugs, food, petrol, and weapons.

With 150,000 migrants having crossed through Libya to Europe in the past three years, Libya is now seen as Europe’s “true southern frontier,” amid horrendous reports of African migrants stuck in Libya also being sold as slaves by traffickers.

In this fraught situation, the UN has called for national elections in late 2018, describing them as the “peaceful and inclusive end to the transition phase.” It is encouraging that about two million Libyans have already registered to vote.

Nevertheless, serious problems remain. It is not clear how enthusiastic strongman Haftar is about the process. In a recent interview, he suggested that Libya might not be ready for democracy and reminded his interlocutors that he controls half the country and has an army of 75,000. Many observers believe he is poised to seize power by taking Tripoli with military force. But given the large number of strong militia in different regions that might form a coalition against him, such a coup attempt might not be successful.

The gravest problem remains the absence of governance and the continued inability of local authorities or regional militia to provide security, employment and civic services.

This has increased the numbers of those whom commentator Rebecca Murray has described as “militarised, unemployed and marginalised youths” who will swell the ranks of militants and extremist groups.

Libya can be expected to remain mired in fratricidal conflict for some time to come.

*Talmiz Ahmad is a former diplomat and holds the Ram Sathe Chair for International Studies, Symbiosis International University, Pune.

Myanmar on Friday rejected reports of a massacre and at least five mass graves in the country’s troubled Rakhine state, where the military has been accused of committing atrocities against ethnic Rohingya Muslims, saying an investigation had found no evidence to support the claims.

In a report published on Thursday, the Associated Press (AP) said it had confirmed the existence of more than five previously unreported mass graves in Buthidaung township’s Gu Dar Pyin village, in Rakhine state, through interviews of survivors in refugee camps in Bangladesh, including one who provided time-stamped cellphone videos.

The report uncovered what AP called “systematic slaughter of Rohingya Muslim civilians by the military, with help from Buddhist neighbors,” with evidence suggesting “many more graves hold many more people” in the area.

On Friday, Zaw Htay, director-general of the office of Myanmar’s de facto leader Aung San Suu Kyi, told RFA’s Myanmar Service that the Rakhine State government had been ordered to look into the claims and, after forming an investigation commission, found no evidence to support them.

“The commission – consisting of the Buthidaung township administrator, a police officer, a legal officer, a doctor and an immigration officer – went to Buthidaung and arrived at Gu Dar Pyin village at 1 p.m. today,” he said.

“They went to the five places AP mentioned and they found nothing. Village heads and villagers said there had been no incident like AP reported in their village. We [government officials] have asked them to conduct further searches around Gu Dar Pyin.”

Zaw Htay said the investigation commission had found no evidence that soldiers planned an Aug. 27 attack on the village and tried to hide what they had done, as AP reported, citing survivors who said troops had used shovels to dig pits and acid to burn away faces and hands so that bodies could not be recognized.

Instead, he said, it discovered a police file detailing an incident on Aug. 28 in which rebels from the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) “came to the village, killed some people, and set houses on fire.”

“Security guards went to the area and fought with ARSA members. Nineteen ARSA members were killed and buried … Police filed the case as an anti-terrorist action,” he said.

Friday’s response followed a pattern of Myanmar government officials repeatedly rejecting evidence and strongly denying allegations of atrocities against the Rohingyas in Rakhine state, and routinely blaming ARSA rebels for much of the violence.

Call for evidence

Zaw Htay said that the AP had based its report on information and mobile phone videos it obtained from more than two dozen Rohingya refugees who fled Rakhine state into neighboring Bangladesh, and said Myanmar’s government had no way of checking the veracity of their claims without investigators viewing the videos to determine whether they “were really taken in Gu Dar Pyin or not.”

“Many photos have come out claiming to have been taken in Rakhine, but were no – AP also showed a video of a fire in a village, and village heads said it was not Gu Dar Pyin,” he said.

“We don’t want to deny the cases by closing our eyes to the claims, but we need primary evidence [if they want to accuse us]. If we receive evidence, we will investigate on the ground. If we find the claims are true, we will take action according to law against the perpetrators.”

The Myanmar government’s Information Committee, part of Aung San Suu Kyi’s office, also denied the AP report in a statement on its Facebook page Friday.

However, Reuters news agency spoke with two Rohingya residents it said were still in the village who disputed the government’s statement and said that there were mass graves there. They said senior military officers visited the area on Friday, took photographs and held a meeting with the villagers.

They confirmed the existence of mass graves and said that after the meeting “a large group of military men stayed behind and the villagers are scared.”

Independent investigation

Addressing calls from the U.S. State Department and the United Nations to allow an independent investigation into the claims, Zaw Htay said Myanmar’s government “plans to allow trusted and fair media” into the area, adding that only those groups that “are not biased” will be given access.

On Thursday, Kuwait’s Ambassador to the U.N. Security Council Mansour al-Otaibi said Myanmar’s government told him February was “not the right time” for a visit by the top U.N. body to send a team to investigate the Rohingya refugee crisis in Rakhine state, although authorities were not opposed to such a visit, which could take place in March or April.

Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh recently turned over a list of almost 4,400 Rohingya killed in Rakhine state since October 2016 to U.N. envoy Yanghee Lee, who told reporters Thursday that violence against the Muslim minority bore “the hallmarks of a genocide.”

The data was collected by Rohingya leaders going door to door in refugee camps in southeastern Bangladesh, according to people who took part in the effort and who shared the list with BenarNews.

Some 775,000 fled into Bangladesh as a result of disproportionate military crackdowns carried out after Rohingya insurgent attacks in October 2016 and August 2017.

By Froilan Gallardo

Another 46 suspected drug addicts and pushers have been killed since Philippine police launched anti-drug operation “Double Barrel Reloaded” in December, officials said Friday, contradicting earlier claims that the campaign would be bloodless.

From Dec. 5 through Thursday, police conducted 3,253 operations, leading to the arrests of nearly 5,000 “high value targets,” the national police said in a statement.

“Forty-six died in police operations [under] PNP’s (Philippine National Police) intensified Double Barrel Reloaded,” the statement said, using its operational name for the drug raids.

This week alone, police said 821 people surrendered during an operation known as Tokhang, a compounded Filipino term taken from the Tagalog words of “to knock and plead.”

The announcement from police came days after James Walsh, the U.S. deputy assistant secretary of state for international narcotics and law enforcement, expressed guarded optimism over Philippine government pronouncements that it was carrying out its narcotics war with less violence.

Citing official police figures, the government claimed that 3,968 suspected dealers and addicts were killed from the time President Rodrigo Duterte took office in June 2016 until November 2017. That number, combined with the 46 suspects killed since December, equals 4,014.

By comparison, only 3,200 activists were killed during the two-decade reign of the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos, which ended in 1986.

The latest total does not include the killings of drug suspects found with cardboard signs hanging around their necks and saying they were drug addicts or pushers. Most of those deaths were blamed on vigilante groups, and the government has sought to distance itself from them.

Human rights groups claim that the death toll from President Duterte’s drug war is at least 12,000.

On Thursday, Human Rights Watch (HRW) stressed that its figure was consistent with those of Filipino rights groups, including the Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates. The politically influential Catholic Church has a higher estimate of about 13,000, according to the HRW.

Regardless of the varying tallies, the deaths were alarming and warranted an independent investigation, said Phelim Kine, a deputy Asia director for HRW.

“The Philippines can either ask United Nations assistance to investigate abuses in its anti-drug campaign or be the subject of a U.N. Human Rights Council resolution creating an investigatory body to do the job,” Kine said.

Duterte has often railed against foreign criticism of his drug war, including against Agnes Callamard, the U.N.’s special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings.

Callamard has been seeking official government permission to conduct an independent probe, a request that has Manila has rejected several times.

Earlier this week, in a conference call with Asian reporters from Washington, James Walsh said the American government had reduced assistance to the Filipino police over alleged human rights abuses at the start of Duterte’s drug war.

But as a result of U.S. aid in human rights training, there appeared to be a lowering in the number of extrajudicial deaths in the Philippines, Walsh said.

On Thursday, presidential spokesman Harry Roque welcomed Walsh’s comments, saying they offered a “hint of a growing appreciation of the positive impact of the administration’s anti-illegal drug campaign.”

Joseph Jubelag in General Santos City, Philippines, contributed to this report.

Bitcoin has been tumbling recently, wiping out the record gains it saw in 2017. Here are scenarios that may doom the market-leading cryptocurrency.

Major exchange collapses

When Mt. Gox collapsed in 2014, some 650,000 bitcoins were lost. While it was a rather big sum four years ago, it is now worth $5.2 billion. Another big failure may result in a total loss of confidence in the cryptocurrency, resulting in an exodus to fiat money and commodities.

Last week, $500 million in NEM cryptocurrency were stolen, adding more concerns about the lack of security of investing in cryptocurrencies.

Bitcoin becomes obsolete

The reason why bitcoin cash and other spin-offs split from bitcoin is that the original cryptocurrency lacks capacity. Bitcoin’s one megabyte file size for transactions can process nearly 2,500 transactions per block on blockchain. Bitcoin cash is eight megabytes and is much faster.

Thus, a simple transaction can last an unpredicted amount of time (sometimes hours) and may be rejected by the system. Moreover, sending bitcoin has become significantly more costly than it used to be, growing from $10 to $140 on the average.

“The first players in anything are usually highly speculative. But the trend itself is here to stay. There is a phrase that the people who do the expeditions get the arrows, and the settlers get the wealth. So, if bitcoin is doing the expeditions, there are people behind it,” Blair Sheppard, PwC global strategy leader told RT.

Regulators crack down

Just a verbal intervention by the Indian Finance Ministry, pledging to ban cryptocurrencies, shaved off around 25 percent of the market’s value. Bitcoin plunged by $3,000 on Thursday and Friday. If China, India, Russia, and the United States announce a total ban on bitcoin, it may not be killed, but will certainly lose its luster.

When amateur investors decided to buy bitcoin last year, it was a hyperinflated asset. If it becomes criminalized, investors’ interest will most likely wane, and major holders will flee.

A Russian Su-25 jet has crashed in Idlib province in north-western Syria, the Russian Defence Ministry confirmed, adding that it was probably shot down by MANPAD. The pilot ejected but was killed by militants on the ground.

Preliminary data showed the Su-25 plane was downed by a man-portable air-defense system (MANPAD), the ministry said in a statement on Saturday.

The attack took place when the jet was flying over the Idlib de-escalation zone on Saturday. The pilot parachuted down into the area controlled by Al-Nusra terrorist group, the statement said. He was killed during a confrontation with the militants from an unspecified group.

Russian Reconciliation Center for Syria together with Turkey which is also responsible for the Idlib de-escalation zone is now trying to retrieve the body of the Russian pilot, the Defense Ministry confirmed.

Tahrir al-Sham, the extremist group linked to Al-Nusra terrorists, has claimed responsibility for the downing of the Russian aircraft, according to Reuters.

Earlier, another militant group, Jaysh al-Nasr, which claims affiliation to the Free Syrian Army, also posted videos and statements about the Russian plane on its Twitter account. It said the jet was shot down by some air defense systems.

In July 2016, two pilots were killed when a Russian military helicopter was downed by Islamic State militants near Palmyra. They had been attacking advancing terrorists at Damascus’ request when it was shot down.

The Russian air campaign supporting anti-terrorist efforts by Syrian authorities lasted from September 2015 to December 2017. In mid-December, President Vladimir Putin visited the Khmeimim Airbase to announce the withdrawal of most of the Russian troop contingent from the country.

Moscow played a vital role in the defeat of Islamic State (IS, formerly known as ISIS) terrorist group in Syria, as well as other jihadist groups, including Al-Nusra. Around 60,000 fighters were eliminated during the campaign, according to the defense ministry.

1. He told you he’d cut your taxes, and that the super-rich like him would pay more. You bought it. But his new tax law does the opposite. By 2027, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, the richest 1 percent will have got 83 percent of the tax cut and the richest 0.1 percent, 60 percent of it. But more than half of all Americans — 53 percent — will pay more in taxes. As Trump told his wealthy friends at Mar-a-Lago just days after the tax bill became law, “You all just got a lot richer.”

2. He promised to close “special interest loopholes that have been so good for Wall Street investors but unfair to American workers,” especially the notorious “carried interest” loophole for private-equity, hedge fund, and real estate partners. You bought it. But the new tax law keeps the “carried interest” loophole.

3. He told you he’d repeal Obamacare and replace it with something “beautiful.” You bought it. But he didn’t repeal and he didn’t replace. (Just as well: His plan would have knocked at least 23 million Americans off health insurance, including many of you.) Instead, he’s doing what he can to cut it back and replace it with nothing. The new tax law will result in 13 million people losing health coverage, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

4. He told you he’d invest $1 trillion in our nation’s crumbling infrastructure. You bought it. But after his giant tax cut for corporations and millionaires, there’s no money left for infrastructure.

5. He said he’d drain the Washington swamp. You bought it. But he’s brought into his administration more billionaires, CEOs, and Wall Street moguls than in any administration in history, to make laws that will enrich their businesses, and he’s filled departments and agencies with former lobbyists, lawyers and consultants who are crafting new policies for the same industries they recently worked for.

6. He said he’d use his business experience to whip the White House into shape. You bought it. But he has created the most dysfunctional, back-stabbing White House in modern history, and has already fired and replaced so many assistants (one of them hired and fired in a little more than a week) that people there barely know who’s in charge of what.

7. He told you he’d “bring down drug prices” by making deals with drug companies. You bought it. But now the White House says that promise is “inoperative.”

8. He told you he’d “stop foreign lobbyists from raising money for American elections.” You bought it. But foreign lobbyists are still raising money for American elections.

9. He told you “I’m not going to cut Social Security like every other Republican and I’m not going to cut Medicare or Medicaid.” You bought it. But he and House Speaker Paul Ryan are already planning such cuts in order to deal with the ballooning deficit created, in part, by the new tax law for corporations and the rich.

10. He promised “six weeks of paid maternity leave to any mother with a newborn child whose employer does not provide the benefit.” You bought it. But the giant tax cut for corporations and the rich doesn’t leave any money for this.

11. He said that on Day One he’d label China a “currency manipulator.” You bought it. But then he met with China’s president Xi Jinping and declared “China is not a currency manipulator.” Ever since then, Trump has been cozying up to Xi.

12. He said he “won’t bomb Syria.” You bought it. Then he bombed Syria.

13. He said he’d build a “wall” across the southern border. You believed him. But chief of staff John Kelly says it is “unlikely that we will build a wall, a physical barrier, from sea to shining sea.”

14. He promised that the many women who accused him of sexual misconduct “will be sued after the election is over.” You bought it. He hasn’t sued them, presumably because he doesn’t want the truth to come out.

15. He said he would not be a president who took vacations, and he called Barack Obama “the vacationer-in-Chief.” You bought it. But since becoming President he has spent nearly 25 percent of his days at one of his golf properties for some portion of the day, according to Golf News Network, at a cost to taxpayers of over $77 million. That’s already more taxpayer money on vacations than Obama cost in the first 3 years of his presidency. Not to mention all the money taxpayers are spending protecting his family, including his two sons who travel all over the world on Trump business.

16. He said he’d force companies to keep jobs in America, and that there would be “consequences” for companies that shipped jobs abroad. You believed him. But despite their promises, Carrier, Ford, GM, and the rest have continued to ship jobs to Mexico and China. Carrier (a division of United Technologies) has moved ahead with plans to send 1,000 jobs at its Indiana plant to Mexico. Notwithstanding, the federal government has rewarded United Technologies with 15 new contracts since Trump’s inauguration. GE is sending jobs to Canada. IBM is sending them to Costa Rica, Egypt, Argentina, and Brazil. There have been no “consequences” for sending all these jobs overseas.

17. He promised to revive the struggling coal industry and “bring back thousands” of lost mining jobs. You bought it. But coal jobs continue to disappear. Since Trump’s victory, at least 6 plants that relied on coal have closed or announced they will close. Another 40 are projected to close during the president’s four-year term. Utilities continue to switch to natural gas instead of coal, and renewable energy is cheaper than ever.

18. He promised to protect steel workers. But according to the American Iron and Steel Institute, which tracks shipments, steel imports were 19.4 percent higher in the first 10 months of 2017 than in the same period last year. That import surge has hurt American steel workers, who were already struggling against a glut of cheap Chinese steel.

19. He said he’d make America safer. You believed him. But according to Mass Shooting Tracker, there have been 377 mass shootings so far in the Trump administration, including 58 people killed and hundreds injured at a concert in Las Vegas, and 26 churchgoers killed and 20 injured at a church in Texas. Trump refuses to consider any gun control legislation.

20. He said he’d release his taxes. “I’m under a routine audit and it’ll be released, and as soon as the audit is finished it will be released,“ he promised during the campaign. He hasn’t released his taxes.

The Duma deputy who earlier drafted the law imposing life sentences on anyone convicted of recruiting terrorists is now in the final stage of preparing one that would establish separate Guantanamo-style prisons in Russia so that extremist radicals would not be able to recruit other inmates to their cause.

Adalbi Shkhagoshev, a member of the Duma security committee from Kabardino-Balkaria, says that such an arrangement is necessary because there are between 2,000 and 4,000 Islamists in Russian penal institutions alongside other prisoners convicted of ordinary crimes whom they often recruit into radical cells (svpressa.ru/society/article/192047/).

In Russian prisons, it is impossible to restrict such contacts, the deputy says; “and therefore we propose to create one or two prisons specially for those convicted of violating anti-terrorist laws.” Doing so would bring Russia into line with what other countries are doing, including the US with its Guantanamo prison.

According to Shkhagoshev, ten to fifteen percent of prisoners who are confined with radicals become members of their groups after they finish their sentences. A decade ago, that wasn’t so serious because there were only a few hundred extremists behind bars; but now there are thousands. The problem has grown, with many now talking about “‘prison jamaats.’”

Not everyone thinks this is a good idea. Pavel Chikov of the Agora Human Rights Organization says that such arrangements could be made without changing the law but that given Russia’s size, having only two such special prisons will be a problem because Russian law requires that prisoners live near their homes, something that reduces recidivism.

There is another and even larger problem, he suggests. There are all kinds of people convicted of extremist crimes in Russia. How will penal authorities manage a situation in which there are simultaneously groups of Islamist radicals and neo-fascist nationalists, neither of whom has much use for the other.

Another expert also has doubts. Dmitry Agranovsky, a Russian attorney, says that the whole idea is “an absolutely unwise proposal” in that it violates existing law because it treats those convicted of this set of crimes in a fundamentally different way than those convicted of others and is thus discriminatory.

Moreover, the proposal ignores that the penal authorities have experience in keeping certain groups apart, such as former policemen and criminals they may have put behind bars, Agranovsky says. They can address the problem agitating Shkhagoshev without adopting a new law.

And, he asks, why does the Duma deputy think that the American experience with Guantanamo is worth copying? After all, it has been “condemned by almost everyone, including Russia. We should we make use of the worst models of the West world? We don’t need to stand in one dock with these Americans.”

A new Canadian study has found that carbon released by some ponds in the High Arctic could potentially be a hidden source of greenhouse gas emissions.

The study looked at how dissolved organic carbon (DOC) stored in Arctic permafrost – which is thawing at an accelerated rate due to climate change – is being released into Arctic watersheds as a result of physical disturbances that relocate nutrients across the landscape. For the first-time researchers were able to determine that the chemical composition of carbon in these ponds is vastly different than in rivers in the High Arctic.

“These ponds in the High Arctic seem to be hotspots for DOC degradation,” said Myrna Simpson, Professor of Environmental Science at U of T Scarborough and co-author of the research.

“Very little consideration has been given to what’s happening with DOC in these ponds that are all over the Arctic, and it could potentially be a source of CO2 emissions released into the atmosphere with these disturbances.”

DOC is everywhere – it can be found in lakes, oceans and in soil. It’s essentially decomposed plant or animal material that can dissolve by coming into contact with water. In the High Arctic DOC becomes mobile by entering watersheds, which is happening at an accelerated rate due to rapid permafrost thaw and the resulting change to the physical landscape.

“The rapid thawing results in what’s called active layer detachments,” explained Simpson. “Think of these disturbances as landslides where soil and water gets all mixed up.”

When the DOC settles into ponds it can be biodegraded by microbes more easily than in rivers, which means more carbon can get released into the atmosphere. While past studies have explored how active layer detachments have stimulated microbial activity in Arctic soil, this is the first to look mostly at water sources including ponds.

“We didn’t measure how much carbon was being released because we didn’t expect to find this,” said Simpson. “This is one of the novel findings of the study – that these ponds could play an important role in the global carbon cycle.”

What’s more, Simpson noted, the Arctic permafrost stores a lot of carbon because it generally remains frozen, locked into place for a long time. With rapid thawing of the permafrost, that’s changing. In fact, using radiocarbon dating, the researchers found DOC more than 5,000 years old that was being degraded.

Sampling of the water sources for the study was done by Queen’s University researchers Associate Professor Melissa Lafrenière and Professor Scott Lamoureux out of the Cape Bounty Arctic Watershed Observatory near Melville Island in Nunavut.

An important next step for the research will be to see how widespread the phenomenon is, for example if it happens in all Arctic ponds. But as Lafrenière pointed out, it’s also important to understand the underlying mechanisms driving the difference between DOC in ponds versus rivers.

“We need to do some mass balance studies to figure out the mass of carbon in these bodies of water. This includes how much carbon is present, and what are the main inputs and outputs controlling how much carbon is in the water,” she said.

In order to do that, they will need to measure not only the amount of carbon in the water but also the different forms of carbon including DOC, dissolved inorganic carbon, particulate organic carbon, gaseous CO2 and methane.

Future lab and field experiments will be designed to figure out the processes responsible for gains or losses of carbon from these ponds, and also the process behind transforming carbon from one form to another, added Lafrenière.

Analysis of the DOC for the study was carried out in three different labs across Canada in order for researchers to use a host of sophisticated measurements. Professor Yves Gélinas from Concordia University and Professor André Simpson from U of T Scarborough lent their expertise to the study. Data was also collected and compiled by Dr. Jun-Jian Wang, a former postdoctoral fellow in Professor Myrna Simpson’s lab, now an Assistant Professor at the Southern University of Science and Technology in China.

Neural progenitor cells (NPC) derived from congenital Zika syndrome (CZS) affected and non-affected twins show different rates of virus infection and different RNA expression of genes associated to neural development. The expression imbalance happens even before the infection with the Zika virus in vitro. These results confirm the hypothesis of a genetic or epigenetic influence on susceptibility to CZS and microcephaly. The findings were published in Nature Communications.

The researchers, lead by dr. Mayana Zatz and Maria Rita Passos-Bueno – geneticists from the Human Genome and Stem Cell Research Center from the University of São Paulo (USP) -, also concluded that a single gene cannot explain the cases of CSZ development nor the brain resistance to Zika virus.

About 6% to 12% of the babies born from mothers infected with the Zika virus during pregnancy will have the CZS. Why not all of them are affected by the syndrome is yet to be explained. This study shed lights on the genetic components associated to it.

“If the baby has these genetic susceptibility factors, we believe he will not have microcephaly unless he is infected by the Zika virus. Maybe we can identify these people and prioritize them in a future vaccine strategy”, said Dr. Mayana Zatz.

Twins as a clue to genetic studies

Twins provide unique information to answer whether a certain condition has an environmental or a genetic cause. If genetic factors are determinant to a congenital disease, there must be more concordance between the pair of identical (monozygotic) twin babies than between the non-identical or dizygotic twins. Identical siblings should be more often both affected, than dizygotic twins that will be more likely “discordant” (one affected and one non-affected).

If the environment leads to the condition, the pattern observed in the two siblings of non-identical will be the same as observed in identical twins. It means that either none of the siblings will be affected, or both, or just one of them, independently of being monozygotic or dizygotic.

Search for twins

The study started in 2016, during Zika epidemics in Brazil. Mayana Zatz and her team looked for twins in which at least one baby had microcephaly. They accomplished to get in touch with families from 9 pairs of twins from 6 Brazilian states.

Two pairs were identical twins, with both affected; one pair was non-identical but also had both affected; and 6 pairs were non-identical and discordant – one affected and one unaffected. This first scenario contributed to the hypothesis of genetic influence on Zika infection during fetal development.

Experiments

From these babies, three pairs of non-identical, discordant twins had their blood samples collected and used to generate human induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSC) – cells that can produce almost any other type of cell. Later, the hiPSC were transformed into neural progenitor cells (NPC) – these can lead to the cells that form the brain and other parts of the central nervous system.

The NPCs were infected with a Brazilian Zika virus strain. After four days, the plaques with cells derived from the affected babies had significanlty less cells than the plaques from the non-affected ones. Analysis of neurospheres – cells grown in 3D structures – showed similar growth impairment from the affected twins’ cells. Non-infected cultures from affected and non-affected derived NPCs used as control presented no differences after the same time.

Using a fluorescence technique, researchers observed a larger amount of Zika virus in cells derived from affected babies compared to the cells from the healthy ones. More experiments pointed that the neural progenitor cells from babies with the syndrome produced significantly more viral RNA copies and more viral unities capable of infection. In short, they were more infected and did not proliferate as much as the cells from their protected siblings.

“In the laboratory, the cells mimicked what happened with the babies. Also, the results were the same for the three pairs of twins. We demonstrated that the infection is not random. It reinforces our hypothesis of a genetic component increasing the susceptibility to congenital Zika syndrome”, said Dr. Zatz.

Mechanisms

In order to identify this possible genetic component, the team analyzed all the gene sequence from 8 pairs of twins and 10 other babies that developed the Zika syndrome as compared to normal controls. The exome analysis did not identify one gene variation capable of determining, alone, the susceptibility to the infection – instead, it excluded this possibility.

The RNA sequencing came next. It allows scientists to measure gene expression – which genes are silenced or which are activated and sending messages to produce proteins in the cell. This is different from the previous DNA sequencing,that shows how genes are but not how they express themselves

The RNA test from the 6 twins indicated a group of genes capable of distinguishing the more susceptible cells from the more resistant ones. The largest alteration occurred with DDIT4L gene, 12.6 times less expressed in the affected cells. Its related protein is an inhibitor of mTor signaling – a pathway involved in cell growth and cell death. Previous studies associated the mTor pathway and Zika virus replication.

The RNA sequencing also detected lower expressions of FOXG1 and LHX2 genes in the cells from babies with CZS. These genes participate in the brain regionalization process – characterized by the development of cerebral areas during fetus growth. FOXG1 has also been linked to congenital brain disorders. The LHX2 gene, 9,6 times less present in affected cells, is responsible for attenuating the Wnt signaling, engaged in neural differentiation.

In conclusion, the results indicate that the development of the Zika syndrome in babies is not aleatory, it depends on neural progenitor cells susceptibility. It is possibly related to variants in several genes or to mechanisms that control gene expression and protein production.

(RFE/RL) — Russia’s Foreign Ministry has slammed a new nuclear-policy document issued by the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump on February 2.

The ministry’s February 3 statement said Moscow was “disappointed” with the document, which it characterized as both “confrontational” and “anti-Russian.”

Moscow dismissed the U.S. document as “an unscrupulous attempt to shift onto others one’s own responsibility for the degrading situation in the field of international and regional security.”

The statement particularly condemned the development of low-yield nuclear weapons, which Moscow said can significantly lower the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons and “lead to a nuclear-missile war even in low-intensity conflicts.”

The Russian statement asserted that Moscow was abiding by all its international commitments and said it is a “fraud” to say that Moscow was not interested in reducing nuclear-arms stockpiles.

Leonid Ivashov, former head of the Russian Defense Ministry’s international cooperation department, told Interfax that, in light of the U.S. document, Russia should initiate consultations with China on jointly monitoring nuclear forces and studying “ways of responding.”

The U.S. Nuclear Posture Review outlines the Pentagon’s nuclear goals under Trump and is the first time since 2010 that the administration has spelled out how it foresees nuclear threats in the coming decades.

It says Russia must be persuaded that it would face “unacceptably dire costs” if it were to threaten even a limited nuclear attack in Europe.

“This is a response to Russian expansion of their capability and the nature of their strategy and doctrine,” Defense Secretary Jim Mattis wrote in the 75-page summary of the sweeping review, which also highlights U.S. concerns about North Korea, Iran, and China.

The document specifically points to a Russian doctrine known as “escalate to deescalate,” in which Moscow would use or threaten to use smaller-yield nuclear weapons in a limited conventional conflict in Europe to compel the United States and NATO to back down.

“Recent Russian statements on this evolving nuclear weapons doctrine appear to lower the threshold for Moscow’s first-use of nuclear weapons,” the review said.

The review recommends a two-step solution.

Modifying “a small number” of existing long-range ballistic missiles carried by Trident strategic submarines to fit them with smaller-yield nuclear warheads would be a first step.

Second, “in the longer term,” a nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile would be developed — bringing back a weapon that existed during the Cold War but was retired in 2011 by the Obama administration.

The review also calls North Korea a “clear and grave threat” to the United States and its allies, and warns that any North Korean nuclear attack against the America or its allies would result in “the end of that regime.”

By Elise Harris

Several sources familiar with a proposed deal between the Chinese government and the Holy See have said the landmark agreement is not only a possibility, but an “imminent” certainty that could come to fruition as early as this spring.

While no specific timeline has been given for the agreement, “I’ve heard that it is imminent. And in China, in many areas and environments, it is already taken as a done deal,” Henry Cappello told CNA Feb. 2.

President of the “Caritas in Veritate International” organization, Cappello travels to China on a regular basis to offer training to the country’s bishops, and has strong ties with both those approved by the Holy See and those backed by the communist government’s Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association.

Cappello was in China two weeks ago, where Joseph Ma Yinglin, the government-backed bishop of Kunming, explained the proposed deal to him.

Without the Vatican’s consent, Ma was tapped by the patriotic association to head the diocese in 2006. After his episcopal ordination, Ma’s excommunication was declared by the Vatican, because he was ordained a bishop without approval from Rome. In 2010 he was appointed president of the Chinese patriotic association’s bishops’ conference.

As part of the agreement, which has been widely reported in recent days, the Vatican is expected to officially recognize seven bishops who are out of communion with Rome, including 2-3 bishops, one of which is Ma, whose excommunications have been explicitly declared by the Vatican.

Most notably, the new deal would also apparently outline government and Vatican roles in future episcopal selection. Reportedly, the details of the deal would have the Vatican proposing names and the Chinese government having the final say over Vatican-vetted candidates.

Cappello said the proposal has already been discussed in China, and he believes “this is the direction that things are going.”

In 1951 Beijing broke official diplomatic ties with the Vatican. Since the 1980s they have loosely cooperated in episcopal appointments, however, the government has also named bishops without Vatican approval.

The result has led to a complicated and tense relationship between the patriotic association and the “underground Church,” which includes priests and bishops who are not recognized by the government.

Many Catholics parishioners and priests who have rejected government control have been imprisoned, harassed and otherwise persecuted.

Currently every bishop recognized by Beijing must be a member of the patriotic association, and many bishops appointed by the Vatican who are not recognized or approved by the Chinese government have faced government persecution.

Many of the Vatican-approved bishops in China are drawing near to the age of 75, when they are required to submit their request for retirement, and many others have died, yet few successors have been named, raising questions as to whether or not a deal might be drawing near.

Regarding the seven bishops who will be recognized should a new agreement come to pass, Msgr. Anthony Figueiredo, who has worked with the seven bishops in question through the Caritas in Veritate for the past several years and was in China in July 2017, confirmed the news on the bishops’ proposed approval, saying “if the Vatican is going to accept them and an accord be reached, it’s going to be for all of them. ”

Figueiredo, who lives in Rome, travels to China several times a year with Caritas in Veritate, said he has worked closely with the seven bishops in question, and “they have desired this communion for years.”

He personally delivered a letter from the bishops to the Pope in 2016, which he says told the Pope they wanted communion with Rome.

“They didn’t propose the deal, certainly not in the letter they gave me, because that’s what’s come afterwards,” he said, noting that the Vatican has on several occasions sent a delegation to Beijing to discuss the details of a possible agreement.

Figueiredo said the deal could come within the next few months, saying “I think it could well come this spring, absolutely.”

For his part, Cappello said he could neither confirm nor deny any specific details of the agreement, but that as of two weeks ago during his visit to China, “we are talking in the right direction” in terms of what’s already been reported.

He said that in his view, to say China would have the final say in bishop appointments oversimplifies the matter, because the Church in China is complicated and nuanced due to its relations with a communist state.

“The Chinese bishops in China would have a big say, but knowing that the Church in China is in a communist nation, then the Church and the State, the line between them is very narrow,” he said.

“There’s really no black and white, there’s overlap there, so of course there would be an input from the government…it will be a collaboration,” Cappello said.

And as someone that has traveled back and forth to various provinces in China for the past 25 years, he said he has seen progress he calls remarkable, in terms of relations in the past decade, and during the past five years in particular.

With this deal, Pope Francis “is building bridges,” he said, adding that he believes the stronger and more vocal opponents of the accord “are on the wrong side of history.”

One of the most outspoken critics of a deal with the Chinese government has been Cardinal Joseph Zen, Archbishop Emeritus of Hong Kong.

Zen was ordained a priest in 1961 and became a bishop in 1996. He has spent a long missionary career in China, and has long been a vocal protester against human-rights abuses in China.

His concerns have grown so great that he recently traveled to Rome to meet with Pope Francis about the proposed deal, after the Vatican asked Bishop Peter Zhuang Jianjian of Shantou in southern Guangdong province and Bishop Joseph Guo Xijin from the Mindong Diocese of China’s eastern Fujian province to retire so that bishops from the patriotic association could take their place.

In a letter posted to his blog Jan. 29, Cardinal Zen said that while his meeting with the Pope last week was consoling, he believes “the Vatican is selling out the Catholic Church in China…if they go in the direction which is obvious from all what they are doing in recent years and months.”

He implied that Francis was unfamiliar with the situation, and questioned whether there could be any mutual ground with “a totalitarian regime,” comparing this to a hypothetical agreement between St. Joseph and King Herod. He said that if the agreement that comes out is a poor one, “I would be more than happy to be the obstacle.”

The Vatican immediately responded, and in a Jan. 30 statement said Francis is well-informed of the dialogue with China, so “it is therefore surprising and regrettable that the contrary is affirmed by people in the Church, thus fostering confusion and controversy.”

In a Jan. 31 interview with Italian paper La Stampa , Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin spoke of the proposed deal, and, though he didn’t mention Zen’s comments specifically, said “no one should cling to the spirit of opposition to condemn his brother or use the past as an excuse to stir up new resentments and closures.”

On the deal, he said that “if someone is asked to make a sacrifice, small or great, it must be clear to everyone that this is not the price of a political exchange, but falls within the evangelical perspective of a greater good, the good of the Church of Christ”

Figueriedo told CNA he believes the Vatican was quick to counter Zen in order to protect the deal, because “it really takes just one person on the Chinese side to say ‘you shouldn’t go ahead,’” which he says has happened in the past.

Should a deal come to fruition, Cappello said he hoped it would help normalize life for Catholic faithful and allow priests, bishops and seminarians to receive much needed formation.

China is extremely complex, he said, explaining that the Vatican has reached a point of understanding the nation which is both “encouraging and remarkable.”

However, he said there are real reasons for concern based on past events, and that any agreement is something that those on both sides will need to grow into.

CNA reached out to the Vatican for confirmation, however, they declined to comment on the situation.

After Hong Kong’s youngest would-be Legislative Council candidate was disqualified from running in the March by-election due to her party’s political stance, Christian groups are joining the battle against the move with an online petition.

On Jan. 27, Agnes Chow Ting, 21, was notified by the returning officer of the Electoral Affairs Commission that she would not be allowed to participate.

The ban fueled accusations of growing political censorship in the former British colony, which was handed back to mainland China in 1997.

Chow is a member of Demosisto, a pro-democracy political party established in 2016 which calls for Hong Kong to be afforded self-determination. The Electoral Affairs Commission found this policy showed Chow was not loyal to Hong Kong’s Special Administrative Region status under Beijing’s Communist Party government.

On Jan. 31, eight Christian group launched a joint online signature campaign to protest against her disqualification and by Feb. 2 thousands of signatures had been collected.

The joint commission is composed of Hong Kong Christian Social Concern Fellowship, Hong Kong Catholic Commission for Labour Affairs, Christians for Hong Kong Society, Christian Classroom for Democracy, Christians to The World, Christian Street Fighters, Umbrella City Cyberchurch and Pastoral Care Group.

The commission issued a joint statement on Jan. 31 with a headline that “We are Hongkongers — Christians protest against Agnes Chow for being disqualified through an abuse of the power.”

The statement said the government abused its power by arbitrarily depriving Chow of election rights and was wantonly dismantling the “reasonable high degree of autonomy” conferred on Hong Kong by “Basic Law.”

Chow, back when she was a student at the Holy Family Canossian College, was a spokesperson for protests against official attempts to allegedly “brainwash” Hong Kong students. The mass demonstrations forced officials to back down on the plan.

The European Union has cautioned that the political ban imposed on Chow was not consistent with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and risked diminishing Hong Kong’s international reputation.

The EU noted that protections of the covenant were guaranteed under Hong Kong’s Bill of Rights.

Jackie Hung, an officer of the Catholic Justice and Peace Commission of Hong Kong, told ucanews.com that stopping Chow from seeking election to the Legislative Council was not justified.

Hung suggested that wider political discussion should be permitted even though the law, as it stands, does not allow for Hong Kong to become independent.

“Freedom of expression is the most important part of human rights law, but nowadays the space for expression and discussion is stifled,” she said.

Hung noted that if Demosisto did not have an opportunity to influence Hong Kong’s politics, its only option would be to take to the streets.

Nathan Law Kwun-chun, 23, chairman of Demosisto and the youngest person elected to the Legislative Council, was disqualified in July 2017.

He, along with three other elected lawmakers, were not allowed to take up their seats after inserting words into their official oath of office that were deemed to be offensive to mainland China.

Hung warned that Hong Kong people would resist any attempts to further limit their freedoms.

On Jan. 29, a joint statement was issued by all 30 members of the legal subsector of Hong Kong’s 1,200-member Election Committee, an electoral college responsible for choosing Hong Kong’s chief executive.

The statement expressed concern over the political ban on Chow, adding that all permanent residents had the right to seek elected office.

Benny Tai Yiu-ting, an associate professor of law at Hong Kong University, said the returning officer acted outside his legal powers in banning Chow as a candidate.

Hong Kong’s Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor on Jan. 30 suggested there were fair grounds for the disqualification.

However, she insisted that neither Hong Kong’s secretary of justice nor herself had interfered in the decision-making process.

CU Boulder researchers have discovered a mechanism that explains the persistence of asymmetrical stellar clusters surrounding supermassive black holes in some galaxies and suggests that during post-galactic merger periods, orbiting stars could be flung into the black hole and destroyed at a rate of one per year.

The research, which was recently published in The Astrophysical Journal, also suggests an answer to a longstanding astronomical mystery about the behavior of eccentric stellar orbits near supermassive black holes and why the seemingly unstable dynamic survives long term.

A supermassive black hole’s gravity creates a nuclear star cluster surrounding it, which gravitational physics would expect to be spherically symmetric. However, several galaxies–including nearby Andromeda–have been observed with an asymmetrical star cluster that takes the form of a disk instead. Eccentric disks are suspected to be formed in the wake of a recent merger between two gas-rich galaxies.

Within the disk, each star follows an elliptical orbit that revolves around the supermassive black hole over time. The stars’ orbits nearly overlap and interact with each other frequently. Eventually, gravitational disruptions to one star’s orbit will bring it too close to the black hole.

“The force builds up in these stellar orbits and changes their shape,” said Associate JILA Fellow Ann-Marie Madigan, who led the study. “Eventually, a star reaches its nearest approach to the black hole and it gets shredded.”

“We predict that in a post-galactic merger period, a supermassive black hole will swallow one star per year,” said co-author Heather Wernke, a CU Boulder graduate student. “That’s 10,000 times more often than other rate predictions.”

The finding bolsters observational evidence that some galaxies with supermassive black holes at their center have higher stellar mortality rates than others and suggests that eccentric nuclear disks may be more common than initially expected. Further studies could help researchers better understand galactic mergers and the evolution of the universe.

“Andromeda is likely past the peak of this process, having undergone a merger long ago,” said Madigan, who is also an assistant professor in CU Boulder’s Department of Astrophysical and Planetary Sciences. “But with higher resolution data, we may be able to find younger eccentric disks in more distant galactic nuclei.”

New research has shed light on the reasons driving doctors out of General Practice, following earlier findings that around two out of every five GPs in the South West are planning to leave direct patient care in the next five years.

The research, led by Professor John Campbell of the University of Exeter Medical School and funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), aimed to identify factors influencing GPs’ decisions about whether or not to remain in direct patient care, and what might help to retain them in the role.

Professor Campbell, who is a practising GP, said, “Our new research is a significant study of what is driving the exodus of GPs from direct patient care. Policy makers need to take this onboard and address these issues to retain GPs and encourage medical students to take up a career in general practice. Despite recent government plans to address the problem, numbers are continuing to fall. If we do not act now, many areas will face a severe shortfall in the number of GPs providing care for patients their area.”

Researchers interviewed 41 GPs for the study, and identified three main themes underpinning the GPs’ thinking and rationale.

Three reasons emerged: a sense that general practice based primary care was under-valued within the healthcare system; concerns regarding professional risk encountered in delivering care in an increasingly complex health environment; and finally, considerations about leaving or remaining in direct patient care and the options and choices that GPs felt were available to them.

It comes following a largescale survey led by Professor Campbell, which showed that two in every five GPs in the South West intended to quit within the next five years.

The research adds to the picture of a crisis developing around the national GP workforce in the last five years. The number of unfilled GP posts quadrupled between 2012 and 2014, while the numbers of GPs fell substantially. The national situation has prompted political action, with the Government announcing measures to train 5,000 new GPs in 2015, and to increase the proportion of medical students who choose general practice as a career. Despite this, government data showed that over 1000 GPs left full time practice between 2016 and 2017.

Professor Campbell said: “We now need sustained, strategic, and stable planning of health services – not a series of short-term ‘fixes’ which only destabilise clinical care further. Innovation is essential, but needs to be based on firm evidence.”

Tropical forests all over the world are at risk. Two of the main threats are the deforestation for arable land and climate change. Scientists from the Technical University of Munich (TUM) and the Thünen-Institute compared the losses due to deforestation with those that would result in extreme climate change scenarios in Ecuador. Although global warming is likely to change the distribution of species, deforestation will result in the loss of more dry forests than predicted by climate change damage.

A large proportion of Ecuador’s rare dry forests are located in the southwest of the country, in the Tumbes-Chocó-Magdalena region. These forests provide not only wood and non-wood products, but also important ecosystem services that regulate the water balance and protect the soil from erosion. However, the area suffers a high loss of habitat due to deforestation for more arable and pasture land. This exacerbates the negative effects of climate change, such as temperature increases.

In cooperation with scientists from the Thünen-Institut and the Ecuadorian Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja, a team from TUM compared the predicted loss of area of tree species caused by deforestation on the one hand and by predicted forest losses in an extreme climate change scenario on the other.

“We have evaluated 660 data sets on the occurrence of 17 characteristic species of dry forests in the south of Ecuador,” said first author Carlos Manchego and Patrick Hildebrandt from the Chair of Silviculture at TUM, “in order to estimate both potential threats, we have compared the forecast annual rates of losses. However, it is important that the results are not transferable to other tree species in other regions.”

Losses from conversions in the period 2008 to 2014, especially for agricultural and pasture land, averaged 71 square kilometres per year for all species in the study area. The predicted loss of species area in the climate change scenario was only 21 square kilometres per year.

Recommendations for more effective forest protection and sustainable land use

One unexpected outcome was the different displacement directions of tree species due to climate change. While some species migrate to the north, other species find their future distribution focus more to the south.

“This leads to a trend towards mixing tree species with hitherto unknown effects on the functionality and stability of future forest communities,” said Hildebrandt. “At the same time, grubbing-up starts in the higher altitudes, because it’s easier to grow something like corn there.”

According to Hildebrandt, it is important for efficient planning, the implementation of protective measures and sustainable land use to prioritise the measures according to such threats and weak points. A distinction must be made between the potential threats posed by climate change and deforestation. With the study “PLOS One” we wanted to provide a scientific frame of reference to identify the lesser evil and make targeted recommendations”.

However, regardless of the conservation strategy, these objectives required the participation of both private landowners and local communities.

The suicide rate dropped by 24% in 2015-2017 in Armenia, the National Statistical Service said, revealing that 560 cases of suicide were registered in those three years.

157 individuals committed suicide in 2017 against the 195 in 2016 and the 208 a year earlier.

Men accounted for 77% (432 cases) of all the suicides committed in the reporting period. More than half of those who ended their lives were aged 30-65.

The number of suicide attempts also decreased in the three years – 514 attempts made in 2015, 440 in 2016, and 405 in 2017.