By Joshua Lipes

On the eve of the Pyeongchang Winter Olympic Games, the U.S. and South Korea vowed to work in tandem towards denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, but delivered messages suggesting very different approaches in dealing with the threat of North Korea and its weapons development program.

Ahead of a bilateral meeting with U.S. Vice President Mike Pence at the Blue House in South Korea’s capital Seoul, South Korean President Moon Jae-in addressed reporters Thursday, calling the Winter Games “all the more meaningful” because of the participation of high-level figures from the South and North, the U.S., and regional players Japan and China.

“I believe that it is thanks to the unwavering principle of the United States and the very strong and close coordination between Korea and the United States that enabled North Korea to come out to dialogue and to participate in the Pyeongchang Winter Olympic Games,” Moon said.

“And we certainly hope to utilize this opportunity to the maximum so that the Pyeongchang Winter Olympic Games can become a venue that leads to dialogue for the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, as well as the establishment of peace on the Korean Peninsula.”

Following Moon’s statement, Pence told reporters that there were “many issues to discuss” between the U.S. and South Korea, chief among which is “our shared objective of the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.”

And while the vice president pledged that the U.S. would “continue to stand shoulder-to-shoulder” with the South on bringing peace to the region, he made no mention of dialogue with the North, and instead called for bringing “maximum pressure to bear on North Korea until that time comes when they finally and permanently and irreversibly abandon their nuclear and ballistic missile ambitions.”

Earlier on Thursday, at Yokata Air Base in Japan, Pence said Washington would “continue to seize every opportunity” to ensure that North Korea does not use the Olympics to “paper over an appalling record of human rights and a pattern of developing weapons” that threaten the U.S. and the region.

Moon, meanwhile, plans to meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un’s sister, Kim Yo Jong, and other senior officials from the North when they travel to South Korea to lead a delegation of 22 athletes and more than 400 entertainers and cheerleaders to the Winter Olympics. Kim made an eleventh-hour proposal to take part in the Games during his annual New Year’s address.

Kim Yo Jong—who would be the first member of North Korea’s ruling family to visit the South since the 1950-53 Korean War—will arrive Friday to attend the opening ceremony of the Games, and will join Moon for lunch on Saturday, along with president of the North’s Supreme People’s Assembly Kim Yong Nam, according to presidential spokesman Kim Eui-kyeom.

The decision to include Kim Yo Jong—who was promoted last year as an alternate member of the political bureau of the ruling party’s central committee—in North Korea’s Olympic delegation suggests Kim Jong Un may be trying to use the Games to better relations with the South and reach out to the U.S., amid crippling sanctions from the international community over the North’s weapons program.

Kim Yo Jong is under U.S. sanctions for human rights abuses stemming from her role in the regime’s mass censorship activities.

The North Korean and U.S. delegations are both expected to attend a reception hosted by Moon ahead of the opening ceremony for the Games, but North Korea’s foreign ministry has said there will be no meeting with Pence.

Additionally, North Korea held a stand-offish military parade in the capital Pyongyang Thursday to mark the 70th anniversary of the founding of the Korean Peoples’ Army (KPA)—complete with intercontinental ballistic missiles, tanks, and goose-stepping troops—which Kim Jong Un said signaled the North’s emergence as a “global military power” in spite of the “worst sanctions.”

Intentions questioned

Kim Kwang-jin, a research fellow at South Korea’s Institute for National Security Strategy (INSS), told RFA’s Korean Service that Pence has sought to show that the U.S. doubts North Korea’s intentions in using the Winter Olympics as a diplomatic channel to end its isolation.

“The U.S. administration [of President Donald Trump] stands firm against North Korea,” Kim said.

“The plan is to apply maximum sanctions and pressure, so it can be speculated that Vice President Pence’s stance would be on the same line, following President Trump’s talks with North Korean defectors,” he added, referring to a meeting the president held at the White House with eight defectors last week.

Among Pence’s guests at the Winter Games will be Fred Warmbier, the father of Otto Warmbier—an American student who died days after his release from detention in North Korea last year.

According to Kim, Pence’s decision to invite Warmbier to the Games was meant to remind the international community of the North’s provocative actions and rights abuses, despite what he said was a bid by Pyongyang to “improve their image in Pyeongchang.”

“Bringing Otto Warmbier’s family along highlights the nature of the North Korean regime and shows where the U.S. stands,” he said.

“A college student, who simply went on tour [to the North], fell into a coma [in captivity] and died soon after he was sent back home. This is the real North Korea and the U.S. won’t allow that to be forgotten. The U.S. intends to make North Korea pay for what it did.”

By placing an emphasis on its poor human rights record, Kim said, the U.S. is providing another reason for the international community to apply pressure on North Korea.

“The U.S. is already opposing North Korea’s development of nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles, and U.N. Security Council resolutions have led to sanctions on North Korea,” he said.

“[The. U.S.] is now raising the alarm that human rights violations in North Korea are serious. By highlighting this issue on the global stage, it is their plan to apply greater pressure on the North.

The Korean unification flag, in its first version, consists of a blue and undivided Korean peninsula as well as Jeju island to its south. There is a lot more to this flag than meets the eye.

By Shawn Ho*

Some 190 athletes from South Korea and North Korea will march in together behind a common flag bearing the name “KOREA” – symbolising Korean unification — at the opening ceremony of the Pyeongchang Winter Olympics this Friday 9 February 2018. This is significant because it has been 12 years since the two Koreas have marched together as one group in an Olympics with a flag displaying an undivided Korean peninsula.

Since its conception in the early 1990s, a few versions of the flag have emerged during the march-ins of the Korea group at the opening ceremonies of various international sporting events. Whenever this flag appears at official events, the number of islands shown on the flag is closely watched by Japan. This flag also serves as a reminder of the deep divide between the policies taken by the conservative and liberal camps in South Korea towards North Korea.

Versions of the Flag and the Japan Factor

Several versions of the Korean unification flag have been flown over the last 27 years since it was first used publicly by the joint Korea team at the 1991 World Table Tennis Championships in Chiba, Japan. This first version included just the Korean peninsula and Jeju island. The flag notably left out two islands off the eastern coast of the peninsula. These two islands are known as Ulleungdo (which is undisputed Korean territory) and Dokdo (disputed territory with Japan; also known as Takeshima by Japan).

At the 2002 Asian Games in Busan, South Korea, a second version of this flag appeared at the opening ceremony and Ulleungdo had been added to the map. The third version of the flag included both Ulleungdo and Dokdo. It was used at the 2006 Winter Olympics in Turin, Italy, and at the 2007 Asian Winter Games in Changchun, China. This inclusion of Dokdo as part of Korean territory proved to be controversial since the island has long been disputed territory between Korea and Japan.

Precisely because of this controversy over Dokdo, it is likely that the flag that will be used at the Pyeongchang opening ceremony will exclude Dokdo. This will undoubtedly lead to some domestic backlash in Korea against President Moon Jae-in and his administration.

Such a move will be seen as giving in to Japanese pressure (to exclude Dokdo). Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s attendance at the opening ceremony would have certainly factored in the final decision about the composition of this Olympic’s Korean unification flag.

Given the backdrop of the comfort women issue between South Korea and Japan, along with pressure from the United States for South Korea to have better relations with Japan for a united trilateral front to deal with North Korea’s nuclear and missile programmes, Seoul is treading carefully with regard to its foreign policy towards Japan.

Korean Domestic Politics

The history and appearance of any version of the Korean unification flag at the Olympics also reflects the deep divide between the conservatives and liberals in various South Korean administrations’ policies towards North Korea. The appearance of this flag at the Olympics typically occurs when liberal administrations are in power in South Korea. The liberals tend to favour engagement with rather than isolation of North Korea.

The very first time this unified Korean flag appeared in the history of the Olympics was during the 2000 Summer Olympics in Sydney. It is no coincidence that this historic moment had taken place during the “Sunshine Policy” years of the liberal administration of Kim Dae-jung (1998-2003).

The momentum that was established to improve inter-Korean ties was carried further during the subsequent liberal administration of Roh Moo-hyun (2003-2008). The two Koreas continued to march together under the unified Korean flag at the opening ceremonies of the 2004 Summer and 2006 Winter Olympics (although they continued to compete as separate teams).

Shift in South Korean Policy

A change in government in South Korea in 2008 brought about a significant shift in inter-Korean relations. This spilled over to the Olympics as well. During the conservative administrations of Lee Myung-bak (2008-2013) and Park Geun-hye (2013-2017), there were no joint march-ins by the two Koreas at the Olympics.

The unified Korean flag also did not make an appearance at both the Summer and Winter Olympics from 2008 to 2016. The conservative administrations during this period adopted more hardline policies towards North Korea and they did not believe in proactively engaging North Korea, especially when the North continued to conduct nuclear and missile tests.

In Pyeongchang, the two Koreas will, however, field a combined women’s ice hockey team – the first time that a joint Korean team has been formed at the Olympics. However, the formation of this joint team has led to a backlash from conservative groups in South Korea. Even some of the younger generation in South Korea feel that President Moon has gone overboard in his pro-engagement policy towards North Korea to form a unified ice hockey team.

President Moon’s decision has not only led to several South Korean athletes losing their places in the squad in order to make way for the inclusion of several North Korean athletes; it has also led to his approval ratings dropping below 60% for the first time since he took office in May 2017.

Legacy of Pyeongchang Olympics?

Since he took office in May 2017, President Moon has been enthusiastically promoting the Pyeongchang Olympics as the “Peace Olympics”. How long this current thaw in inter-Korean tensions will last and whether the US and North Korea will commence direct talks either during or after the Olympics is anyone’s guess.

Regardless of what will happen after the Olympics, engagement and peace between the two Koreas is definitely a preferred development over the alternative of war on the Korean peninsula.

If there is going to be one takeaway from the Pyeongchang Olympics, it proves once again that sports can never truly be separated from domestic or international politics. If, and it is certainly a big if, President Moon can successfully achieve a breakthrough in inter-Korean relations, the Pyeongchang Olympics might just be remembered as the Olympics where Korea won its best ever gold medal.

*Shawn Ho is an Associate Research Fellow with the Regional Security Architecture Programme at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore.

By Terri Moon Cronk

U.S. service members who are a part of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program cannot be deported, Defense Secretary James N. Mattis told Pentagon reporters.

“Anyone who’s in the delayed enlistment program or is already signed up and waiting to go into boot camp, anyone on active duty, anyone in the active reserves and anyone with an honorable discharge … will not be subject to any kind of deportation,” the secretary told reporters.

Exceptions would apply if a service member either has committed a serious felony or has received a federal judge’s signed deportation order, Mattis said, adding that he is not aware of either case applying to a U.S. service member.

“I’m working right now with the secretary of homeland security,” he said. “We’ve been over [the DACA issue] in great detail.”

Attack in Syria

The secretary also confirmed “about 300” Syrian pro-regime forces were involved in yesterday’s surprise attack on Syrian Democratic Forces, which are fighting the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. He called the attack on the SDF “very serious,” and said it is not yet known what forces launched the pro-regime attack on the U.S.-led and coalition-backed SDF.

“I would characterize it as a perplexing situation,” Mattis said, noting that U.S. Special Forces were with the SDF during the attack. “I’m not sure why [regime forces] would do this, because it was [an SDF] headquarters. They began shelling it with artillery, and immediately the deconfliction line was in use. They were moving with tanks, obviously in the same direction they were firing.

“At the end of our effort to defend ourselves,” Mattis continued, “their artillery was knocked out, two of the tanks were knocked, out [and] they had casualties. The Russians told the U.S. military they did not have forces there, he added.

“It was self-defense, [and we are] not getting engaged in the Syrian civil war. We’re there to fight ISIS,” he said. “That’s what those [SDF] troops were doing – coordinating strikes against ISIS,” when the unexplained attack took place.

Military Parade

The secretary also confirmed that President Donald J. Trump has inquired about a military parade.

“The president is looking at a parade – I owe him some options,” he said. “We’ll turn it over to the military guys who know how to do parades and we’ll do options, and we’ll work out everything from size to participation and the cost. When I get clear options, I’ll send those over to the White House, and I’ll go over and talk with [the president].”

Aside from saying he understands that the president wants the parade to be in Washington, Mattis said he could not provide further details on the parade because his conversations with the president are confidential.

How should India respond to Abdulla Yameen’s blatant disregard for democratic principles?

By Harsh V. Pant

The crisis in the Maldives escalated this week after President Abdulla Yameen declared a state of emergency and asked military troops to arrest two top judges and detain former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, who has allied himself with the opposition. Last week, the nation’s Supreme Court had ordered the release of nine imprisoned opposition politicians on the grounds that their trials were politically motivated and flawed. The government refused to implement the ruling, which led to widespread demonstrations in Male and clashes between the police and protesters. Calling President Yameen’s announcement as “unconstitutional and illegal,” exiled former Maldivian President Mohamed Nasheed, who was also the country’s first democratically-elected leader, has urged India to “act swiftly” to resolve the crisis.

In some ways, Yameen’s actions are understandable as his options after the Supreme Court ruling were quite limited. The Supreme Court verdict not only paves the way for Nasheed to return back from his exile in Colombo and run for the presidency this year, but also makes the possibility of Yameen’s impeachment plausible. Yameen must be calculating that with help of friends of like China, he would be able to ride over any crisis that might ensue with his declaration of a state of emergency.

The alacrity with which the Maldives embraced China seems to have caught India off guard. But New Delhi’s engagement with Male has been hesitant of late, and China has made the most of it. During Yameen’s China visit last year, the two nations signed twelve pacts, including a free trade agreement. Yameen also fully endorsed China’s ambitious Maritime Silk Road initiative. President Xi Jinping declared that “China deems the Maldives as an important partner” in this initiative and Yameen repaid the favor by claiming that the Maldives viewed China “among [its] closest friends” and that “the Belt and Road Initiative has greatly helped the development of many small and medium countries.” At a time when China’s Belt and Road Initiative is beginning to attract scrutiny around the world, with even erstwhile supporters calling for a reassessment, such an endorsement was much sought after by Beijing.

The Maldives became the second country in South Asia, after Pakistan, to enter into a free trade agreement with China. The Yameen government pushed the FTA through the nation’s Parliament, the Majlis, stealthily, with the opposition not attending the parliamentary session. The principal opposition party, the Maldivian Democratic Party, said that it was “deeply concerned over [the] sudden and rushed Free Trade Agreement with China, without any disclosure of details to the public or to the MPs.” The concerns of the opposition center around a possible increase in the country’s trade deficit, which is already tilted in favor of China, and the strategic direction of the country more broadly. The MDP has argued that it is worried “that further entrenchment of the country into a Chinese debt trap will result in additional stress on strategic national assets and increasing instability in the Indian Ocean region.”

But that is where Yameen wants to take his country it seems. On the one hand, he has been flirting with Islamist extremism and, on the other, he wants to use closer ties with China to shield his government from global criticism. After the first visit by a Chinese president to the Maldives in 2014, it officially became a part of the 21st-century Maritime Silk Road. China quickly expanded its economic profile in the Maldives by building mega infrastructure projects, including the development of Hulhule island and a bridge connecting it to Male as well as the country’s main international airport. A constitutional amendment allowing foreign ownership of freehold land was passed in 2015, which can potentially enhance China’s military presence on the island nation. Already, Chinese naval ships have become regular visitors to Male.

During his 2016 visit to Delhi, Yameen said his country pursues an “India first” foreign policy, describing it as the Maldives’ most important friend. But that was just after India had shielded the Yameen government from punitive action by the Commonwealth’s human rights and democracy oversight body. New Delhi’s recent policy of engaging with the Maldivian opposition, especially the former president, Nasheed, may be causing heartburn in Male and so the outreach to China has intensified. The Maldives remains the only country in South Asia that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is yet to visit.

There were many in India who have been critical of the Modi government’s light touch approach toward Yameen over the last few years, especially as he systematically worked at destroying the foundations of democracy in his country. But New Delhi had other interests to preserve in the archipelago nation. Now the moment of reckoning has come for both for New Delhi and Yameen. India’s suggestion that the Supreme Court’s ruling should be promptly implemented was clearly given a short shrift by Yameen. New Delhi will have to intervene cautiously. A coordinated response with other like-minded regional and extra regional players will be the first step. But like in the past, New Delhi should not be shy of using coercive diplomacy if only to underscore that ignoring India’s warnings comes at a price. The logic of geography dictates that India’s role will be critical in determining the trajectory of political developments in the Maldives.

This commentary originally appeared in The Diplomat.

By Dr. Majid Rafizadeh*

Iran’s state-owned Persian media outlets have concentrated on the US-Russia relationship in the last few days. The Iranian regime’s President Hassan Rouhani lashed out at the US administration by mentioning that Washington ought to strengthen its ties with NATO members.

Then Iranian leaders dragged Russia into the issue, with Rouhani stating on Iranian TV: “The Americans are shamelessly threatening Russia.” Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif also attempted to use his classic tactic of fear-mongering by pointing out that US policy is “bringing humankind closer to annihilation.”

It is worth noting that this is a politically calculated move by the Iranian regime to pit Russia and the US against each other. The increased tensions between the Donald Trump administration and Vladimir Putin’s government will grab the global spotlight, taking attention away from the Iranian regime’s threats; specifically the military adventurism and expansionism of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), its elite branch the Quds Force, and its proxies in the region.

Furthermore, the Iranian regime benefits from any heightened tension between Russia and the US because Moscow would then be obliged to strengthen its alliances against Washington. It follows that Russia will boost its military and political cooperation with Tehran and support a regime that holds anti-Americanism at the top of its foreign policy agenda.

In other words, the more tension between Russia and the US rises, the more Russia gets closer to the Iranian regime and supports it.

One of the major pillars of Iran’s foreign policy has been to keep Russia on its side regardless of which government rules Moscow. This is due to the fact that the Iranian regime is in desperate need for Russian military, geopolitical and technological assistance. Iran needs Russia to keep the Syrian regime in power. For instance, Iran can use Russia’s airstrikes, while the IRGC and its proxies, such as Hezbollah, can provide the required boots on the ground to make territorial advances.

In addition, Tehran needs Moscow to circumvent international isolation and sanctions; to obtain the most advanced weaponry; to tip the regional and global balance of power against Tehran’s “enemies;” and to gain global “legitimacy.” This helps the regime evade responsibility and accountability for its aggression in the region and its human rights violations. Iranian leaders further need Russian assistance in sending nuclear technology to Iran, modernizing the heavy water reactor in Arak, and supporting Tehran’s export of surplus highly enriched uranium.

Maintaining strategic, economic and geopolitical relationships with Russia is so critical for Iran that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who rarely meets with world leaders, has met with representatives of the Kremlin several times.

To keep Russia’s alliance, the Iranian regime has used other tactics beside inflaming tensions between the US and Moscow. For example, like Assad’s regime, Iran has granted Russia a foothold in the Middle East. The Iranian regime even violated its own Constitution’s Article 146, which stipulates: “The establishment of any kind of foreign military base in Iran, even for peaceful purposes, is forbidden.” No foreign power has used Iran’s soil or territories as a base for military operations since the Second World War, but Tehran has allowed Russia to use its Hamadan Airbase as a military base to bomb Syria.

The US and European countries ought to remind Russia that its economic and political relationships with the West outweigh its ties with Tehran. Russia should also be cognizant of the fact that Iran is a threat to Russia, as Tehran is currently luring the EU into decreasing its energy dependence on Russia by allowing the bloc to tap into its oil and gas sectors. Iran seeks a larger role in the gas market and is welcoming Western partnerships. Moscow and Tehran have the first and second-largest gas reserves in the world, respectively.

Improved ties between the US and Russia could endanger the Iranian regime’s revolutionary objectives, but the Iranian regime is playing its cards wisely. By playing the US and Russia off against each other, Tehran is ultimately advancing its regional hegemonic ambitions.

• Dr. Majid Rafizadeh is a Harvard-educated Iranian-American political scientist. He is a leading expert on Iran and US foreign policy, a businessman and president of the International American Council. He serves on the boards of the Harvard International Review, the Harvard International Relations Council and the US-Middle East Chamber for Commerce and Business. Twitter: @Dr_Rafizadeh

Twitter finally made a profit for the first time since launching in March 2006. The social network announced that its profit in the last quarter of 2017 was $91 million against a revenue of $731 million. This is also the first time that Twitter has reported revenue growth in the past four quarters, BuzzFeed News reports.

While Twitter grew over the year, it didn’t add any new users since the previous quarter.

The company said that it has 330 million users — 68 million in the United States and 262 million internationally, up 2% and 4%, respectively, year on year. The company attributed the lack of quarterly user growth during to its clamp down on fake accounts. As a point of comparison, in the last quarter of 2016, Twitter added 1 million users.

Twitter spent the second half of 2017 explaining how Russian accounts and bots used its service to influence the 2016 US presidential election. And earlier this year, it had a high-profile executive departure after COO Anthony Noto, the most powerful executive in the company besides CEO Jack Dorsey, stepped down to head San Francisco-based finance company SoFi.

The European Union Missions in Jerusalem and Ramallah released a statement on Tuesday expressing their concern over Israel’s demolition of two EU-funded classrooms in the Palestinian Bedouin village of Abu Nuwwar.

Israeli forces destroyed the classrooms, which served schoolchildren in the third and fourth grades, on Sunday, affecting the education of more than 25 students.

The EU Representative and the EU Heads of Mission in Jerusalem and Ramallah said in their statement that “every child has the right to access to education and states have an obligation to protect, respect and fulfill this right, by ensuring that schools are inviolable safe spaces for children.”

The missions called on the Israeli authorities to rebuild the school structures in the same place where they stood prior to demolition.

The EU also called upon the Israeli authorities to halt demolitions and confiscations of Palestinian houses and property” in accordance with its obligations as an occupying power under international humanitarian law, and to cease the policy of settlement construction and expansion, of designating land for exclusive Israeli use and of denying Palestinian development.”

Palestinian Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah also condemned the demolitions, saying “denying Palestinian children their right to education, not to mention other fundamental rights, is a deliberate policy of the Israeli authorities to pressure Palestinian communities to leave, in order to confiscate their land and build additional settlements.”

Abu Nuwwar, like other Bedouin communities in the region, is under threat of forcible transfer by Israel for being located in the contentious “E1 corridor” set up by the Israeli government to link annexed East Jerusalem with the mega settlement of Maale Adumim.

Israeli authorities plan to build thousands of homes for Jewish-only settlements in E1, which would effectively divide the West Bank and make the creation of a contiguous Palestinian state — as envisaged by the two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict — almost impossible.

In August 2017, Israeli authorities seized solar panels that powered an elementary and preschool in Abu Nuwwar despite a petition against the seizure having been filed to the Israeli Supreme court, which issued a restraining order against the confiscation an hour after the panels were taken.

Israel has come under repeated international condemnation over demolitions of EU-funded structures, with some accusing the Israeli government of demolishing Palestinian structures in retaliation for the EU’s decision in November to enforce labeling laws that would indicate if a product was produced in one of Israel’s 196 illegal settlements.

A new bill proposed in Iceland that would make circumcision punishable by up to six years in prison is a “dangerous attack” on religious freedom, Cardinal Reinhard Marx has said.

“Protecting the health of children is a legitimate goal of every society, but in this case this concern is instrumentalized, without any scientific basis, to stigmatise certain religious communities. This is extremely worrying,” Marx said in a statement.

Marx commented on the issue as President of the Catholic Church in the European Union (COMECE). While Iceland does not belong to the European Union, it does have “privileged relations” with EU countries, COMECE noted.

“COMECE considers any attempt on the fundamental right to freedom of religion as unacceptable. The criminalisation of circumcision is a very grave measure that raises deep concern,” Marx added.

Circumcision is a religious ritual for many, notably Jews and Muslims. Jews typically circumcise infant boys eight days after birth, while Muslim practices vary widely.

The proposed bill states that “Anyone who…causes damage to the body or health of a child or a woman by…removing sexual organs shall be imprisoned for up to 6 years.”

The bill specifically states that circumcisions on boys, if performed for non-medical reasons, would be banned in Iceland under the bill. Female circumcision has been banned in Iceland since 2005.

Male circumcisions used to be “generally encouraged…to prevent various disorders and behaviors,” the bill states.

“In recent years, this view has been expanding, and is quite widespread in Europe, that the execution of a construction for a purpose other than a medical is a violation of human rights boys because of irreversible interventions in their bodies,” it states, and carries a risk of infection.

The bill also states that circumcision of young boys violates “Article 12. UN Convention on the Rights of Children to Affect Your Own Life” as well as “paragraph 3. Article 24 which guarantees children protection against traditions that are harmful to children’s health.”

While the bill does not define at what age childhood ends, the age of sexual consent in Iceland is 15 years of age.

According to Mayo Clinic, circumcision may have some health benefits, including easier hygiene, decreased risk of urinary tract infections, decreased risk of sexually transmitted infections, and a decreased risk of penile cancer.

The American Academy of Pediatrics notes that the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks, although they encourage parental discretion in the decision.

The health risks and benefits have been a topic of debate for several years in some European countries, although none have banned the practice outright.

Iceland, which has a population of around 334,000, has a small Muslim population of a few hundred people, and an even smaller Jewish population of around 100 people.

While Iceland has no designated Rabbi, Jewish news source ynetnews.com reports that Chief Rabbi of Denmark Yair Melchior and the Rabbi of Oslo, Yoav Melchior are campaigning against the bill on behalf of the Jewish population in Iceland.

“Iceland does not have a significant Jewish or Muslim population; therefore there are hardly any opponents to the bill. Only considerable international pressure can help,” the Rabbis told ynetnews.

“There is no country in the world now that bans circumcision. This sets a dangerous precedent that may affect other countries; the Danish parliament is now considering such a bill as well,” they added. The Danish Medical Association has advised against male circumcision in boys for several years, though no ban has been enacted in the country.

The European Conference of Rabbis also voiced their opposition to the bill in a statement, as reported in ynetnews.

“Circumcision is a critical part of Jewish life and no authority in the world can forbid Jews from carrying out this commandment,” they said.

Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt, president of the group, added that “although the Icelandic Jewish community is small, we cannot ignore the dangerous precedent that this law can set and the consequences that such legislation can cause in other countries.”

“We call on lawmakers to immediately rescind this miserable piece of legislation and continue supporting Jewish life without limits.”

It is unclear when the bill would be up for a vote.

The remote forests of Africa’s Congo Basin have long been a blind spot for scientists working to understand how Earth’s natural cycles respond to the environmentally unique characteristics of different regions.

Now, two Florida State University researchers are part of a global team of scientists revealing the unexpected role that large-scale fires and high nitrogen deposition play in the ecology and biogeochemistry of these lush Central African forests.

Their findings, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, could signal a fundamentally new understanding of these forests’ structure, functioning and biodiversity.

“We have been working in the Congo Basin for a decade and discoveries like this provide novel insights into how our planet works and remind us how much we still have to understand about the world around us,” said Rob Spencer, associate professor in the Department of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Science.

In collaboration with their Belgian and Congolese colleagues, FSU scientists conducted extensive field research throughout the densely forested Congo Basin — a region whose inaccessibility and political turmoil has rendered it critically understudied and data poor.

Samples collected during the fieldwork were processed using an ultrahigh-resolution mass spectrometer housed at the FSU-headquartered National High Magnetic Field Laboratory. This sophisticated analytical tool provides detailed molecular signatures of the organic material in a given sample.

Researchers were particularly interested in sifting through the samples for a group of fire-derived compounds called condensed aromatics, which indicate the role of fire as a source of organic material.

“Sure enough, we found that the fire-derived condensed aromatics were connected to the high levels of nitrogen in the samples,” said FSU doctoral candidate Travis Drake, a co-author of the study. “The atmospheric modeling already suggested that these elevated depositions of nitrogen were linked to fire, but now we had some molecular evidence to back it up.”

The forests of the Congo Basin are bordered on their northern and southern sides by vast mosaics of dry savannas and grasslands. When fires ignite in these drier regions as a result of slash-and-burn agriculture or natural causes like lightning, massive tracts of biomass go up in smoke. Much of the organic nitrogen from those fires, researchers have now found, is swept up into the atmosphere and deposited on the forests.

In tropical ecosystems like the Congolese forests, nitrogen can often act as a limiting nutrient — a naturally occurring element whose scarcity may curb biological growth. When surpluses of a limiting nutrient are pumped into an ecosystem, it can stimulate and accelerate growth in a selection of enterprising species.

On its face, this process may seem harmless. But, Drake said, nutrient saturation can actually have the effect of curtailing biodiversity.

“Each organism in an ecosystem specializes and tries to find its small place in the cascade of nutrients,” Drake said. “But if the forest is being flooded with nutrients, certain plants and organisms will benefit much more than others, and that can lead to less biodiversity.”

Drake said these findings raise a major question about the ecology of the Congo forests: If these high rates of nitrogen deposition have been going on for hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands of years, how might that have affected the forests’ long-term growth and development?

“There are some amazing ecological differences between the Congo forest and other rainforests like the Amazon,” he said. “The Amazon doesn’t have the expansive, arid savannas or the significant fire inputs that are found in the Congo, and there is far less biodiversity in the Congo than in the Amazon. If fires have been plowing the atmosphere with nitrogen for years, it’s possible the Congo may just be an extremely over-fertilized forest.”

In the past, little research had been conducted on the ecology and biogeochemistry of the Congo forests. In fact, in many cases, models of the region relied on decades old data, speculation or rates crudely grafted from other rainforests around the world.

Now, scientists are working with a renewed appreciation of Central Africa’s unique ecological characteristics. Drake said these most recent findings help to signal a new age of research in the forests of the Congo Basin.

“People are now seeing the Congo as an important hotbed for research,” he said. “It’s an encouraging time to be a scientist working in the Congo.”

By Norman (Otis) Richmond*

I have to disagree with Paul Krugman on his assessment of the current state of the economy. While I would agree with most of his comments about the state of the stock market and housing market, and also the competence of the Trump administration, I think he is wrong in saying that we are at or near full employment.

There are a few points to be made here. First. Krugman rightly notes the aging of the population pushing down the overall labor force participation rates. However, employment to population rates for prime age workers (ages 25 to 54) are still below pre-recession levels and well below 2000 levels. The falloff is pretty much across the board, applying to both men and women and both more educated and less educated workers (not all by the same amount) suggesting that a supply side explanation is not likely. In other words, there is reason to believe that if there were more demand, more people would be working.

While the 4.1 percent unemployment rate is low by the standards of the last 45 years, it is worth noting that other major economies (e.g. Japan and Germany) now have far lower unemployment rates than almost any economist thought plausible just four or five years ago. I don’t see any reason to believe that the U.S. unemployment rate can’t fall to 3.5 percent, and possibly even lower, without kicking off an inflationary spiral.

As evidence in the other direction Krugman cites the quit rate, the percentage of workers who quit their job. He notes that this is almost back at pre-recession levels and not much below 2001 levels (the first year for which data are available). While this is true, much of the story here is a composition effect. A much smaller segment of the labor force is in sectors with low quit rates like manufacturing and the government. A larger share are in high quit rate sectors like restaurants and professional and business services.

If we look within sectors, the story is not quite so positive. In retail trade the quit rate has averaged just under 2.9 percent in the last half year. By comparison it was at 3.4 percent in the peak months in 2006 and reached 3.8 percent in 2001. These are not small differences. Even in the worst months of the Great Recession the quit rate was 1.9 percent in retail.

There is a similar story in the hotel and restaurant sector. The quit rate has averaged 4.3 percent over the last six months. It was 5.2 percent in the first six months of 2006 and 5.4 percent in the first six months of 2001. These lower quit rates indicate that we still have some way to go before workers feel confident about their labor market prospects.

Another measure that gives us a similar picture is the percent of unemployment due to people who voluntarily quit their job. This is a good measure since these are people who feel sufficiently confident of their labor market prospects that they are prepared to quit even before they have another job lined up.

This figure has averaged just 11.0 percent over the last three months. By contrast, it averaged more than 12.0 percent in the peak months of 2006 and more than 14.0 percent in the peak three months of 2000.

These figures give us good reason to believe that the labor markets can get considerably tighter before we start to see serious problems with inflation. This is an important issue because if we allow the Fed to crack down when there is still room for the economy to expand further we could be needlessly keeping millions of people from getting job and tens of millions from getting pay increases.

There undoubtedly is a point where the economy would be seeing too much demand and suffering from serious inflationary pressures, but we are likely still a considerable distance from this point.

This column originally appeared on CEPR.

By Munir Meharaban

A recent wave of deadly insurgent strikes across Afghanistan is severely undermining business confidence in the country, experts have warned.

Nearly 140 people died and hundreds more were injured in just four separate attacks over eight days in January.

Militants struck at three locations in Kabul, including a well-known hotel used by business travellers, as well an international children’s charity in the southern city of Jalalabad.

Concerns over security have become so serious that increasing numbers of civilians in the capital are opting to work from home rather than risk travelling to their offices.

Kabul University professor Sayed Massoud told IWPR he believed that the recent bombings were part of a deliberate strategy to undermine public confidence and target the country’s economy.

“By attacking the Inter-Continental hotel the Taleban have further eroded public trust in our security forces as well as caused millions of dollars of damage to the economy,” he said.

Khan Jan Alokozai, deputy director of Afghanistan’s chamber of commerce and industry, added that the assault had forced the cancellation of several private sector business conferences due to be held at the Inter-Continental.

“The attackers managed to deliver a major blow to the investment field in Afghanistan in the wake of their attacks in Kabul,” he told IWPR.

The recent wave of violence began on January 20 when Taleban gunman gunmen stormed the Inter-Continental situated on the outskirts of Kabul.

Insurgents shot dead 21 civilians including 14 foreign nationals, as well as injuring 17 others. The attack, which lasted around 17 hours, also effectively grounded a national airline carrier as key staff were staying at the hotel.

Kam Air officals believe the gunman gunmen had prior intelligence on where its staff were staying and sought to target those rooms first. Nine airline personnel, including five pilots, died in the attack, which has left the company unable to operate dozens of flights.

Days after the Inter-Continental was hit, militants also stormed an office of the Save the Children aid agency in Nangarhar’s provincial capital, Jalalabad.

The complex assault began on January 24 when a car bomb was detonated outside the office. Gunmen then entered the compound, shooting dead four members of staff and wounding more than a dozen. Islamic State (IS) later claimed responsibility for the attack.

More than 105 people died and 210 were wounded in the next major attack on January 27 in Kabul, when a Taleban suicide bomber detonated an ambulance packed with explosives.

Two days later, militants attacked the country’s main military academy, in the west of the city, killing eight soldiers and wounding 13. This attack was also claimed by IS.

Massoud outlined what he believed to be the underlying strategy behind the multiple attacks.

He said the killing of civilians, the targeting of a hotel frequented by foreign businessmen and specifically pilots, all created a picture of chaos designed to destablisedestabilise Afghanistan’s economy and discourage potential investors.

He claimed the hotel attack served as a clear message to international travellers that Kabul was not safe, while the killing of Kam Air pilots crippled the carrier’s ability to import essential goods from India, a vital air corridor.

“Most of the Taleban’s actions include attempting to stop flights and to undermine security on Afghanistan’s road networks,” Massoud said. “Insurgents are undermining the country’s ability to do business.”

President Ashraf Ghani has long emphasised the importance of re-establishing Afghanistan as a key Eurasian trading partner.

He has argued that new networks must be put in place to recreate vital supply routes along the old Silk Road, of which the cities of Kabul, Herat and Kandahar once played a critical part.

Opening up international trade would not only enhance Afghanistan’s economic prosperity but also reduce the country’s dependence on exports to Pakistan.

At a recent meeting in Delhi, Ghani again urged business leaders to focus their efforts on boosting trade, reminding his audience of Afghanistan’s historical significance as a major commercial hub.

He said, “We have been at the heart of networks: a roundabout, a place of meetings, civilisations, religions, cultures and, of course, armies and traders and pilgrims.”

Cargo flights currently operate from both Kabul and Kandahar to Delhi, Mumbai and Amritsar, carrying pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, fresh and dried fruits and herbs.

Since the air corridor opened in January last year, some 105 million dollars of Afghan products, including 1,800 tonnes of fruit, have been sold.

While government officials told IWPR that they remained optimistic about increasing the level of international trade, those business leaders directly affected by the recent attacks remain highly sceptical.

Farid Paikar, deputy chairman of Kam Air, said that he had major concerns surrounding the impact of continued instability in Kabul.

Five of the company’s aircraft – out of a total of ten – were out of service due to the deaths of the pilots at the Inter-Continental, and that this represented a huge blow to the effectiveness of the air-corridor.

Since October 2017, Kam Air has flown 100 tonnes of Afghan products to Delhi every week.

Worse still, he added, the firm may now struggle to repay loans taken out to finance the purchase of their aircraft. Safi Airways, once the second largest airline in Afghanistan, went bust in September 2016 due to non-payment of its debts.

Paikar told IWPR, “We haven’t yet paid most of the loans borrowed from domestic banks.”

Ahmad Harris Nayab, marketing manager at the Inter-Continental, said while the physical damage to the hotel could easily be rebuilt, restoring confidence in the hotel’s ability to protect its guests – especially foreign visitors – would be far harder.

The perception a secure stronghold in the middle of Kabul had perhaps been the hotel’s biggest asset, and that this was now destroyed.

“We have to regain and rebuild the trust placed in us,” Nayab said. “This will take time.”

This report was produced under IWPR’s Supporting Investigative Reporting in Local Media and Strengthening Civil Society across Afghanistan initiative, funded by the British Embassy Kabul. This article was published at IWPR’s ARR 589

The European Parliament should shrink from 751 to 705 MEPs when the UK leaves the EU, whilst leaving room for possible new countries joining in the future.

Besides reducing Parliament’s size from 751 to 705 elected representatives, a proposed re-distribution of seats, approved by the Parliament as a whole on Wednesday, would also place 46 of the 73 UK seats to be freed up by Brexit in a reserve.

Some or all of the 46 seats in the reserve could then be reallocated to new countries joining the EU or preserved to keep the institution smaller.

New allocation of seats among 27 member states

The remaining 27 British seats should be re-distributed among the 14 EU countries that are slightly under-represented, to even out current inequalities in their representation in the House, say MEPs.

Co-rapporteur Danuta Hübner (EPP, PL) said, “In times when democracy as a system is called into question, it is our duty to re-ignite citizens’ passion for democracy. I hope we can take a step in the right direction by approving a distribution of the European Parliament’s seats that is fair, that follows objective principles, and that respects the EU’s Treaty.”

They also stress that this allocation would apply only if the UK actually leaves the EU. Otherwise the current arrangements would stay in place until further notice.

A proposal by the Constitutional Affairs Committee calling for a number of MEPs to be elected from an EU-wide electoral constituency, was rejected by the full House.

The proposal for a European Council decision was approved on Wednesday by 431 votes to 182 with 61 abstentions.

By Felix Corley

In December 2017, Sufi Muslim Rashad Abidov, whose home in the northern town of Sheki was raided by police during a religious meeting, managed to overturn the large fine handed down for holding a meeting without state permission. Police had brought the case rather than officials of the State Committee for Work with Religious Organisations.

On 28 January 2018, police raided a Sunday worship service of a Protestant church in Azerbaijan’s second city Gyanja. Police phoned the schools of children present at the service. Fines might follow (see below).

On 31 January, Azerbaijan’s Constitutional Court in the capital Baku wrote to Baptist pastor Hamid Shabanov in Aliabad in the northern Zakatala [Zaqatala] District to tell him it would not be considering his further appeal against a large fine for meeting for worship without state permission handed down in December 2016. Pastor Shabanov – a former prisoner of conscience – must now pay the fine of more than three months’ average wages for those in formal work. Another Baptist from the same church, Mehman Agamammadov, has now paid all three instalments of his fine.

Their Baptist church in Aliabad has been seeking registration – in vain – since 1994. Police and state officials have warned church members not to meet. “If we meet again for worship, we’ll get double the fine,” Pastor Shabanov told Forum 18 officials had warned them (see below).

Strict controls

The government imposes severe controls on who is allowed to meet for worship and where. All religious communities must have state registration before they can legally function. However, many communities (like the Baptist church in Aliabad) are arbitrarily denied such registration. Muslim communities outside the framework of the state-backed Muslim Board are banned, although this is not enshrined in any law.

Fines are typically 1,500 Manats (6,900 Norwegian Kroner, 715 Euros or 890 US Dollars). This represents nearly three months’ average wages for those with a formal job. However, for those in rural areas, those without a formal job, or pensioners, such fines represent a far heavier financial burden.

Officials from the police, State Security Service (SSS) secret police, State Committee for Work with Religious Organisations, and Religious Affairs Commissions attached to city or district administrations frequently raid meetings for worship and help punish those exercising their right to freedom of religion or belief.

Criminal prosecutions

These raids come as prisoner of conscience Imam Serdar Babayev is challenging his three-year prison term handed down in July 2017 to punish him for leading services in a Shia Muslim mosque after gaining his religious education abroad. His first appeal failed in September 2017. The Supreme Court in the capital Baku is due to begin hearing his latest appeal on the morning of 13 February .

Another prisoner of conscience, Shia Muslim Taleh Bagirov, is facing a further criminal case. His trial at Baku’s Qaradag District Court began on 6 February on charges of illegally having memory cards with the Koran and Koranic-related material while in prison. The trial is due to resume on the morning of 13 February, his lawyer Javad Javadov told Forum 18 from Baku on 6 February.

Bagirov, seized during an armed police assault on the village of Nardaran near Baku in November 2015, is already serving a 20-year jail term for leading the Muslim Unity Movement.

Sheki: Police raid Sufi meeting, fine eventually overturned

On 18 August 2017, Police in the northern town of Sheki raided the home of 44-year-old Rashad Abidov at the behest of Chief Criminal Investigator Major Ilham Mammadov. Investigator Lieutenant Ayaz Bayramov led the raid, where officers found Sufi Muslims meeting without state permission. Officers seized 13 books by the Turkish Sufi leaders Imam Iskender Ali Mihr and Abdulcabbar Boran, as well as discs and three computers.

On 10 October 2017, Investigator Bayramov intended to open a criminal case against Abidov but this was rejected. On 23 October 2017, Captain Shamil Bazarov instead opened a case against him under Administrative Code Article 515.0.2. This punishes “Violating legislation on holding religious meetings, marches, and other religious ceremonies”. The fine for individuals for this “offence” is between 1,500 and 2,000 Manats.

The case against Abidov was handed to Sheki District Court. On 14 November 2017, Judge Jahid Imanov found him guilty and fined him 1,500 Manats (6,900 Norwegian Kroner, 715 Euros or 890 US Dollars).

Abidov appealed against the fine to Sheki Appeal Court. On 15 December 2017 Judge Rafail Aliyev upheld Abidov’s appeal, as the wrong officials had prepared the administrative case, according to the decision seen by Forum 18. A 3 May 2017 presidential decree said only State Committee officials could prepare cases for court under Administrative Code Article 515 (all parts) and Article 516.0.1. Police had prepared the case against Abidov.

Lieutenant Bayramov of Sheki Police refused to explain why officers had raided Abidov’s home, seized religious literature and other items, tried to bring a criminal case and then brought an administrative case because he was hosting a meeting with others in his home about his faith. “No criminal case is underway,” he told Forum 18 on 6 February 2018 via a colleague. The colleague then said he refused to answer any other questions and left the office.

Officers told Forum 18 the same day that Major Mammadov and Captain Bazarov were out of the office. The duty officer told Forum 18 that the raid on Abidov’s home and the case against him “did not happen”.

Taleh Abdullayev, the representative in Sheki of the State Committee, refused to answer any of Forum 18’s questions about the August 2017 raid – including whether or not he or his colleagues had been present – about what had happened to the religious literature seized from Abidov and why he was originally fined. “Don’t call here again,” he told Forum 18 on 6 February before putting the phone down.

Gyanja: Police raid worship meeting

On 28 January, Police in Gyanja’s Nizami District raided the Sunday meeting for worship of Star in the East Pentecostal Church, held in the home of 45-year-old church member Adalat Sariyev. About 100 people – 40 of them children – were present at the meeting when the police arrived, Report.az news website noted on 30 January.

“The invasion came during the service, and officers filmed everyone present with video-cameras and took their personal details, including of children,” one church member told Forum 18 from Gyanja.

Police detained Sariyev and sent information about him to the State Committee for Work with Religious Organisations, Report.az noted.

Following the raid, schools attended by the children received calls from the police, church members told Forum 18.

The man who answered the phone of Nizami District Police chief – who would not give his name – refused to explain why officers raided a meeting for worship in a home. “Ask the Interior Ministry,” he told Forum 18 on 5 February. The officer then admitted that local police, not officers from the Ministry in Baku, had conducted the raid, but still refused to explain why it had been launched. “We work according to the laws of Azerbaijan,” he insisted and then put the phone down.

An official of the Gyanja branch of the State Committee, who refused to give his name, told Forum 18 on 5 February that the head of the branch Asif Aliyev was away for the whole of the week. The official insisted the police had raided the church “to take a look only” and to “ask questions” of Sariyev.

Asked what church members had done wrong to merit a police raid during a religious meeting, the official responded: “They didn’t do anything wrong. They simply have no registration.” The official refused to explain why a religious community should be raided for meeting for worship without state registration. He claimed Sariyev would face no court case.

Like many Protestant churches (as well as non-Muslim Board mosques, and communities of other faiths), Star in the East Church in Gyanja does not have state registration.

Church members do not know whether Sariyev or others will face any court case. “Nothing is certain at the moment,” church members told Forum 18. “From what officials say it is possible some further action will follow.”

Aliabad: Constitutional Court refuses to consider appeal

On 31 January, Azerbaijan’s Constitutional Court Baku wrote to 61-year-old Baptist pastor Hamid Shabanov in Aliabad to tell him it would not be considering his further appeal against a fine of 1,500 Manats for meeting for worship without state permission handed down in December 2016.

“The Constitutional Court wrote to say that I lodged the appeal too late,” Pastor Shabanov told Forum 18 from Aliabad on 6 February. “I must now pay the fine. The law demands that I pay – they warned me that if I don’t, they’ll be further action.”

Another Baptist from the same church, Mehman Agamammadov, has now paid all three instalments of his 1,500 Manat-fine at the insistence of the court bailiff. Despite being repeatedly refused the written decision and despite objecting to being fined for exercising his right to freedom of religion or belief he paid the first instalment of 500 Manats in early December 2017. “Mehman has now paid the other two instalments,” Pastor Shabanov told Forum 18.

The fines followed a November 2016 raid by police and the local State Committee official on an “illegal” meeting for prayer in Pastor Shabanov’s home. Police detained more than 30 adults and children present, after which 16 women and 10 men were questioned at the local police station until 10 pm at night. Police sent confiscated religious literature to the State Committee in Baku for alleged “expert analysis”. The literature was all returned the following month.

In a 15-minute hearing on 12 December 2016, Zakatala District Court found both Pastor Shabanov and Agamammadov guilty and fined them each the minimum fine, 1,500 Manats. Both Baptists were punished under Administrative Code Article 515.0.2 (“Violating legislation on holding religious meetings, marches, and other religious ceremonies”).

Pastor Shabanov managed to get the written decision only in January 2017. Agamammadov never received the written decision, despite repeated attempts to get it from the court. Pastor Shabanov lodged his appeal to the Constitutional Court in October 2017 after Sheki Appeal Court refused in June 2017 to extend the period for him to lodge his appeal against the December 2016 fine.

The Aliabad Baptist Church has been seeking registration – in vain – since 1994. Former prisoner of conscience Pastor Shabanov was held in pre-trial detention from June to November 2008. In February 2009 he was given a two-year suspended sentence on charges he and his fellow-Baptists insisted were fabricated. He was arrested a month after another Aliabad Pastor, Zaur Balaev, was freed after nearly a year in prison on false charges.

The Aliabad Church has been unable to meet together for worship since the November 2016 raid. In November 2017, the head of the State Committee Legal Department Sabina Allahverdiyeva wrote to the Church warning that it cannot meet for worship without state registration.

“If we meet again for worship, we’ll get double the fine,” Pastor Shabanov quoted officials as having told church members, he told Forum 18.

Growth rates for the euro area and the EU beat expectations last year as the transition from economic recovery to expansion continues. The euro area and EU economies are both estimated to have grown by 2.4% in 2017, the fastest pace in a decade, according to the European Commission’s Winter 2018 Interim Economic Forecast.

This robust performance is set to continue in 2018 and 2019 with growth of 2.3% and 2.0% respectively in both the euro area and EU, according to the forecast.

Valdis Dombrovskis, Vice-President for the Euro and Social Dialogue, also in charge of Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union, said, “The European economy is outperforming expectations and the robust growth is set to continue into next year. We should continue our work on ensuring that the benefits of this growth are felt by all Europeans. We should use this time to make our economies more resilient and deepen the Economic and Monetary Union.”

Growth is likely to remain solid

The 2.4% GDP growth now estimated for 2017 is above November’s Autumn Economic Forecast projections of 2.2% for the euro area and 2.3% for the EU. The growth forecasts for 2018 and 2019 have also been raised since November for both the euro area and EU economies: from 2.1% to 2.3% for this year and from 1.9% to 2.0% for 2019. This is a result of both stronger cyclical momentum in Europe, where labor markets continue to improve and economic sentiment is particularly high, and a stronger than expected pick-up in global economic activity and trade.

Pierre Moscovici, Commissioner for Economic and Financial Affairs, Taxation and Customs, said: “Europe’s economy has entered 2018 in robust health. The euro area is enjoying growth rates not seen since before the financial crisis. Unemployment and deficits continue to fall and investment is at last rising in a meaningful way. Economic growth is also more balanced than it was a decade ago – and provided we pursue smart structural reforms and responsible fiscal policies – it can also be more durable. This window of opportunity to reform will not remain open forever: the moment to take the necessary ambitious decisions to strengthen the Economic and Monetary Union is now.”

Strong demand, high capacity utilization and supportive financing conditions are set to favour investment over the forecast horizon.

Inflation outlook remains subdued

Core inflation, which excludes volatile energy and unprocessed food prices, is expected to stay subdued as labour market slack recedes only slowly and wage pressures remain contained. Headline inflation will continue to reflect the significant influence of energy prices and is forecast to rise modestly.

Inflation in the euro area reached 1.5% in 2017. It is forecast to remain at 1.5% in 2018 and to increase to 1.6% in 2019.

Risks are balanced, with upside risks in the short term

Risks to this growth forecast remain broadly balanced. Economic growth could exceed expectations in the short term as indicated by the high level of sentiment.

In the medium term, high global asset prices could be vulnerable to a re-assessment of risks and fundamentals. Downside risks related to the uncertain outcome of the Brexit negotiations remain, as do those associated with geopolitical tensions and a shift towards more inward looking and protectionist policies.

For the UK, a purely technical assumption for 2019

Given the ongoing negotiations on the terms of the UK withdrawal from the EU, our projections for 2019 are based on a purely technical assumption of status quo in terms of trading relations between the EU27 and the UK. This is for forecasting purposes only and has no bearing on the talks underway in the context of the Article 50 process.

By Dr Subhash Kapila

Japan’s increasing strategic profile in 2018 now transcends the rapid buildup of its military muscle to forging strategic relationships especially in the maritime domain with France and Britain to offset China’s worrisome military adventurism in the South China Sea and East China Sea which in both cases endangers Japanese security.

Japan and France in end January 2018 signed agreements for joint Air Force and Navy exercises besides increasing cooperation in developing defence technologies.

More significantly, France agreed to join freedom of navigation exercises in the South China Sea and asserted that France stoutly maintains and would uphold the principles of free and unimpeded maritime navigation through international waters like the South China Sea and East China Sea.

France has made these assertions based on its belief that France has major stakes in Indo Pacific security having territorial dependencies both in the Pacific Ocean and the Indian Ocean.

Also signed in end January 2018 was a Defence Logistics Agreement between the Armed Forces of France and Japan.

Japan while attempting to cultivate friendly relations with China is at the same time embarking on forging defence cooperation agreements with countries like France and Britain to balance China’s aggressive designs in Indo Pacific.

France and Britain may not have large naval presence in the Far East but the very intent on the part of all the above three named countries to increase their naval cooperation is a big enough political and military signal to China that it is not going to have a free run in the Western Pacific against Japan

China would be very much disconcerted with Japan/s naval outreaches to France and Britain when it is kept in mind that both France and Britain are Permanent Members of the UN Security Council with veto powers.

Japan’s naval outreach to France and Japan must contextually be viewed with Japan’s naval partnerships with the United States and India. All these three nations are engaged in holding joint naval exercises both in the Western Pacific and also in the Indian Ocean.

Japan and Britain share a long history of naval cooperation going back a century old. Japan and Britain had signed a Naval Treaty from 1902 to 1923 for enhanced naval cooperation. The Imperial Japanese Navy had modelled itself on the pattern of the Royal British Navy and the latter was responsible in the capacity building of the Imperial Japanese Navy.

So in 2018 Britain and Japan reviving their old historical naval relations should be a welcome step for all those committed to Indo Pacific security. The only difference being that in the 21st Century the Japan-Britain naval cooperation has been revived to countervail the new China Threat endangering Japan’s security and also that of the larger Indo Pacific.

Japan, Britain and the United States also established a Naval Trilateral in 2016 enmeshing the naval and maritime convergences of all these three nations.

Japan has thus been proactive in superimposing various templates of naval cooperation with like-minded countries that now are collectively conscious of the China Threat.

The China Threat perception in Asian capitals now transcends the Asian strategic space and extends to West European capitals. It is something which China in its military arrogance of new-found power cannot ignore.

China cannot afford to ignore the coalescing of naval powers from Asia to Europe rattled by China’s defiance of international Laws of the Seas and The Hague Tribunal Award declaring China’s claims to sovereignty over the South China Sea.

The United States with the highest stakes in Indo Pacific security and the security of the Western Pacific must proactively work towards enmeshing and solidifying Asian Navies coalescing against the China Threat with similar initiatives of West European countries like France and Britain joining hands with Japan.

In conclusion, it needs to be stressed that the China Threat in coming decades is going to emerge predominantly as a ‘Naval Threat” both in the Pacific Ocean and the Indian Ocean. To pre-empt the Chinese Navy assuming monstrous proportions of posing a menace in both these Oceans, Indo Pacific Navies in particular must join Japan’s hands in forging a coalition of Navies to offset that eventuality.

Trump’s promise that corporations will use his giant new tax cut to make new investments and raise workers’ wages is proving to be about as truthful as his promise to release his tax returns.

The results are coming in, and guess what? Almost all the extra money is going into stock buybacks. Since the tax cut became law, buy-backs have surged to $88.6 billion. That’s more than double the amount of buybacks in the same period last year, according to data provided by Birinyi Associates.

Compare this to the paltry $2.5 billion of employee bonuses corporations say they’ll dispense in response to the tax law, and you see the bonuses for what they are – a small fig leaf to disguise the big buybacks.

If anything, the current tumult in the stock market will fuel even more buybacks.

Stock buybacks are corporate purchases of their own shares of stock. Corporations do this to artificially prop up their share prices.

Buybacks are the corporate equivalent of steroids. They may make shareholders feel better than otherwise, but nothing really changes.

Money spent on buybacks isn’t reinvested in new equipment, research, or factories. Buybacks don’t add jobs or raise wages. They don’t increase productivity. They don’t grow the American economy.

Yet CEOs love buybacks because most CEO pay is now in shares of stock and stock options rather than cash. So when share prices go up, executives reap a bonanza.

At the same time, the value of CEO pay from previous years also rises, in what amounts to a retroactive (and off the books) pay increase – on top of their already humongous compensation packages.

Big investors also love buybacks because they increase the value of their stock portfolios. Now that the richest 10 percent of Americans own 84 percent of all shares of stock (up from 77 percent at the turn of the century), this means even more wealth at the top.

Buybacks used to be illegal. The Securities and Exchange considered them unlawful means of manipulating stock prices, in violation of the Securities Acts of 1933 and 1934.

In those days, the typical corporation put about half its profits into research and development, plant and equipment, worker retraining, additional jobs, and higher wages.

But under Ronald Reagan, who rhapsodized about the “magic of the market,” the SEC legalized buybacks.

After that, buybacks took off. Just in the past decade, 94 percent of corporate profits have been devoted to buybacks and dividends, according to researchers at the Academic-Industry Research Network.

Last year, big American corporations spent a record $780 billion buying back their shares of stock.

And that was before the new tax law.

Put another way, the new tax law is giving America’s wealthy not one but two big windfalls: They stand to gain the most from the tax cuts for individuals, and  they’re the big winners from the tax cuts for corporations.

This isn’t just unfair. It’s also bad for the economy as a whole. Corporations don’t invest because they get tax cuts. They invest because they expect that customers will buy more of their goods and services.

This brings us to the underlying problem. Companies haven’t been investing – and have been using their profits to buy back their stock instead – because they doubt their investments will pay off in additional sales.

That’s because most economic gains have been going to the wealthy, and the wealthy spend a far smaller percent of their income than the middle class and the poor. When most gains go to the top, there’s not enough demand to justify a lot of new investment.

Which also means that as long as public policies are tilted to the benefit of those at the top – as is Trump’s tax cut, along with Reagan’s legalization of stock buybacks – we’re not going to see much economic growth.

We’re just going to have more buybacks and more inequality.

What Moscow is doing in Daghestan today, Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov says, it is prepared to do in every region of the country in order to root out corruption (vedomosti.ru/politics/news/2018/02/08/750313-kreml-masshtabnih-sledstvennih-deistvii-dagestane and rbc.ru/politics/08/02/2018/5a7bfc919a7947b904893cd5).

That Kremlin declaration means that Daghestan is far from the special case many have been treating it as being at least from Moscow’s point of view and suggests that it is critically important to understand just what Moscow is doing there and how it is likely to affect other regions and republics of the Russian Federation in the near future.

The other republics in the North Caucasus are watching the events in Daghestan out of concern that one or more may be the next to have local elites pushed out of the way, external rule imposed, and their prerogatives trampled upon (onkavkaz.com/news/2105-siciliiskii-razgrom-klanov-dagestana-moskva-gotovit-ogranichenie-nacionalnogo-suvereniteta-kavk.html).

Some in Russian-occupied Crimea think that region may be next, especially given its problems and the enormous burden the Anschluss has placed on Moscow (komtv.org/64683-kreml-gotov/?utm_campaign=auction). But Peskov’s comment suggests that no region, except possibly Chechnya at least initially, is safe from moves like those being made in Daghestan.

That makes three arguments today about the Daghestani events of even greater importance. Their disturbing messages are as follows:

1.Moscow is Re-Imposing Direct Colonial Rule on Daghestan

Ukrainian commentator Vitaly Portnikov says that what Moscow is doing in Daghestan is reposing direct colonial rule, using “the fight against corruption” as little more than an implausible fig leaf given that there is corruption everywhere in Putin’s Russia (graniru.org/opinion/portnikov/m.267511.html).

What is taking place in Daghestan, he continues, “is not about any desire to defeat corruption.” Instead, “it is a desire to transform a corrupted dominion, ‘a state within a state,’ into a corrupt colony of the Kremlin” — or to put it politically correctly, to transform Daghestan from a place where the Daghestanis engage in corruption to one where the Muscovites do.

Today, Moscow has sufficient power to impose its will, at least for a time, Portnikov says. But what he is worried abut is this: what will happen when the central authorities weaken? Do today’s “’battlers against corruption’” understand they are making it impossible for Russians to remain there or elsewhere in the borderlands – and for Russian borders to remain unchanged?

2.Kazan Tatars are Being Used and Played in Daghestan   

In today’s Svobodnaya pressa, Anton Chablin addresses a critical point: He asks why Moscow is choosing to use cadres from Tatarstan in the Middle Volga to impose order in Daghestan in the North Caucasus and he gives the approved answer that Moscow wants a successful republic to help it in an unsuccessful one (svpressa.ru/politic/article/192447/).

That is a reasonable answer, but it is certainly only a partial one. Tatarstan did not become successful on the bayonet points of the Russian siloviki, and in Daghestan, as some in Russia have already pointed out, even Tatars won’t be able to do that in the way that Moscow hopes for (ura.news/articles/1036273833).

But there may be a deeper game here, one that reflects past history and Moscow’s current concerns. When Russian occupied Central Asia in the 19^th century, the tsars used Tatars as its agents to make Russian power there work. It is not surprising then that they might think about doing so again.

And there is an additional and more contemporary reason: Because of the role the Tatars played, many in Central Asia never entirely trusted them again. The Kremlin may hope that by putting a Tatar in as prime minister in Daghestan, it can undercut Tatar influence among the non-Russians within the Russian Federation.

Over the last several years, Vladimir Putin has worked hard to cut Tatarstan down to size. The Tatar leadership has responded first by reaching out to Tatars outside of Tatarstan and then to Muslims (ansar.ru/rfsng/minnihanov-posetil-starejshuyu-mechet-rossii). Putin may see his move in Daghestan therefore as a move against Tatarstan as well.

3. The Terror in Daghestan has Begun to Spread – And Will Last as Long as Putin Does.

            Israeli analyst Avraam Shmulyevich says that what is happening in Daghestan is part and parcel of what is happening in Russia as a whole rather than something separate and distinct (rusmonitor.com/avraam-shmulevich-ob-arestakh-v-dagestane-repressii-budut-prodolzhatsya-do-tekh-por-poka-sushhestvuet-ehta-sistema.html).

The country has entered a new 1937, the beginning of terror. “Today Russia is ruled by Chekists … They even call themselves that. But Chekists do not know how to do anything but arrest people.” That is what it was established to do and that is what it is doing now.

“In contrast to Perm, Tver or Sakhalin,” Shmulyevich continues, “Daghestan is viewed as a colony of Russia as a certain alien place and therefore everything which is taking place there is examined with particular interest – although in this specific case, there is no difference between Daghestan and Kirov oblast or Magadan.”

But there is one difference that Moscow appears to have forgotten: unlike in these other places, in Daghestan, there is a tradition of partisan war, of going into the forests and fighting back. And consequently, if Moscow continues to repress people in Daghestan, it is more than likely that this tradition will return to the fore.

But at the same time Moscow is arresting people in Daghestan, Shmulyevich points out, “arrests and even murders in the ruling stratum are occurring throughout the entire country” – in Tatarstan, in Ingushetia, in Stavropol and in Kaliningrad. And that means something else: it has begun and will continues as long as this [Putin] system exists.”

Many will talk about Daghestan, but so far, what is happening elsewhere hasn’t attracted as much attention.

The United States Department of Defense released its latest ‘Nuclear Posture Review 2018’ (NPR) on 2 February, updating the last one issued in 2010 during the previous administration. See ‘Nuclear Posture Review 2018’.

The Executive Summary of the NPR is also available, if you prefer. See ‘Nuclear Posture Review 2018 Executive Summary’.

Several authors have already thoughtfully exposed a phenomenal variety of obvious lies, invented threats, strategic misconceptions and flaws – such as the fallacious thinking behind ‘deterrence’ and significantly increased risk of nuclear war given the delusional ‘thinking’ in the document – as well as the political fear-mongering in the NPR. For example, eminent scholar Professor Paul Rogers has pointed out:

‘The risk now is that we are on a slippery slope towards “small nuclear wars in far-off places”, which themselves could either escalate or at the very least break the 70+ year taboo on treating nuclear weapons as usable.’ See ‘Nuclear Posture Review: Sliding Towards Nuclear War?’

Stephen Lendman has reminded us that US ‘defense spending far exceeds what Russia, China, Iran and other independent countries spend combined’ and that the US ‘nuclear arsenal and delivery systems can destroy planet earth multiple times over’ with the document suggesting ‘preparation for nuclear war’. Moreover, the NPR ‘falsely claims the nation must address “an unprecedented range and mix of threats” posed by Russia, China, North Korea, Iran and other countries’ and this despite the incontrovertible fact that no nation has threatened US security since World War II and none threatens it now.

He further points out that the NPR’s claim that there is ‘an unprecedented range and mix of threats, including major conventional, chemical, biological, nuclear, space, and cyber threats, and violent nonstate actors’ is ‘utter rubbish’ and that ‘America’s rage for endless wars of aggression, along with its rogue allies, poses the only serious threat to world peace and stability.’ See ‘Trump’s Nuclear Posture Review’.

Even Andrew C. Weber, an assistant defense secretary during the Obama administration, has warned that

‘Almost everything about this radical new policy will blur the line between nuclear and conventional’ and ‘will make nuclear war a lot more likely.’ See ‘Pentagon Suggests Countering Devastating Cyberattacks With Nuclear Arms’.

Despite the obvious belligerence in the document, we are supposed to believe, according to words in the NPR, that ‘The United States remains committed to its efforts in support of the ultimate global elimination of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons’ despite the US denunciation of the ‘UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons’ negotiated by 122 countries just a few months ago in mid-2017. See ‘U.S., UK and France Denounce Nuclear Ban Treaty’.

Presumably, we are supposed to have shorter memories than members of the US administration or to be even more terrified and unintelligent than are they. This would be difficult.

Rather than further critique the document, which several authors have done admirably, I would like to explain my observation immediately above.

Let me start by explaining why those who formulated the current US nuclear strategy, wrote the Nuclear Posture Review, now promote it and are responsible for implementing it, are utterly terrified and quite delusional, and constitute a threat to human civilization.

The NPR is full of language such as this: ‘There now exists an unprecedented range and mix of threats, including major conventional, chemical, biological, nuclear, space, and cyber threats, and violent nonstate actors. These developments have produced increased uncertainty and risk.’

Are these individuals, notably including Donald Trump, Secretary of Defense General Jim ‘Mad Dog’ Mattis, Chief of Staff Marine General John Kelly and National Security Adviser General H. R. McMaster, really frightened of countries such as Iran (with its non-existent nuclear arsenal) or North Korea (with its handful of ‘primitive’ nuclear weapons and inadequate delivery systems)? Or are they really frightened of countries such as Russia and China, whose nuclear arsenals pale in comparison to that of the United States and whose strategic posture in any case is decidedly non-aggressive (particularly towards the United States) despite its ongoing provocations of them?

Are US government leaders really so terrified of possible conventional, chemical, biological, space and cyber attacks that they need to threaten nuclear annihilation should it occur?

Well, the answer to each of these questions is that Trump, Mattis, Kelly, McMaster and other US political and military leaders are, indeed, terrified.

However, they are projecting their obvious terroraway from its original source and onto a ‘safe’ and ‘approved’ target so that they can behave in accordance with their terror. They do this because the original cause of their terror – their parents and/or other significant adults in their childhood – never allowed them to feel their terror and to direct and express it safely and appropriately. For a full explanation of why this happens, see ‘Why Violence?’ and ‘Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice’.

Unfortunately, and in this case potentially catastrophically, this dysfunctional behavioural response to deeply suppressed terror cannot ‘work’ either personally or politically for the individuals concerned. Let me explain why.

Evolution devised an extraordinarily powerful response to threats: it gave many organisms, including human beings, the emotion of fear to detect threats as well as other tools that can be used in conjunction with fear to respond powerfully to threats. Hence, in response to a threat, humans are meant to feel their fear and, while doing so, engage other feelings, conscience and intelligence so that the source of the threat can be accurately identified and the most powerful and effective behavioural response to that threat can be devised and implemented. In simple language: We need our fear to tell us we are under threat and to play a part in defending ourselves. In evolutionary terms, this was highly functional.

If, however, during childhood, the fear is suppressed because the individual is too frightened to feel it (usually because their parents deny them a safe opportunity to do so), then they will be unconsciously compelled to project their fear onto those who pose no threat (precisely because these people do not immobilize them with terror) and to endlessly seek to control these people (during childhood this usually means their younger siblings and/or friends, and during adulthood it usually means people of another sex, race, class, religion or nation) so that they can gain relief from experiencing their suppressed (childhood)fear.

The relief, of course, is delusionary. But once someone is terrified, it is not possible for them to behave functionally or powerfully. They will live in a world of delusion and projection, endlessly blaming those who they (unconsciously) project to be a threat precisely because these people are not frightening and not a threat and seem more likely to be able to be ‘controlled’.

This projection and behaviour happen all of the time, both in personal interactions and geopolitically, but it doesn’t usually threaten imminent annihilation, even if, to choose another example, it endlessly and perhaps disastrously impedes efforts to tackle the environmental and other assaults on our biosphere.

It is because parents are frightened to feel and experience their own fear that they also fear their child’s fear and they act (consciously or unconsciously, depending on the context) to prevent the child from feeling this fear, perhaps by doing something as simple as reassuring them.

However, parents also use a variety of methods to distract their child from feeling their feelings. They might offer the child a toy or food to distract them. But another important way in which fear is suppressed is by teaching children to use play as a distraction from having their feelings. This fear might then remanifest in the form of the child wanting others to play with them but particularly by doing so in a game of their choosing and over which they have control (so that they can ensure that their fear is not raised).

Once the child has learned to use gaining control over play to distract themselves from their terror, it might well become a lifetime addiction, subsequently manifesting as a dysfunctional desire for control within a family or perhaps even economically, politically or militarily.

Unfortunately, as some of these children grow up and the nature of their ‘game’ changes, the outcome can have deadly consequences. This is simply because there is never any guarantee that others will submit willingly to control by others. And, if they do not, this can trigger the original person’s (unconscious) terror ‘necessitating’ action – a higher-risk strategy in an attempt to secure this higher degree of control over others – to resuppress their terror.

However, for example, even if the terrified person ends up owning a major corporation and exercising a great degree of control over employees, markets and possibly countries, the terror driving their delusional need for control can never be satisfied. See ‘Love Denied: The Psychology of Materialism, Violence and War’. But the same principle applies in other domains as well, including the political and military.

And in the most dangerous collective manifestation of this major psychological disorder, the current US political/military leadership, which has been effectively merged by Trump’s appointment of military generals to his political staff, we now have the situation where a collection of individuals who are terrified and also project their dysfunctional desire for control onto other nations, are willing to threaten (and use) nuclear weapons in a delusionary attempt to feel (personally) ‘in control’.

It is little wonder that the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has moved the Doomsday Clock to two minutes to midnight! See ‘It is now two minutes to midnight: 2018 Doomsday Clock Statement.’

So what can we do?

Well, I would tackle the problem at several levels and I invite you to consider participating in one or more of these.

To help prevent this problem from emerging at its source, you are welcome to consider making ‘My Promise to Children’. This will play a vital role in ensuring that children do not grow up suppressing their fear.

Given the extraordinary emotional and other damage inflicted by school, you might consider educational opportunities for your child(ren) outside that framework. See ‘Do We Want School or Education?’

If you suspect that you are not as powerful as you would like, you might consider ‘Putting Feelings First’ so that you can learn to behave with awareness – a synthesis of all of the feedback that your various mental functions give you and the judgments that arise, in an integrated way, from this feedback. This will enable you to love yourself truly and always courageously act out your own self-will, whatever the consequences.

If you wish to work against the many threats, including military threats, to our environment simultaneously, you are welcome to join those participating in ‘The Flame Tree Project to Save Life on Earth’.

And if you wish to be part of efforts to end violence and war, including the threat of nuclear annihilation, you are welcome to consider signing the online pledge of ‘The People’s Charter to Create a Nonviolent World’and/or using sound nonviolent strategy for your campaign or liberation struggle. See Nonviolent Campaign Strategy or Nonviolent Defense/Liberation Strategy.

Our world is poised perilously on the brink of catastrophic nuclear war. This has happened because we have given responsibility for holding the nuclear trigger to a handful of men who, emotionally speaking, are terrified little boys cowering from the imaginary threat of the bogeyman under their bed.

There is no easy way back from this brink. But you can help, both now and in the future, by doing one or more of the suggestions above.

Like Nepal, Sri Lanka seeks profitable trade equations with Chinato raise its GDP.

Sri Lanka wants a longer-time period to negotiate a free trade agreement with China as it is concerned about the economic impact of a rushed deal on their small country, the Sri Lankan ambassador said on Sunday, the Feb 04.

There has been rising concern in the South Asian nation about Chinese investment, a key part of Beijing’s Belt and Road initiative to create a modern-day Silk Road across Asia.

Hundreds of Sri Lankans clashed with police at the opening last year of a Chinese-invested industrial zone in the south, saying they would not be moved from their land. It was the first time opposition to Chinese investments in Sri Lanka had turned violent.

Speaking on the sidelines of an Independence Day reception at the Sri Lankan embassy in Beijing, Ambassador Karunasena Kodituwakku said a free trade agreement with China could not be rushed. “We’d like to have the process a little longer. China would like to have it faster,” Kodituwakku told Reuters. “Because Sri Lanka being a small economy, we have to get a consensus from stakeholders,” he added. “Therefore the delay is due to the time period. But eventually we will sign the agreement.”

Sri Lanka last month signed a free trade agreement with Singapore, but Singapore’s economy is not as complex as China’s, Kodituwakku said. The deal with the city state is Sri Lanka’s first modern and comprehensive FTA. “Chinese imports are very important to Sri Lanka, but opening up the whole thing in a short time may make some problems for local companies. Therefore we have to balance it.”

Sri Lanka has also been trying to get investment for a little utilized airport on its southern tip, in Mattala, built at a cost of $253 million by China, which also provided $230 million of funding. “No doubt it was a white elephant. It is still a white elephant,” Kodituwakku said.

India had been in advanced talks with Sri Lanka to operate the airport, but the ambassador said no deal had been reached. “We have to turn it into a viable economic venture. In fact we gave the option to Chinese companies. I know Chinese companies have shown an interest, but according to our studies they were not having a viable economic plan and that’s why they had to give the option to India,” he said. “The Indian offer had been there, but even that has not been finalized,” Kodituwakku added.

“Anyone who wants to come and turn the Mattala airport into a viable economic venture will be welcome. But unfortunately no one has taken over.”

When Sri Lanka’s government first looked to develop a port on its southern coast that faced the Indian Ocean, it went not to China, but to its neighbor, India.

Then-Sri Lankan Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa said he urgently needed funding to transform the harbor of his home town and asked Indian officials for help with the project.

New Delhi showed little interest in funding a costly and massive port construction project in the underdeveloped fishing village of Hambantota, a district that had been crushed by the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004.

China has for decades invested in Sri Lanka, particularly during moments in recent history when much of the international community held off. China supplied the Rajapaksa government with military aid and it promised to spend to rebuild the country’s damaged infrastructure. India had also sent in military help, but nowhere near the levels Beijing dispatched.

The civil war ended in 2009. Between 2005 and 2017, China spent nearly $15 billion in Sri Lanka. By comparison, the International Finance Corporation, which is part of the World Bank group, says that between 1956 and 2016, it invested over $1 billion.

Along with the Hambantota port investments, Beijing loaned Sri Lanka $200 million in 2010 for a second international airport and a year later a further $810 million for the “second phase of the port project.”Beijing loaned Sri Lanka $200 million in 2010 for a second international airport and a year later a further $810 million for the “second phase of the port project.

Beijing invested $1.5 billion in 2010 to build the port. The venture was considered economically unviable and indeed, in the years that followed, the port sat empty and neglected, and Sri Lanka’s debt ballooned. China’s official licensing of the port in December last year gives it yet another point of access over a key shipping route, and the prospect of providing it with a sizeable presence in India’s immediate backyard and traditional sphere of influence, bringing China closer to India’s shores than New Delhi might like.

Moreover, Sri Lanka’s decision to sign a 99-year lease with a Chinese state-owned company for the Hambantota port to service some of the billions it owes to Beijing has some observers concerned other developing nations doing business with China as part of China’s One Belt One Road initiative might fall into similar financial straits. A trap, they warn, that may well have them owing more than just money to Beijing.

There was more. $272 million for a railway in 2013 and more than $1 billion for the Colombo Port City project, ventures that hired mostly Chinese workers (one Sri Lankan report put the number of Chinese workers dedicated to projects in 2009 at 25,000), and all with money Sri Lanka could barely afford to repay. By 2015, Sri Lanka owed China $8 billion, and Sri Lankan government officials predicted that accumulated foreign debt — both owed to China and other countries — would eat up 94% of the country’s GDP.

Proud India’s pain

In recent years India is gradually getting isolated in the South Asia region where it claims to be the super power. India feels enormous pain to see its neighbors Pakistan, China and Nepal work together and Bangladesh which has problem with Pakistan for historical reasons also is in the coalition led by China. There is very little that New Delhi can do to divide them but it can make their alliance stronger by wrong moves.

In fact, India has no reliable ally except perhaps Bhutan and Afghanistan but they are very costly ones as they depend on India for several favors.

India plays safe with Sri Lanka which is fast becoming an economic partner of Asian economic giant China. India does not want to openly antagonize its sea neighbor Lanka over Tamil issue and hence allows Lankan military to attack and kill Tamil fishermen from India. If India retaliates against Lankan atrocities, it would lose Lanka almost forever. Already Sri lanka has filed cases against India over Kudankulam nuclear plant since that island nation is within the danger zone of nuclear radiation from Kudankulam but India has so far managed to pacify Colombo not to push for any punitive measures. So, India is tolerating the Lankan atrocities on Tamil fishermen.

Also, the ruling BJP has no place in Tamil Nadu state and the federal government has no fear of losing support of Tamils for the party in the next general poll. The local BJP does not raise the issue of political future of the party in the state with the central party.
Thus Tamil fishermen are the causality of regional geo-politics.

Sri Lanka ill-treat Tamils as enemies

Fully aware of Indian mindset and dilemma of Tamil community, Sri Lanka just goes on attacking the Tamil fishermen. If Tamil fishermen go to Katchatheevu they are sure to be attacked and yet they cannot avoid going there since their life is inter linked with the zone.

Lankan regime knows India would not undertake nay punitive measures against the continued Lankan military offenses. Sri Lankans know their value as being ally of China and Pakistan.

For the same reason, India also does not push for speedy investigation procedures on war crimes of Lankan military forces against Lankan Tamils who are of Indian origins. .

There has been a monstrous trend around the world, starting in USA to view the minority populations as their enemies as the majority populations refuse to share the nation’s resources with the minorities equitably.

The Singhalese majority (Buddhist) populations in Sri Lanka ill-treat Tamil populations as the key “problem” they face and refuses to share the resources of the island nation with the minorities mainly Indian Tamils.

Sri Lanka does not distinguish between Lankan Tamils and Indian Tamils when it comes to treating them as equal humans. Tamil fishermen who go to their traditional zones like Katchatheevu are attacked perpetually even as Indian government looks the other way, pretending to be unaware of atrocities against Indian Tamils.

Lankan regime plays dirty regional politics to force Indian regime not to interfere with Lankan attack on Tamil fishermen. Regional geo politics favor Chinese supremacy in the South Asia region while India, backed by USA, is determined to to have final say in the regional politics.

Now Pakistan and Nepal are close friends or allies of China for its economic help and Lankan government is fast becoming an ally of China which India wants to disturb by maintaining silence over Lankan atrocities on Indian fishermen, even attacks and murders them freely on the sea. India is keen to obstruct any better ties between China and Lanka and Nepal but Nepal has been lost by New Delhi.

In fact, India also kills fishermen on the sea and d0es not feel bad or pained when neighboring Lankan military also does the same. Tamil Nadu government under instruction from federal government also attacked and killed fishermen when they protested against the Kudankulam nuclear terror plans. So, attacks and murders by Lankan forces cannot make India worry.

So much so, the Lankan PM Ranil Wickremesinghe had the courage to warn Indian government that they would kill any Indian who “trespasses” their “territory”. Sri Lanka now considers Katchatheevu, a small islet in the Indian Ocean lying between Lanka and India and right now under Lankan control, belongs to them and India cannot have any claim over the zone and Tamils should not be seen there.

Apparently, Indo-Lankan tensions are pure fiction as the regimes continue to target Tamils in both nations probably, like in cricket for 50s and 100s, on mutual understating.

The way Myanmar Muslims are being ill-treated by the regime and military, among other state-majority Buddhist’ agencies has heavily influenced non-Muslim states with military upperhandism like Sri lanka where the majority populations consisting of Singhalese minorities especially Tamils and Muslims are being attacked in order to appease the majority people.

Sri Lankan regime in South India knows too well that the Hindutva regime of PM Modi in India would not mind if Tamils and Muslims who are not Hindutva supporters either in India or Sri Lanka and hence it target both communities.

Though Lankan target is primarily focused Tamils, nowadays even Muslims are also the target of the Singhalese regime.

Constructive actions

Lankan government wants integration of communities without reconciliation. The larger communal tensions occur between youth of the two communities in the aftermath of a sports event. One group of youth had chided and spoken defiantly to another group from the other community. The initial violence was between the youth of the two communities who took offense at the attitudes of the other. A house was attacked by a group of youths. The matter should have been settled at that level by the community leaders, and if that failed by the local police. But this did not happen because external forces got involved. There are different accounts of who these might be, with organized extremist groups being the suspects, but with also questions being asked about the law enforcement authorities themselves. As rumours have a way of getting multiplied, it would be constructive if the government were to conduct an independent inquiry into this incident.

There are extremists on all sides of Sri Lanka’s continuing ethnic divides who are waiting to act as guardians of their community’s interests. This is true of members of all communities and they act with most energy in the areas in which they are a majority. It is therefore important that there should be constant awareness and interaction programs organized by the government, civil society and by religious institutions, to promote inter-ethnic and inter-religious understanding and togetherness.

The challenge would be to link them to civil society groups that could energize them and take them to the community level to engage in local level conflict mitigation work. There also needs to be education programs on the values of pluralism so that those who are a majority in any part of the country do not think that they are entitled to have special rights as individuals over those who are not in a majority.

Sleeping duck

As this government is one that is not based on ethnic nationalism and is also a combination of the two major political parties, it is more representative of the mainstream polity. It is also more acceptable to the ethnic and religious minorities. There is a general acceptance that the government is genuinely liberal where people’s freedoms are concerned.

A new feature on the social media, which is running without any control, is the naming and shaming of Buddhist monks who join inter-religious groups that seek to promote reconciliation and amity at the community level. A major criticism of the government that comes from all sides of the political spectrum, though for different reasons, is that the government is indecisive and not strong.

However, the downside to freedom and opening of space to voice opinions and to criticize is that this space is being exploited by those who do not accept a liberal and pluralist view of society. This can be seen on the social media which is filled with hate speech. There is a strong anti Muslim discourse that claims that they have links with international terror groups are increasing their population too fast and surreptitiously introducing birth control drugs to unsuspecting Sinhalese men, women and children.

Unfavorable comparisons are made in this regard with the former government. The Sirisena government, committed to fail governance through reconciliation, is reported to be collecting material relating to social media that spreads hate.

Since the US super power doesn’t impose its will on Colombo to initiate punitive measures against those guilty of war on Tamil population and extra crimes, the new government is also is not really bothered about justice for the Tamils.

India government, in the mood to punish the historic foes, plays a spoiling game for the Tamils and Muslims in the island la nation which is facing serious threat of disappearance due to fast climate changes.

It is very easy for any nation to dictate its terms to the minorities as India is doing to its own Muslims, even killing them by lynching for fun to amuse the Hindutva elements. The state can incite violence against the minorities just in a matter of hours, even minutes and just go rampage of the localities of minorities like Muslims. The core media that always oblige the government for making money as advertisements and foreign trips, just generate fake stories to target the Muslims, other minorities.

The disastrous inter ethnic violence between Sinhalese and Muslims in Gintota over the weekend which led to damage to a large number of homes, businesses and buildings is one of the crudest instances of how the state guides most of the community clashes generally for political reasons.

The government actions included sending in police battalions, the police paramilitary Special Task Force and anti-riot squad and the military and a visit to the area by PM Ranil Wickremesinghe. As a result a conflagration on the scale of the Aluthgama riots of 2014 in the neighboring Kalutara district did not materialize. It might have, if the government had not acted sooner and showed publicly that it had no sympathy with those who attacked others. The arrest of 19 trouble makers, many of whom had come from outside, and the declaration of a curfew, ensured that the violence was suppressed. However, the Muslim community which had to bear the brunt of the violence continues to live in a state of unease.

Religious differences had little or nothing to do with the clash which was between two identity groups making it more akin to an ethnic conflict, rather than a clash of religions. The immediate cause of the conflict was reportedly a relatively minor incident. There was a road accident involving motor cyclist from one community and a three-wheel passenger from another community. The parties had dealt with their trauma in a reasonable manner, going to the hospital and arriving at a private settlement, with some financial compensation being part of the package. However, external forces had intervened thereafter to escalate the conflict. The fact that an event of this nature which is not uncommon on Sri Lanka’s crowded roads could have escalated so fast is a cause for concern and reveals underlying tensions within the country.

Despite the end of the war nearly a decade ago, there is a continuing negative relationship between the ethnic communities and one which is not spoken about publicly, that needs to be carefully dealt with.

As a coalition government it is difficult for the government to come to quick decisions especially on controversial issues. This creates a dangerous space that those who wish to destabilize the polity can utilize and which needs to be closed.

It is necessary for the government to start acting more decisively against those who engage in violence and voice extreme nationalist opinions in an inflammatory manner which provokes others to inter-ethnic or inter-religious violence.