(RFE/RL) — NATO as well as German, French, and U.S. leaders have expressed concerns after Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that his country has deployed or is developing an array of new nuclear-capable weapons.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and U.S. President Donald Trump said in a telephone call that the weapons would have a negative impact on “international arms control efforts,” according to a German government statement on March 2.

The White House said Trump also spoke to French President Emmanuel Macron and that both leaders “shared their serious concerns” about Putin’s remarks.

In his annual state-of-the-nation speech on March 1, Putin boasted that Russia had developed new weapons, claiming many of them could hit almost any part of the world and evade U.S. anti-missile defenses.

Speaking before hundreds of top officials and lawmakers 17 days before an election that seems certain to hand him a new six-year term, Putin set out ambitious domestic goals and issued defiant warnings to the West, which he accused of trying to hold Russia back.

Putin’s warnings to NATO allies made during his speech were “unacceptable and counterproductive,” NATO spokeswoman Oana Lungescu said in a statement on March 2 quoted by Reuters.

“We do not want a new Cold War or a new arms race,” she said, also adding that NATO’s U.S.-built missile-defense system in Europe was not aimed at Russia.

Reacting to Putin’s remarks, White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said on March 1 that Russia had been developing destabilizing weapons systems for over a decade in violation of its treaty obligations.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov on March 2 denied Russia was in breach of any international arms-control pacts.

Peskov also said that Putin’s speech would not increase Russia’s international isolation and did not herald the start of a new arms race.

“Russia does not plan to get dragged into any arms race,” Peskov said.

During an interview broadcast late on March 1 in the United States, Putin said that Russia would only use nuclear weapons in extraordinary circumstances.

“There are two reasons that can prompt us to use nuclear weapons: a nuclear weapons attack against us or an attack using conventional weapons when the Russian state’s existence is threatened,” he told NBC TV.

When asked about the readiness of new weapons, Putin was not specific, but said that “some still have to be fine-tuned and worked on. Others are already available to the troops and battle-ready.”

During his March 1 speech, Putin said Russia had tested new nuclear weapons, including a nuclear-powered cruise missile and a nuclear-capable underwater drone that, he claimed, would be impossible to intercept.

Using colorful graphics and video, Putin said the high-speed underwater drone capable of carrying a nuclear warhead could target both aircraft carriers and coastal facilities.

Putin said that Russia also tested a new heavy intercontinental ballistic missile, called Sarmat, with a range and number of warheads exceeding its predecessor.

Putin contended that Russia was forced to upgrade its nuclear arsenal after the United States withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty in 2002.

Putin said Russia warned it would take such measures in 2004, but that the West didn’t want to talk with Russia.

“No one listened to us then. So listen to us now,” Putin said to thunderous applause in the speech, which was held at a venue just outside the Kremlin and televised live nationwide.

Spring is arriving earlier, but how much earlier? The answer depends where on Earth you find yourself, according to a study led by the University of California, Davis.

The study, published in Nature’s online journal Scientific Reports, found that for every 10 degrees north from the equator you move, spring arrives about four days earlier than it did a decade ago. This northward increase in the rate of springtime advance is roughly three times greater than what previous studies have indicated.

For example, at southern to mid latitudes such as Los Angeles, New Orleans, or Dallas, the study suggests spring might be arriving a mere one day earlier than it did a decade ago. Farther north, in Seattle, Chicago, or Washington DC, it might be arriving four days earlier. And if you live in the Arctic, it might be arriving as much as 16 days earlier.

“This study verifies observations that have been circulating in the scientific community and popular reports for years,” said lead author Eric Post, a Fellow of the John Muir Institute and polar ecologist in the UC Davis Department of Wildlife, Fish and Conservation Biology. “Yes, spring is arriving earlier, and the Arctic is experiencing greater advances of spring than lower latitudes. What our study adds is that we connect such differences to more rapid springtime warming at higher latitudes.”

ACCELERATED SPRING

The study is the most comprehensive analysis to date of springtime advance, or phenology, as you move north with latitude. Such signs include birds migrating, flowers blooming, amphibians calling and the emergence of leaves.

The researchers analyzed 743 previously published estimates of the rate of springtime advance from studies spanning 86 years across the Northern Hemisphere, as well as rates of springtime warming over the same range of years and latitude. Even after accounting for differences in the length, time, and location of those previous studies, the relationship between earlier springs and higher latitudes was strong.

UNKNOWNS FOR MIGRATORY SPECIES

Springtime provides important biological cues for many plant and animal species, and it is unclear how an accelerated spring could play out for these species across the planet.

The study notes that impacts to migratory birds are a potential concern. Many birds move from tropical zones to higher latitudes, such as the Arctic, to breed.

“Whatever cues they’re relying on to move northward for spring might not be reliable predictors of food availability once they get there if the onset of spring at these higher latitudes is amplified by future warming,” Post said. “The springtime emergence of the plants and insects they’ll eat when they arrive is happening faster than the changes at the lower latitudes those birds are departing from.”

Jumping robot spiders and swarms of robotic bees sounds like the stuff of science fiction, but researchers at The University of Manchester are already working on such projects and aiming to lead the world in micro robotics.

But what will these kinds of robots be used for and is it something we should be worried? Dr Mostafa Nabawy is the Microsystems Research Theme Leader at The University of Manchester’s School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering.

Here Dr Nabawy explained why micro robots really aren’t anything to worry about and, instead, could be the revolution in robotics that spearheads the next generation in manufacturing technology.

“For our robotic spiders research we are looking at a specific species of jumping spider called Phidippus regius. We have trained it to jump different distances and heights, recording the spider’s every movement in extreme detail through high resolution cameras which can be slowed down.”

“We are now using this bio-mechanical data to model robots that can perform with the same abilities. With this extensive dataset we have already started developing prototype robots that can mimic these biomechanical movements and jump several centimetres.”

Why jumping spiders you ask? Unlike humans, our spiders can jump up to six-times longer than their own body length from a standing start. In comparison, the maximum a human can jump is just one and half times. Dr Nabawy says if we can perfect the way spiders jump in robots they can be used for a variety of different purposes in complex engineering and manufacturing and can be deployed in unknown environments to execute different missions.

Dr Nabawy’s research and background is in aerodynamics, aircraft design, and the modelling of engineering systems. But he is now combining this expertise with bio-inspired flying and jumping technologies, including flying robot bees.

He added: “The ultimate aim is to create a robot bee that can fly independently and we’re quite a long way into that project. But there are also many different opportunities for brilliant science and engineering outcomes along the way so it is a very exciting process.”

“We’re aiming to create the world’s first robot bee that can fly unaided and unaccompanied. These technologies can also be used for many different applications, including improving the current aerodynamic performances of aircraft.”

“Or, imagine if the current trend of a declining bee population continues, swarms of robot bees pollinating crops and flowers could become a reality. Whilst this may sound like something out of a transformers film this is our ultimate aim. But don’t worry we are someway off swarms of flying mechanical bees and armies of mechanical spider robots.”

The Industry 4.0 summit is looking at the future of the manufacturing industry, but will also look at topics ranging from Brexit and the Northern Powerhouse to skills shortages, cyber-security and blue skies technology.

One of the largest-ever studies of U.S. gun policy finds there is a shortage of evidence about the effects of most gun laws, although researchers from the RAND Corporation found there is some persuasive evidence about the effects of several common gun policies.

The findings are from RAND’s sweeping Gun Policy in America initiative, which also evaluated the views of gun policy experts with opposing perspectives on the likely effects of gun laws to identify where compromise might be possible.

RAND researchers evaluated thousands of studies to assess the available evidence for the effect of 13 common gun policies on a range of outcomes, including injuries and deaths, mass shootings, defensive gun use, and participation in hunting and sport shooting. The strongest available evidence supports the conclusion that laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of children reduce firearm self-injuries, suicides and unintended injuries to children.

There is moderate evidence to support conclusions that background checks reduce firearm suicides and firearm homicides, and that laws prohibiting the purchase or possession of guns by individuals with some forms of mental illness reduce violent crime, according to the analysis. There also is moderate evidence that stand-your-ground laws, which allow people to use guns to defend themselves without requiring that they first attempt to retreat, if possible, may increase state homicide rates.

The RAND Gun Policy in America initiative is intended to provide new nonpartisan information to national and local discussions about gun policy.

“The goal of this project is to help build consensus around a shared set of facts about gun policy by demonstrating where scientific evidence is accumulating,” said Andrew Morral, the project’s leader and a behavioral scientist at RAND, a nonprofit research organization.

Out of the thousands of studies evaluated, the RAND analysis identified 62 that investigated the causal effects of gun polices on any of the outcomes RAND investigated, including those of concern to gun owners and the gun industry, as well as violence, suicide and injury. Most other studies demonstrate only an association between gun policies and outcomes, which offers less-persuasive evidence that the policies caused changes in the outcomes. In many cases, researchers found no studies linking gun policies to the many effects they examined.

“While science can teach us a lot about gun policy, research in this area is generally far behind where it is for most other causes of death that claim similar numbers of lives in the U.S. each year,” Morral said. “This does not mean that gun polices have no effects. Most laws probably have some effect, however small or intended. Instead, the limited evidence base reflects shortcomings in the contributions that scientific study has made to the policy debate.”

Many of the studies RAND reviewed used weak methods of establishing the effects of gun laws, often because historical information on variations in state gun laws is unavailable or difficult to collect. To encourage more high-quality research, the Gun Policy in America project created a large database of state-level U.S. gun policy laws, covering the period of 1979 to 2016. RAND is making this data set available to researchers and the public, and is using it to develop new estimates of the effects of gun laws that will be released later this year.

Because there is so little scientific evidence to draw on, RAND researchers also surveyed 95 gun policy experts from across the ideological spectrum to identify where there might be consensus or opportunities for compromise. Two groups with opposing views were identified among the experts. One group had views closely aligned with the National Rifle Association, and the other had views aligned with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Despite sharp disagreements on their ratings of the overall merits of different gun laws, the two groups of experts were often not far apart in their estimates of the likely effects of laws.

There was comparatively strong agreement between the groups of experts about the positive effects of expanded mental health-related prohibitions, the required reporting of lost or stolen firearms, media campaigns to prevent children from accessing guns, and the required surrender of firearms by those prohibited from possessing guns, such as people convicted of felonies.

The largest disagreements in opinion involved policies that allow the carrying of concealed weapons without permits and the elimination of gun-free zones. The project includes a website visualization tool that allows visitors to explore a wide range of scenarios to see how different combinations of gun policies would affect outcomes nationally and in individual U.S. states, according to the two groups of experts.

“Both groups overwhelmingly favored policies they believed would reduce firearm homicides and suicides, but there is disagreement about which laws would have these effects,” Morral said. “Collecting more and stronger evidence about the true effects of laws is a necessary and promising step toward building greater consensus around effective gun policy.”

Looking forward, the RAND team recommends that the federal government increase funding for gun research to levels comparable to federal research investments in other significant causes of death and injury, such as automobile accidents. In addition, the focus of research should expand to include the effects that policies have on defensive gun use, gun ownership, hunting and recreation activities, jobs in the gun industry and officer-involved shootings.

“Issues beyond gun violence are often central considerations in gun policy debates, but we identified no qualifying research examining most of them. If we had better information on the effects of gun laws on some of these issues, we would be in a better position to develop fair and effective gun laws,” Morral said.

The United States has the highest gun ownership rate in the world, with estimates suggesting that Americans own as many as 300 million guns. Between 10 million and 20 million Americans actively participate in hunting or sport shooting annually, and the gun industry generates $16 billion in revenue and employs hundreds of thousands in gun manufacturing, distribution, sales and recreation.

At the same time, more than 36,000 people died of gunshot wounds in the U.S. in 2015, and Americans are 25 times more likely to die by gun homicide than residents of other wealthy countries.

About two-thirds of gunshot deaths in the U.S. are suicides, while mass shootings accounted for just 0.5 percent of all gun fatalities annually. Despite wide acknowledgement that gun violence levels are too high, little consensus has been reached about what gun policies should be adopted widely.

By Richard Wachman

China is ramping up its role in Iraqi reconstruction, reflecting its growing reliance on oil from the war-ravaged country, but geopolitical factors are also at play, according to a new report.

A paper compiled by consultancy BMI Research, and released first to Arab News, said: “On the one hand, China will look to direct investment into infrastructure assets associated with Iraq’s oil industry, which has emerged as an increasingly important export partner over the past decade. On the other, China will aim to garner geopolitical influence by participating in broader reconstruction efforts in a country lying along a key artery of its Belt and Road initiative.”

The burgeoning Iraq-China partnership was said to be anchored by a dramatic increase in oil trade. Iraqi oil exports to China rose from zero in 2007 to 270 million barrels annually by 2017, second behind only Saudi Arabia in the Middle East and accounting for roughly 8.8 percent of total Chinese oil imports.

China’s growing investment role in Iraq’s oil sector was highlighted in January when Iraq disclosed that it intended to construct an oil refinery at the port of Fao on the Gulf with two Chinese companies. Iraq’s ministry of oil named the firms as Power China and Nerco Chinese. The ministry said that the refinery would have a capacity of 300,000 barrels per day. Similarly, Baghdad has awarded a contract to China-based Zhenhua Oil to further develop the East Baghdad oilfield.

“Given the growing importance of China as an oil export market vis-a-vis traditional export destinations like the United States, Baghdad will remain keen on deepening partnerships with Chinese companies as bilateral interests align,” BMI said.

The geopolitical research consultancy added that China would also gain indirect exposure to Iraq’s infrastructure sector by extending bilateral loans aimed at rebuilding Iraq’s economy.

In February, international donors pledged $30 billion to reconstruction efforts in Iraq, and while individual country contributions have not been divulged, reports indicated that China had been a key donor with billions committed by Chinese state-controlled enterprises over recent years.

BMI said China’s motives were also driven by its wider geopolitical ambitions. “Iraq lies along a key route of the China-backed Belt and Road initiative, which seeks to foster growing East-West overland trade by promoting greater logistical connectivity.”

BMI also highlighted the planned Basra-Aqaba oil pipeline, where the China Petroleum Pipeline Bureau is slated to play a construction role.
Yu Jie, head of China Foresight at the London School of Economics, told Arab News that “China is the world’s biggest importer of oil and the Middle East is a region for market access.” She flagged media reports that Chinese state-owned oil company Sinopec could acquire a shareholding in Saudi Aramco following the planned IPO later this year.

A recent report by the International Energy Agency said that the Middle East, which accounts for about $200 billion worth of trade, makes the region China’s fourth largest trading partner after the US, Japan and South Korea.

That said, getting the funds needed to rebuild Iraq is no easy task. At the close of an international donor conference in Kuwait last month, Iraq secured only about a third of the $100 billion that Iraq said the country needed, and much of the money pledged was in the form of investment loans (not direct aid).

Last month, the Iraqi Ministry of Defense released a video depicting Chinese-made CH-4B armed drones for use against terrorist targets. That appeared to make good on a statement following a visit by the Iraqi prime minister to Beijing two years ago when the Chinese pledged to expand its military and defense cooperation with Iraq. “We are ready to respond to support Iraq in these areas, as well as economic cooperation,” said Chinese President Xi Jinping at the time.

In an article last month on the website of China Global Television Network, professor Zhou Rong from the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies at Renmin University of China, wrote that Chinese state-owned enterprises are the biggest oil investors in Iraq, “especially the modernization and development of Iraq’s oil infrastructure.”

About 60 percent of the electricity in the Iraqi capital Baghdad is produced by Chinese companies, he said.

“Sino-Iraqi relations benefit from the backdrop of the Belt and Road Initiative. Iraq thinks that the initiative is important for Iraq because it is historically located on the Al-Hareer Road,” Rong said.

Al-Hareer was a 12,000 kilometer land and sea road linking Asia, the Middle East and Europe hundreds of years ago that facilitated the exchange of goods and products such as silk, perfumes, incense, and spices, he said.

Gastric bypass surgery can give better control for diabetes and obesity than lifestyle modification In a randomized clinical trial comparing two treatments, both groups of participants report significant weight loss, better diabetes management and improved quality of life

Boston, MA – People with worrisome levels of obesity and poor control of their type 2 diabetes face two dramatically different options to substantially improve their health: bariatric (weight loss) surgery or intensive lifestyle management. In a randomized controlled clinical trial, scientists from Joslin Diabetes Center and Brigham and Women’s Hospital found that patients treated with a form of bariatric surgery known as Roux-en-Y gastric bypass did significantly better, after three years, than patients provided with an intensive diabetes and weight management program.

“Our study demonstrates that in patients with mild-moderate obesity and type 2 diabetes, gastric bypass surgery leads to a sustained reduction in weight, improvement in glycemic control, and decrease in cardiovascular risk compared to a medical diabetes and weight management program,” said lead author Donald C. Simonson, M.D., M.P.H., Sc.D., of the BWH Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Hypertension. “Gastric bypass surgery and the medical/lifestyle intervention program are not investigational – both are routinely available to patients at our institutions, and comparable programs exist at many other hospitals and health care facilities.”

Given rapid advances in recent years in delivering both of these alternative treatments, “this kind of information is very important to clinicians and patients to help inform decision making,” says Allison Goldfine, MD, head of clinical research at Joslin during the trial and senior author on a paper published this month in Diabetes Care.

The paper provided the latest results from the SLIMM-T2D (Surgery or Lifestyle with Intensive Medical Management in the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes) study, which randomly allocated 38 obese patients with type 2 diabetes to treatment either by surgery at BWH or through Joslin’s Why WAIT intensive lifestyle management program. These participants had an average weight of 230 pounds and body mass index (BMI) of 36.3.

After three years, patients given surgery saw dramatically greater weight loss, averaging 55 pounds compared to 11 pounds for those in the lifestyle management intervention. The surgical cohort also lowered their hemoglobin A1c levels (a measure of blood sugar over several months) by an average of 1.79% compared to 0.39% for the lifestyle management cohort. Additionally, those given surgery showed significantly lower risk of coronary heart disease and stroke.

Although patients given the lifestyle intervention program made encouraging initial progress in both weight loss and diabetes control, those improvements dropped noticeably over time. “Patients who had the gastric bypass procedure had superior ability to sustain changes both in weight and blood sugar, and they did so requiring less medication for their diabetes, their blood pressure and their lipids,” says Goldfine.

The two groups of trial participants generally self-reported similar improvements in quality of life overall and less distress in living with diabetes–important positive outcomes. Those given surgery did see a significantly higher impact of weight loss on their quality of life, and greater improvement in the domains of physical functioning, self-esteem, and work performance. “As a result of these findings, we expect that more physicians will consider gastric bypass surgery as a viable option for patients with type 2 diabetes and mild tomoderate obesity when previous attempts to lose weight and improve glycemic control have not been successful,” said Simonson.

Goldfine emphasized, however, that treatment must be personalized for all patients who are struggling with obesity and diabetes, and that gastric bypass surgery is not always the best option.

The Roux-en-Y gastric bypass procedure is done laparoscopically, through small cuts in the abdomen. Surgeons make a small pouch at the top of the stomach and connect the pouch to the middle of small intestine.

Joslin’s 12-week Why WAIT intensive lifestyle management program includes a change in diabetes medications to enhance weight reduction, structured dietary intervention with lower carbohydrates and higher protein and meal replacement, an exercise program with emphasis on strength training, and weekly educational and support sessions.

Both surgical procedures and intensive lifestyle management techniques now take advantage of major medical advances achieved in the past decade or two, Goldfine says.

“Older surgical procedures were much more invasive, with much higher surgical risk and complication rates, and older types of procedures had higher failure rates over time,” she says. “Laparoscopic rather than open surgery made the biggest impact on the surgical experience and recovery, but we have improved surgical techniques all the way from preoperative evaluations to better post-operative care.”

Medical options also have improved substantially, with the availability in recent years of new classes of diabetes drugs such as GLP-1 (glucagon-like peptide-1) receptor agonists and SGLT2 (sodium-glucose co-transporter-2) inhibitors. These drugs lower blood sugars, reduce weight and have lower rates of hypoglycemia, she points out.

Another arm of the SLIMM-T2D trial examines the use of an alternate approach to bariatric surgery, the adjustable band procedure, which inserts a band around the upper stomach whose tightness can be modified. (Earlier research has indicated that Roux-en-Y surgery produces greater weight loss and better diabetes control than adjustable-band surgery, but also changes hormones differently and presents a different set of complications.) In previously released SLIMM-T2D research, participants given gastric band surgery or intensive lifestyle management achieved similar lowering of blood sugar levels after one year. Participants given the band saw greater average weight loss (30 pounds compared to 19 pounds).

Welcome to Monowi, Nebraska, population 1. According to 2010 U.S. Census data, Monowi is the only incorporated town in the country with only one resident, Oddity Central reports.

As the only person living in Monowi, 84-year-old Elsie Eiler, is the town’s mayor, clerk, treasurer, librarian, bartender, among other functions. Every year she hangs a sign in the tavern advertising mayoral elections and then votes for herself. Federal law also requires her to produce a municipal road plan annually to secure state funding, and pay $500 in taxes to keep the water and electricity turned on. She also does the required paperwork to keep Monowi’s incorporated status and prevent it from becoming a ghost town.

“When I apply to the state for my liquor and tobacco licenses each year, they send them to the secretary of the village, which is me,” she told the BBC. “So, I get them as the secretary, sign them as the clerk and give them to myself as the bar owner.”

“I’m happy here. I grew up here, I’m used to this, and I know what I want.” Eiler added.

Back in the 1930s, Monowi was a stop on the Elkhorn Railroad with a bustling population of 150, three grocery shops, several restaurants, and even a prison. Eiler was raised on a farm on the outskirts of town and met her husband Rudy in primary school. After graduating from high school, Rudy enlisted in the US Air Force. While he served in the Korean War, Eiler moved to Kansas City to pursue work with an airline.

“I went to work for an airline with the dream of becoming a stewardess,” she told BBC. “I didn’t much care for the city; Monowi had always been home.”

Eiler married Rudy at 19, and they raised two children in Monowi. In 1971 the couple decided to reopen the tavern that had belonged to Eiler’s father. By the time the Monowi Tavern opened, however, the little town had begun its decline. After WWII, rural economies collapsed throughout the Midwest, and entire communities began to disappear from the US heartland.

In 1960 the church held its last funeral for Eiler’s father, and then between 1967 and 1970 the post office and only remaining grocery store shut down. The school closed in 1974. In the mid-70s both of Eiler’s children moved away to find work, and by 1980 the town’s population had plummeted to 18. Twenty years later Rudy and Eiler comprised the entire population of Monowi until Rudy passed away in 2004.

The series of counterattacks between Israel and Syria over the last few days have rung alarm bells across West Asia. The events prove, thus far a relatively dormant Syria-Israel armistice line in the Golan Heights, might become a theatre of another conflict with global ramifications.

By Anchal Vohra

On 10 February, Israel intercepted an Iranian drone flying over its territory and in response launched a range of attacks on the area near Palmyra in Syria from where the drone allegedly took flight. Reacting to Israel, the Syrians downed an Israeli F-16 returning from the attack, a first since 1980s. The Israelis fired back with a vengeance at multiple Syrian and Iranian targets within Syria.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on the 11 February that “yesterday we dealt severe blows to the Iranian and Syrian forces.” “We made it unequivocally clear to everyone that our rules of action have not changed one bit. We will continue to strike at every attempt to strike at us. This has been our policy and it will remain our policy,” he said.

The series of counterattacks between Israel and Syria over the last few days have rung alarm bells across West Asia. The events prove, thus far a relatively dormant Syria-Israel armistice line in the Golan Heights, might become a theatre of another conflict with global ramifications.

These exchanges of fire may well be remembered as a starting point of the next possible war in West Asia. Some observers of the region have long feared that the conflict between Israel and Iran would be played out in the south of Syria.

Israel: Forever an enemy

In front of the citadel in Damascus, an oversize bronze statue of the founder of Ayyubid dynasty, Salahdin, is meant to awe and inspire. Salahdin, a Kurdish general, is a legend in the Arab world for he retook Jerusalem from the crusaders in 1137.

The tale of his victory is a mobilising tool for Iran, Syria and the Hizbollah in Lebanon which call themselves ‘Resistance to Israel’. The story of a mighty yet benign warrior motivates and instills confidence amongst the foot soldiers of the resistance. The message is — however unlikely it may seem, one day all of Palestine would come under the control of the Islamic world. This includes the lands Israel currently exists on and occupies.

In several Arab-Israeli wars, the former has gained little. Perhaps, understanding the goal is more unrealistic than advocated. Before the Syrian war, which began in 2011, Bashar al-Assad was trying to crack a deal through the West with Tel Aviv. His offer was dilution of ties with Iran in lieu of the Golan Heights.

Home to hundreds of thousands of Palestinians post 1948, Syria along with other Arabs vehemently supported the Palestinian cause. It became personal in the six-day war imposed by Israel in 1967 when the Jewish state occupied a large chunk of Syria’s Golan Heights in the south of the country.

Since, Israel is sitting on the Syrian land.

Israel is the eternal enemy for factual and imagined sins.

The Baath Party earnestly believes that the US and Europe supported the opposition in the Syrian war against a secular Assad, to eventually guard Israel’s interests in the region. While it is true that Washington massively tilts towards Israel in the conflict, the uprising in Syria was a result of a lack of political and economic reforms in Syria.

‘Israel is to blame for the war’ narrative has been promoted widely in the Syrian press.

An assertive Assad is depicted with an equally head-strong chief of the Hizbollah; Hassan Nasrallah, in posters and hoardings across the country. From Damascus to Aleppo, the text on the banners claims the foundation of the alliance to be their mutual resistance to ‘hegemonic’ Israel.

While Syrians are tired of the prolonged war and divided over who to pin the blame on — for instance, a bulk of Syrian refugees accuse the regime while those who found relative safety in the regime held areas consider it less problematic — but, Israel is a common enemy.

Mohammad Sharif runs a bakery on the road to Homs from Damascus. A staunch Assad follower, he believes his government’s line. In August last year, he spoke to me about the significance of a Syria, Iran and Hizbollah alliance.

“Had it not been for Iran and Hizbollah’s support, the Israelis would have occupied us too during the war,” he said.

A segment of nationalist Syrians have also welcomed the Hizbollah and sing the group’s praises for protecting it from the Jihadists and Tel Aviv.

The conflict enabled the group and other Iranian-backed militias to entrench themselves in the city of Quneitra, in the Syrian-controlled part of the Golan.

The Hezbollah reportedly has 10,000 fighters in southern Syria. The figure has been disputed but the Hizbollah’s desire to have a long-term foothold in the region isn’t.

Hezbollah has also used Quneitra as a base to train Iran-backed forces fighting in other conflicts in the region. Ahmad, a foot soldier for an Iranian-backed Iraqi paramilitary group called Al-Badr, told me in Baghdad, he was flown to Quneitra, along with other fighters, to be trained by Lebanese Hezbollah in a camp within miles of the Israeli frontier.

“We received three months of training in Quneitra by Hezbollah. They are very good with technology and weapons,” he said.

Russia, the US and Jordan signed a Memorandum of Principles in November that expanded an earlier ceasefire agreement for the southwestern triangle bordering Israel and Jordan and called for “the reduction, and ultimate elimination” of foreign fighters from the area. On the ground though, hostilities have increased.

In late December 2017, Assad’s men seized Beit Jinn pocket near the Israeli-controlled Golan. This effectively forced the Syrian rebels in this area to retreat.

Israel, on the other hand, has been feeding these rebels. Under the pretext of humanitarian assistance, Israeli defence forces or the IDF pick up locals and armed men in need of a hospital and treat them. They are taken to — among other nearby facilities — the multispecialty Galilee hospital in Nahariya, which is only a few miles from the Lebanese border.

Ocampo Smadar, the head nurse in the Galilee hospital, says Israeli-run buses pick up those in need of medical care in the Golan, including fighters, and bring them to hospitals in Israel.

So far, the hospital has provided health care to 1,600 Syrians. Israel hopes it reflects its sensitive side to the world but in fact that it is a ploy to build friendly pockets in the Golan, and is not lost on observers.

Perhaps precautionary, but these activities reinforce the deep mistrust of Israel in Syria. It is cemented by structured efforts of the Syrian regime but dominantly by Israel’s reluctance to give up the Golan.

Fearing Israel may come under pressure to return Golan as part of a future peace deal with Syria, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu has said, “The Golan Heights will remain in the hands of Israel forever.”

Before the clashes in February, Israeli forces had carried out at least 100 airstrikes in Syria. Israel’s former air force chief admitted that the IDF targeted weapon shipments and arms convoys being delivered by Iran to the Syrian army and the Hezbollah.

Ofer Zalzberg, a senior analyst with the International Crisis Group, weighs in via email.

“The Israeli government’s assessment is that Hezbollah/Iranian presence near the armistice line [in the Golan] is bound to lead to the establishment of offensive infrastructure in the area,” he wrote.

“Such infrastructure can later be used for attrition attacks on Israeli civilians,” Zalzberg added.

Israel wants to contain the Hizbollah by striking its weapon depots.

The party of god — the Hizbollah — is confident of its abilities. And, General Elias Farhat of the Lebanese Army warns Israel of any misadventure.

“It will not be a war either side can win but the Hizbollah has the capacity to destroy major Israeli cities,” he told me in Lebanon’s capital Beirut.

Israel and Lebanon look at mutual annihilation if there were to be another war between the arch enemies. A base in south Syria helps Iran and the Hizbollah to fight on another front.

Syria could have been dealt with had Israel, and rightly so, handed over the Golan, but now with Iran’s pre-eminence in Damascus, that chance is gone.

Israel’s adamant behaviour is as much to blame for igniting fire in the Golan as Iran’s stubborn ‘Death to Israel’ call.

Crisis in West Asia is a circle. Where ever it starts, it always stops at the Arab-Israeli conflict.

United States border agents routinely hold families, including infants, in freezing cells when it takes them into custody at or near the border, Human Rights Watch said in a report.

The 44-page report, “In the Freezer: Abusive Conditions for Women and Children in US Immigration Holding Cells,” is based on interviews with 110 women and children. Human Rights Watch found that US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents routinely separate adult men and teenage boys from other family members. The practice runs counter to agency policy that families should be kept together whenever possible while in holding cells. After the initial period of detention in the freezing holding cells, sometimes for days, men usually remain separated from the rest of their family upon transfer to longer-term detention facilities.

“The persistent practices in immigration holding cells are degrading and punitive,” said Michael Garcia Bochenek, senior children’s rights counsel at Human Rights Watch. “Immigration authorities should keep families together and shouldn’t detain children overnight in holding cells.”

Detention and family separation have serious adverse consequences for mental well-being, especially for those who have already suffered trauma. Most of the women and children Human Rights Watch interviewed said they had fled their home countries after they were targeted for violence or other persecution.

Time in the holding cells was “the most difficult and traumatic” period of detention for women and children apprehended by US immigration authorities, a team of psychologists found in a 2015 study.

All immigration detainees have the right to be treated with dignity and humanity, and children are entitled to specific safeguards. Human Rights Watch found that conditions in immigration holding cells are in breach of international standards and CBP policies, and likely violate the terms of federal court orders.

Women and children told Human Rights Watch they spent up to three nights in cells with uncomfortably low temperatures, sleeping on the floor or concrete benches with only a foil blanket to protect them. In many cases, border agents required them to remove and discard sweaters or other layers of clothing, purportedly for security reasons, before they entered the cells.

Holding cells often do not provide hand soap to women and children, meaning they cannot hygienically clean their hands before and after eating, feeding infants, using the toilet, or changing diapers. Most of the women and children held in these cells said they were not allowed to shower during their time in holding cells.

One woman interviewed said she and her-five-year-old son were soaked after wading across the river. “We were sitting on the cement floor, completely freezing,” she said. “In the end, I had to sleep seated upright, with my son in my lap, because I couldn’t let him lay down on the cement floor.” CBP officials have consistently denied that holding cells are cold, even as the women and children held there have regularly reported that the temperatures in these facilities are much colder than in other immigration detention centers. In October 2017, for example, the Women’s Refugee Commission reported that nearly all of about 150 women interviewed in 2016 and 2017 said they had been held “for days in freezing cold CBP facilities.”

CBP officials did not answer Human Rights Watch’s specific questions about conditions in holding cells, citing ongoing litigation. They instead pointed to agency policies and stated that CBP follows all applicable laws and policies, including court orders.

In court filings, the agency has attempted to justify its failure to provide sleeping mats to women and their children by saying that the cells are not designed for holding people overnight. Yet nearly all the women and children Human Rights Watch interviewed spent at least one night in a holding cell. Other studies, including one by the US Government Accountability Office (GAO), have consistently found that two-thirds of migrants in holding cells remain there for at least one night, and tens of thousands of migrants spend 72 hours or more in holding cells each year.

A preliminary court order, limited to holding cells in Arizona and upheld on appeal, says that all migrants held for more than 12 hours must be given sleeping mats and the opportunity to wash. In another court case that covers holding cells in Texas’ Rio Grande Valley, a federal judge ordered CBP to remedy abusive conditions for children placed in holding cells.

CBP should ensure that all immigration holding cells provide hygienic conditions, including access to soap, showers, toothbrushes, and toothpaste, for all detained migrants, Human Rights Watch said. The agency should set temperatures in cells that are comfortable for detained people.

Holding cells should be used only for very short periods. People should not be held there overnight unless it is unavoidable, and children should never be held there overnight. People held overnight should be provided with sleeping mats and blankets.

US immigration authorities should also avoid splitting up families when they are apprehended. Instead, the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) should identify and provide alternatives that keep families together.

“Conditions in immigration holding cells are not only needlessly cruel but also demonstrably harmful, particularly for people who have suffered persecution,” Bochenek said. “The United States should not persist in practices that traumatize children and their families.”

By Sean Buchanan

Civil society organisations (CSOs) and independent media play a vital role in anti-corruption efforts, yet CSOs working on governance and human rights issues are subject to ever-greater restrictions on their operations while attacks on journalists are on the rise in many parts of the world.

Such crackdowns, says Transparency International in this year’s Corruption Perceptions Index released on February 21, are not only deeply concerning in their own right, but also add to an environment in which corrupt public officials, shady businesses and organised criminals are able to act with impunity.

The index ranks 180 countries and territories by their perceived levels of public sector corruption according to experts and businesspeople.

According to the global anti-corruption organisation, curbing corruption requires more than just well-designed laws because corrupt individuals have proven very adept at finding ways to get around formal constraints. For this reason, grassroots and bottom-up approaches to fighting corruption tend to be more sustainable in the long run than isolated institutional and legal reform.

Transparency International notes that because well-intentioned laws are poorly enforced and institutions lack the ‘teeth’ to make anti-corruption efforts truly effective, civil society and media are essential in applying pressure and keeping governments honest and accountable.

Specifically, freedom of association, including the ability of people to form groups and influence public policy, is vital to anti-corruption, with CSOs playing a key role in denouncing violations of rights or speaking out against breaches of law.

Similarly, a free and independent media serves an important function in investigating and reporting incidences of corruption. The voices of both civil society and journalists put a spotlight on bad actors and can help trigger action by law enforcement and the court system.

Coinciding with release of its public sector corruption index, Transparency International compared this index with various other measurements of press freedom and civil society space, finding evidence to suggest that those countries that respect press freedom, encourage open dialogue and allow for full participation of CSOs in the public arena tend to be more successful at controlling corruption.

Conversely, countries that repress journalists, restrict civil liberties and seek to stifle civil society organisations typically score lower on the public sector corruption index.

The relationship between press freedom and corruption is further highlighted by data provided by the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) which document cases of journalists killed while reporting on a story.

Since 2012, 368 journalists died while pursing stories and 96 percent of those deaths were in countries with corrupt public sectors (countries scoring below 45 on Transparency International’s corruption index). Moreover, one in five journalists killed worldwide were investigating corruption-related stories.

Hungary and Brazil are key examples of the relationship between civil rights and corruption. Recently, Hungary enacted a series of measures to restrict press freedom. In addition, recent draft legislation in Hungary threatens to restrict NGOs and revoke their charitable status.

In Brazil, civil society’s ability to participate in decision making in the country has reduced recently, and the country is also a dangerous place for journalists, with 20 killed in the last six years.

According to Transparency International, some countries with relatively good ranking on its corruption index continue to impose crippling restrictions on the media and civil society groups. Such countries are, however, what the organisation calls ‘outliers’.

The overwhelming body of evidence from both academia and the frontline indicates that the protection of journalistic and civil freedoms is a prerequisite for any long-term reduction in a country’s level of corruption.

However, research also points to a vicious cycle, whereby widespread corruption chips away at remaining civic space and targets groups that pose a challenge to authority, while at the same time the inability of citizens to hold their governments accountable contributes to even greater abuse.

CSOs, grassroots movements and journalists are vital for improving the quality of governance, but respect for civil liberties – such as freedom of expression and association – is only one component of an effective anti-corruption agenda.

These elements are all the more powerful when combined with genuine political will on the part of governments to tackle problems at their root, concludes the anti-corruption organisation.

Migrations of people from the Bismarck Archipelago in Oceania to the previously settled islands of the Pacific began as early as 2,500 years ago, much earlier than previously thought.

These are the findings of a study, published in Nature Ecology & Evolution and led by a multidisciplinary research team at the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History (MPI-SHH) together with researchers in France, Australia, New Zealand, Germany and Vanuatu.

The Remote Oceanian island nation of Vanuatu is the gateway to the rest of the Pacific and understanding its demographic history is critical to uncovering that of the wider region. The earliest inhabitants of Vanuatu, arriving about 3,000 years ago, were the Lapita peoples who spoke a form of Austronesian language and who had largely East Asian genetic ancestry. But Vanuatu’s contemporary population has largely Near Oceanian heritage, showing that over time the genetic ancestry of the early inhabitants was mostly replaced by that of Bismarck Archipelago migrants, who began arriving very soon after initial settlement. Yet the original Austronesian language persisted and over 120 descendant languages continue to be spoken today, making Vanuatu the per capita most linguistically diverse place on Earth. Vanuatu therefore presents an unprecedented case, where a population’s genetic ancestry but not its languages were replaced. Through analyses of new ancient and modern genome-wide data, the researchers show that rather than occurring in one wave, the genetic replacement was long and complex, likely the result of a sustained long-distance contact between Near and Remote Oceania. This provides demographic support for a model from historical linguistics, in which the initial Austronesian language of Vanuatu survived by being continually adopted by incoming Papuan migrants.

The Austronesian Expansion, which began around 5,500 years ago likely in modern-day Taiwan, was the most geographically extensive dispersal of farming peoples in prehistory, ultimately carrying people as far west as Madagascar and all the way east to Rapa Nui. These seafaring Neolithic people initially expanded out across Island Southeast Asia, carrying farming technology and a major branch of the Austronesian language family, eventually reaching Near Oceania where they encountered the indigenous Papuan peoples of New Guinea and the Bismarck Archipelago. The initial settlement east beyond the Solomon Islands and out into Remote Oceania only began around 3,000 years ago, with Austronesian-speaking groups associated with the Lapita pottery culture rapidly expanding east out to Vanuatu, New Caledonia, Fiji and the islands of Western Polynesia. A previous ancient DNA study of Lapita burial sites has shown that these earliest inhabitants had East Asian ancestry with negligible evidence of Papuan genetic admixture. But the present-day genetic make-up of Remote Oceania suggests at least some degree of Papuan ancestry, meaning there must have been subsequent Papuan migration and admixture into the Pacific from Near Oceania.

In order to understand this previously undescribed migration, a multidisciplinary team of researchers brought together different lines of evidence from the fields of genetics, archaeology and linguistics. They generated genome-wide data from the bones and teeth of 19 ancient individuals from across Vanuatu, Tonga, French Polynesia and the Solomon Islands, a significant addition to the ancient DNA record in a region whose environmental conditions generally leads to poor ancient DNA preservation. As co-lead author Kathrin Nägele of the MPI-SHH says, “The identification of the petrous bone, which has recently been shown to provide fantastic aDNA preservation, has been a real game changer for such regions that were previously considered to be almost inaccessible.” The ancient DNA was complemented by new contemporary genome-wide data from 27 present-day inhabitants of Vanuatu, collected as part of a long-term linguistic and anthropological fieldwork project run by co-authors Professor Russell Gray and Dr. Heidi Colleran of the MPI-SHH.

The ancient DNA provided direct evidence that Papuan people began arriving in Vanuatu soon after initial settlement by Austronesians. “We found a genetically Papuan-related individual dating to around 2,500 years ago in Vanuatu, far earlier than had been previously estimated using only modern genetic data,” explains co-lead author Dr. Cosimo Posth, also of the MPI-SHH. The researchers were able to show that the ancestry of the initial Austronesian inhabitants of Vanuatu has been largely replaced by ancestry from Papuan peoples coming from the Bismarck Archipelago. But this genetic replacement was not straightforward, as Dr. Posth says, “Our analyses show that this replacement did not occur in a one-time mass migration event but rather happened incrementally over time, suggesting an enduring long-distance network between groups in Near and Remote Oceania.” The authors also directly described ancient individuals with sex-biased admixture, where Papuan males intermixed with Austronesian women, as long assumed based on analyses of the modern genetic make-up of the South Pacific.

Yet despite this genetic replacement, the people of present-day Vanuatu continue to speak languages descended from those spoken by the initial Austronesian inhabitants rather than any Papuan language of the incoming migrants. As Professor Gray, Director of the Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution at the MPI-SHH, says, “Population replacement with language continuity is extremely rare – if not unprecedented – in human history. The linguist Bob Blust has long argued for a model in which a separate Papuan expansion reaches Vanuatu soon after initial Austronesian settlement, with the initial, and likely undifferentiated, Austronesian language surviving as a lingua franca for diverse Papuan migrant groups.” Dr. Adam Powell, senior author of the study and also of the MPI-SHH, continues, “The demographic history suggested by our ancient DNA analyses provides really strong support for this historical linguistic model, with the early arrival and complex, incremental process of genetic replacement by people from the Bismarck Archipelago. This provides a compelling explanation for the continuity of Austronesian languages despite the almost complete replacement of the initial genetic ancestry of Vanuatu.”

The study in particular highlights the importance of interdisciplinary work and the value that multiple lines of evidence can have in deepening our understanding of human history. As Professor Johannes Krause, a senior author and Director of the Department of Archaeogenetics at the MPI-SHH, explains, “This multidisciplinary work has begun to uncover the complex, localized demographic processes that drove the initial colonization of the wider South Pacific and formed the enduring cultural and linguistic spheres that continue to shape the Pacific today.” Ongoing engagement with local communities in Vanuatu, as well as with the Vanuatu Cultural Center, has been critical to this success. As Dr. Colleran points out, “One strength of this study is the degree to which we are collaborating with communities in Vanuatu who have a real stake in these results and who generously volunteered their data to help answer these questions. We will be back in the field very soon to share the results with those communities and to hear their thoughts on the whole process.”

Progressive movements are not populism, instead providing an antidote with inclusive policymaking that makes life less precarious.

By Alphan Telek and Seren Selvin Korkmaz*

he world is in a systemic stalemate reflected in increasing populism in politics, social polarization and racism in the social sphere, and economic precarity. These combine to add injustices and inequalities in people’s daily lives, prompting vulnerability, stress and bitterness. In the absence of strong progressive movements and ideas in the political sphere, people may direct anger toward society’s weakest members. Such a pragmatist and utilitarian approach,using and victimizing minorities for majority interests, nurtures populism as a style of politics to elicit citizen support and guarantee the ruling government’s political survival. These challenges associated with populism, polarization and precariousness are intertwined – change in any one element influences the others. Only vigorous and progressive opposition can confront populist and exclusionary currents.

Media pundits often refer to the British Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership and the alternative politics of Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders in the United States as “populist,” but this is a mistake either due to sloppiness or attempts to assign false equivalency with populist movements like the UK Independence Party or the National Front in France. The two progressive counter-movements instead offer an antidote to populism by pursuing policymaking, social solidarity and anti-austerity to make life less precarious. Such left-transformation movements are centered on “justice”-based politics and the political sentiment of “hope.” Such movements, gravitating to social and political justice, promise an alternative future.

The movements’ demands for social and political justice indicate a changing pattern in their language and framework for thinking – combining class and identity perspectives. Since 1980, identity-related issues have dominated progressive movements. Rising inequality with no end in sight has forced counter-movements to reconsider the roles of class and social justice, prompting a shift to support of empowerment and economic rights by limiting the role of capitalism while eradicating conditions adding to uncertainty. Political justice promises full implementation of basic rights and empowerment of the people in local, national and global decision-making. In that sense, the progressive movements – including those led by Sanders, Corbyn as well as La France Insoumise, the Five Star Movement in Italy, Podemos in Spain and Syriza in Greece – adopt these promises in their political programs. The demands of left-transformation are not confined to the global north, and protesters in Iran and Tunisia have voiced similar demands recently.

The movements led by Corbyn and Sanders are notable in two ways: Both emerged in countries with consolidated democracies and wealth, and both organized within existing parties rather than forming as new parties like Podemos or Syriza. In both the United States and the United Kingdom, two parties dominate the political spectrum. Sanders, as an independent senator from Vermont, offered his transformative policies to become the Democratic presidential candidate. He lost to Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, but his campaign still influences debate and political races. Corbyn has led the Labour Party since 2015 and could become Britain’s prime minister in the next elections.

From the start of their political careers, Sanders and Corbyn embraced progressive policies without hesitation, adding dynamism to existing political structures and drawing increasing support within their respective parties. Sanders embraced the Occupy Wall Street movement that emerged in 2011 and included some of the group’s demands in his agenda. Corbyn’s candidacy for Labour’s leadership pushed the emergence of “Momentum” – a grassroots movement inspired by organizations and ideas that gave birth to Syriza and Podemos. Conservative, progressive and social movements around the globe increasingly connect and adopt one another’s policies, and for progressives these include reducing inequality and increasing citizen participation in decision-making processes. Such relationships increase political profiles, dynamism and sustainability, reinforcing ideas and political agendas in ways that prevent the movements and ideas from fading.

Sanders’ and Corbyn’s programs focus on social justice to strengthen people economically, and both accept this ideal as a sine qua non of their progressive agendas. Sanders argues that the US political system is corrupt and unjust and in need of strong reform. For him, freedom in the country is a myth without equality, economic security and just distribution. He defines the system as Robin Hood-in-reverse, with policies transferring increasing amounts of wealth and power to the rich and income inequality reaching its highest level since the 1920s. Recent reports support this argument by pointing out that the richest 1 percent control more than 40 percent of US wealth. Sanders frequently refers to the observation by civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. on the structural dilemma: “This country has socialism for the rich, rugged individualism for the poor.”

Corbyn also emphasizes inequality in the United Kingdom, arguing wealth and opportunities should be shared by citizens and not limited to billionaires. Growing numbers of citizens work in low-paid insecure jobs with little opportunity for advancement. He urges reforms in the financial system for the public benefit and creation of secure employment opportunities. He also questions privatization and profit-taking from public goods and recommends state control for the production and redistribution of basic needs such as energy, water and transportation. His agenda encompasses housing support and no-tuition higher education. Sanders likewise supports social security and housing benefits as well as programs to combat youth unemployment, high-cost education loans, rising health expenditures – all linked to US inequality. Both Sanders and Corbyn address the necessity of tax reform to eliminate society’s inequalities.

Both leaders also seek political justice to eliminate the bogus-democracy. By bogus-democracy, we refer to a political system where democracy is equated to ballot boxes, with mechanisms for checks and balances undermined and political and economic power remaining in the hands of the establishment. In the existing system, elected representatives and decision-making can serve the interests of plutocrats rather than society as a whole. Hence, Sanders and Corbyn seek to strengthen individual and collective participation in political and public spheres. Sanders’s program suggests transparency of funding for political campaigns to inhibit concentration of political power among a few. Corbyn stresses the value of more powerful local governance with citizens participating in local decision-making processes. He also stresses elimination of rent-seeking urbanization at the local level.

By appealing to society as a whole, the programs of both men are antidotes to populism. Both reject policies that target opponents or deepen polarization in society. Instead, they embrace differences in society, supporting rights of minority groups as diverse as the LGBTQ community and migrants while standing against racism, Islamophobia and anti-semitism. They do not want to destroy institutions and instead participate – Corbyn in the British Parliament and Sanders in the US Senate – tirelessly working from within to improve policies and processes. They encourage hope for transformation in societies where plutocrats and populist leaders spread anger and fear, insisting there are no alternatives or solutions.

As left-transformative movements, the political agendas of Sander and Corbyn have many similarities. That is why progress of one lifts the other. For instance, Corbyn’s good performance in the UK elections inspired and motivated Sanders’ supporters to revive promotion of his ideas. Also increasing support for Corbyn’s program in the UK motivates other left-transformative movements by de-legitimizing notions that the left cannot win elections in the neoliberal era.

Progressive left-transformative movements aim to transform society by pursuing justice, eliminating inequalities and ensuring solidarity in the society. Left-transformation is a global phenomenon and can reach its ultimate aims with national and international solidarity.

*Alphan Telek is a PhD candidate at Science Po Paris and Boğaziçi University, Istanbul. Seren Selvin Korkmaz is a Fox International Fellow in MacMillian Center for International and Area Studies at Yale.

By Dr Subhash Kapila

Pakistan’s politically churning dynamics in the run-up to its General Elections mid-2018 throws no surprises in the continuance of Pakistan Army’s obsessive fixation to prevent the return of Former PM Nawaz Sharif and an equally determined PML-N under Nawaz Sharif in a confrontationist mode with the Pakistan Army to return to power.

Objectively, one could assert that despite any failings of Former Nawaz Sharif, the run-up to General Elections 2018 could be said as a battle between the Pakistan Army desperately clinging to its traditional hold on Pakistani politics and a desperate effort by Pakistan’s largest political party the PML-N under Nawaz Sharif against the entrenched Establishment subverting constitutional democracy taking roots in Pakistan.

With such desperate stakes on both sides, it can be expected that Pakistan may witness a violent run-up to General Elections 2018. In particular concern to India, the possibility of diverting domestic political attention and dents in Pakistan Army’s image, the Pakistan Army could escalate border tensions with India.

Pakistan Army has succeeded so far in preventing former PM Nawaz Sharif from completing his full five year term in earlier two tenures and now in July 2017 in his third term by a ‘Judicial Coup” in which the Pakistan Army enlisted the Supreme Court for getting Sharief out. Pakistan media reports now suggest that Pakistan Army may not let the PML-N Government with Nawaz Sharif’s successor incumbent PM Shahid Khaqqan Abassi also complete its full term.

Speculation is also on in Pakistan that Nawaz Sharif may opt for the calling of early elections to forestall Pakistan Army’s political plans and play the ‘victim’s card’ while still hot and can be played to effect in Pakistan’s majority province—Pakistan Punjab.

Pakistan Army’s political instruments in subverting democracy in Pakistan by cutting short Former PM Nawaz Sharif’s completion of his five year term include enlisting of his political adversaries like PTI leader Imran Khan and PPP led by the Bhutto’s. The latter is not an active player but waiting whether the Pakistan Army can succeed in installing Imran Khan as the next Prime Minister.

Pakistan Army’s armoury to prevent the return to power of Nawaz Sharif’s PML-N is the use of various Islamic retrograde groups to create violent disturbances to further destabilise Nawaz Sharif’s brother Shah Baz Sharif in power in Punjab where he is strongly entrenched.

With the above as a brief background of the political power-play in Pakistan one should now examine the results of Pakistan’s General Elections 2013 to see the relative political strengths of Pakistani political parties.

Pakistan General Elections-2013

Party ……………. Contested…..Won
PML-N …………. 214…………… 129
PPP ……………… 229 ……………. 37
PTI ………………. 232 ……………. 27
Independents .. 268 ……………. 27
MQM …………… 204 ……………. 19
JUI ……………… 1076 …………… 13

No indicators are available to suggest that in the period 2013-18 major political successes have been achieved by the PPP or PTI which could severely change these relative strengths. At best PTI with Pakistan Army’s patronage may be able to narrow the lead somehow Pakistan Punjab is Pakistan’s heartland and the core of Pakistan. Punjab’s voting in the PML-N by enabling it to win 80% of the seats of Punjab relative to the other two contenders needs to be recounted and reflected below.

Pakistan General Elections 2013—Seat Positions in Punjab

Party ……… Contested …. Won
PML-N …..  146  ………….. 120
PPP ………..  120 ……………..  3
PTI …………  141  …………….   8

Recent by-elections in Punjab indicate that Nawaz Sharif’s party still continues strong in Punjab. PTI and PPP can only nibble negligible seats in Punjab’s areas contiguous with Khyber Pakhtunwa and Sindh.

The Pakistan Army and its ISI intelligence wing can be assumed to be in the picture of the above electoral pattern. Surely, the Pakistan Army would have plans to re-write by any means, fair or foul, to prevent the return of PML-N to power in Islamabad. It is no mean co-incidence that last week Pakistan’s Supreme Court decreed that Nawaz Sharif cannot even continue as Chairman of the PML-N. Pakistan Army’s “Judicial Coup” is secured further.

Never has Pakistan witnessed the Supreme Court targeting the persona of one political leader and especially one who won a thumping electoral verdict in General Elections 2013.

The Supreme Court’s decision initially and the recent one of ordering his removal as Chairman of the Party has been criticised in Pakistani English newspapers editorials. In n an editorial in the DAWN, the Supreme Court decision has been termed as “regrettable and deeply disturbing”. Two other quotable remarks need to be reproduced from this Editorial damning the Judiciary and denting the impact of the contrived judgements against Nawaz Sharif:

• “The judgements of the Supreme Court of Pakistan need to promote the rule of law and Constitutional democracy, not add to national confusion.”
• “The responsibility of the judiciary is to interpret law, not invent it.”

Similar analyses indicate that it is unconstitutional and violates ‘Human Rights’. Also argued is the fact that such a decision has long term adverse effects on Pakistan’s political dynamics.

Media criticism also focusses on the political crucifixion of Former PM Nawaz while the Former Army Chief and President, General Musharraf is still going around scot free. Why the inactivity there?

Former PM Nawaz has been Prime Minister of Pakistan three times—(1) 1990-93 (2)1997-1999.and now the last one (3) 2013-2017. On earlier two occasions he bounced back despite being forced into a long exile by General Musharraf. All indicators in current political analyses within Pakistan point out that Nawaz Sharif and his PML-N Party will bounce back again despite the collusion of the Pakistan Army-Supreme Court Judiciary combine.

The onslaught of the Pakistan Army-Supreme Court judiciary should have led to an exodus of defections from Nawaz Sharif’s PML-N Party but it has not taken place. This indicates that Nawaz Sharif continues as the undisputed leader of the Party despite the contrived disqualifications.

In conclusion, it needs to be emphasised that in a country like Pakistan where Pakistan Army objectives supersede Constitutional democracy, anything can be expected to impede return to power of Former PM Nawaz Sharif. The big question that will hover over the horizon in the run-up to General Elections 2018 is that can the Pakistan Army with the Supreme Court in tow over-rule the electoral mandate that the Pakistani masses give in July 2018 if given in favour of PML-N and Nawaz Sharif?

War crimes, potentially crimes against humanity, are likely being committed in east Ghouta and elsewhere in Syria, and the United Nations human rights chief warned on Friday that the perpetrators of these acts must know they are being identified and will be held accountable.

“Civilians are being pounded into submission or death,” the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, told the Geneva-based Human Rights Council during an urgent meeting on situation in east Ghouta, where some 400,000 civilians are trapped amid daily airstrikes, shelling and the reported release of toxic agents, which have killed and injured hundreds of people in the past two weeks alone.

The UN human rights chief said: “The perpetrators of these crimes must know they are being identified; that dossiers are being built up with a view to their prosecution; and that they will be held accountable for what they have done.”

He said that over the past four months, some high-profile perpetrators were brought to justice: Bosnian Serb General Ratko Mladic was convicted of genocide; Salvadoran Colonel Inocente Orlando Montano has been extradited to Spain to face charges related to killings in San Salvador in 1989; and two Argentinian former Navy Captains, Alfredo Astiz and Jorge Eduardo Acosta, were convicted for crimes against humanity committed between 1976 and 1983.

“The wheels of justice may be slow, but they do grind,” Mr. Zeid said, noting that the Human Rights Council can have a real impact in ensuring that there will be justice – determined, inescapable and effective – for the suffering that has been inflicted on the Syrian people.

He also said that Syria must be referred to the International Criminal Court (ICC), urging all States to greatly increase their support for the International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism (IIIM) set up last year with its mandate focused on ensuring that information about serious crimes is collected, analyzed and preserved, with a view to furnishing dossiers for future prosecutions.

He also strongly encouraged the Council to renew the mandate of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria.

Meanwhile, the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) on Friday called once again on those fighting on the ground inside Syria and all those who have influence over them to put their arms down and stop the war on children.

“Is our call falling once again on deaf ears? The children of Syria have been waiting for way too long. The world has failed the children of Syria so many times…,” Geert Cappelaere, UNICEF Regional Director for the Middle East and North Africa, told reporters at a regular briefing in Geneva.

Nearly a week ago, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution that would have created an opportunity for hundreds of thousands of children to finally get respite from the brutal and unabated violence they have been living through.

“We all thought this was an excellent window for UNICEF and other partners to deliver urgent and lifesaving assistance to children in need wherever they are inside the country,” he said.

“But as the days went by, these hopes turned into illusions, the windows shut abruptly in our faces,” he added, noting that violence continued in several places across the country, escalating in some and flaring up in others, despite the resolution’s call for a 30-day ceasefire.

By Nick Cunningham

The U.S. is one of the few areas of the world in which there is an energy investment boom underway, a development that could smooth out the uncertainties of geopolitical events around the world. At the same time, outside of the U.S., there is a deterioration of stability in many oil-producing regions, aggravating risks for both oil companies and the oil market, according to a new report.

Financial risk firm Verisk Maplecroft explores these two trends as they play out simultaneously. The U.S. shale sector has emerged from years of low oil prices, damaged but still intact. Importantly, the shale industry “can ride out price dips and respond quickly to upticks, weakening OPEC in the process,” James Lockhart-Smith, director of financial sector risk at Verisk Maplecroft, wrote in the report. Combined with deregulation at the federal level, the oil industry is in the midst of an investment boom in the U.S.

Meanwhile, things are not so rosy elsewhere. Verisk Maplecroft surveyed a long list of countries, and produced its Government Stability Index (GSI), which uses some predictive data and analysts forecasts to take stock of geopolitical risk in various countries over the next few years.

The results are not encouraging. The number of countries expected to see a deterioration of stability “significantly outnumber those we see becoming more stable,” the firm said. The reasons are multiple, including low oil prices, but also the erosion of democratic institutions.

“We don’t see increasing instability necessarily ending in coups or significant political upheaval, but a less predictable above-ground-risk environment is likely to emerge,” Verisk Maplecroft’s Lockhart-Smith said. “Arbitrary decision making, possible measures to buy off key stakeholders or an inability to pass regulatory reforms will be the main risks to projects in these countries, as their governments seek to stabilize and maintain their influence.”

Not all of the countries expected to suffer from a decline in stability are that important for the oil market, such as Romania or Kenya. Also, some countries might be on an improving path, but at the same time present a downside risk that, while unlikely, could be huge.

In this case, Iraq stands out. Verisk Maplecroft says that Iraq “has a business-friendly upstream environment” and the forecast is for stability to improve. However, even if it seems somewhat reasonable that things could trend in the right direction, the downside risk is massive. And there are is no shortage of potential catalysts: The report points to elections in May, plus the “deep ethno-sectarian divisions and weak institutions.”

Venezuela is another obvious flashpoint. The deterioration of the country’s economy and oil sector have been profound. But Venezuela also illustrates a different problem – that disruption need not come from a coup, a civil war or some other obvious geopolitical development. Verisk Maplecroft points to the purge of state-owned PDVSA following the unsuccessful coup in 2002 as a poignant example. The country’s oil production has steadily eroded over the past decade and a half since the Venezuelan state sacked experienced professionals at PDVSA and used revenues for other purposes while failing to invest in existing oil assets.

Verisk Maplecroft argues that Egypt is a potential contemporary example of that phenomenon. The increasingly authoritarian government in Cairo could roll back the policies that attracted investment from oil and gas companies in the first place over fears of a popular uprising.

Finally, one of the more intriguing cases is that of Russia, the largest oil producer in the world. Verisk Maplecroft sees little risk of political upheaval as Russian President Vladimir Putin seeks another six-year term in March, but a battle could ensue in the upcoming years over his succession when his term is up in 2024, and “factional struggles between liberals and statist former security officials are already ramping up in anticipation of his exit,” the report says.

Verisk Maplecroft puts the odds of a general deterioration of political stability in Russia through 2021 at 90 percent, and the “oil sector will be a strategic prize in this battle, not least because Rosneft CEO Igor Sechin is a central protagonist.”

In the near-term, there are two huge geopolitical threats to the oil market, but neither seem all that likely. Verisk Maplecroft says a potential war on the Korean Peninsula or a war between Iran and Saudi Arabia are the largest threats to the oil market, but both situations, while tense, will probably stop short of outright military conflict. Still, the mere threat of conflict, could add to the risk premium for crude oil prices.

Source: https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Kurdish-Iraqi-Deal-Could-Restore-Oil-Production.html

Recently, General Joseph Votel, the head of US Central Command, accused Kremlin of playing as both arsonist and firefighter in Syria. This projection is farthest from truth because in fact it’s Washington which kindled the fires of militancy in Syria and now it appears desperate to douse those fires.

First, Washington nurtured militants against the Syrian government for the first three years of the Syrian proxy war from 2011 to 2014, and then it declared a war against one faction of the militants, the Islamic State, when the latter transgressed its mandate in Syria and dared to occupy Mosul and Anbar in Iraq in early 2014 from where the US had withdrawn its troops only a couple of years ago in December 2011.

Moreover, early last year, two very similar military campaigns were simultaneously going on in Syria and Iraq. While the Syrian offensive with Russian air support against the militants holed up in east Aleppo was reviled as an assault against humanity, the military campaigns in Mosul and Raqqa by the US-backed forces were lauded as ‘liberation struggles’ by the mainstream media.

Although the campaigns in Mosul and Raqqa were against the Islamic State, while in east Aleppo, the Syrian government mounted a military offensive against so-called ‘moderate rebels,’ the distinction between Islamic jihadists and moderate militants is more illusory than real.

More recently, the Syrian government has launched a military campaign in Eastern Ghouta against the militants of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), formerly al-Nusra Front, and Jaysh al-Islam which is being reviled as a ‘massacre’ by the mainstream media; however, both are Salafist militant groups which are generously funded by the Gulf states and have been holding the civilian population of Eastern Ghouta hostage since 2013.

Regarding the nexus between Islamic jihadists and purported ‘moderate rebels’ in Syria, according to a recent AFP report [1] by Maya Gebeily, hundreds of Islamic State’s militants have joined so-called ‘moderate rebels’ in Idlib in their battle against the advancing Syrian government troops backed by Russian airstrikes.

The Islamic State already had a foothold in neighboring Hama province and its infiltration into Idlib seems to be an extension of its outreach. On January 12, the Islamic State officially declared Idlib one of its ‘Islamic emirates.’ It has reportedly captured several villages and claims to have killed two dozen Syrian soldiers and taken 20 hostages.

In all likelihood, some of the Islamic State’s jihadists who have joined the battle in Idlib were part of the same contingent of militants that fled Raqqa in October last year under a deal brokered [2] by the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).

In fact, one of the main objectives of the deal was to let the jihadists fight the Syrian government troops in order to free up the Kurdish-led SDF in a scramble to capture oil and gas fields in Deir al-Zor and the border posts along Syria’s border with Iraq.

Islamic State’s foray into Idlib, which has firmly been under the control of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) led by al-Nusra Front since 2015, isn’t the only instance of its kind. Remember when the Syrian government was on the verge of winning a resounding victory against the militants holed up in east Aleppo, Islamic State came to the rescue of so-called ‘moderate rebels’ by opening up a new front in Palmyra in December 2016.

Consequently, the Syrian government had to send reinforcements from Aleppo to Palmyra in order to defend the city. Although the Syrian government troops still managed to evict the militants holed up in the eastern enclave of Aleppo and they also retook Palmyra from Islamic State in March last year, the basic purpose of this tactical move by the Islamic State was to divert the attention and resources of the Syrian government away from Aleppo to Palmyra.

Fact of the matter is that the distinction between Islamic jihadists and purported ‘moderate rebels’ in Syria is more illusory than real. Before it turned rogue and overran Mosul in Iraq in June 2014, Islamic State used to be an integral part of the Syrian opposition and it still enjoys close ideological and operational ties with other militant groups in Syria.

It’s worth noting that although turf wars are common not just between the Islamic State and other militant groups operating in Syria but also among rebel groups themselves, the ultimate objective of the Islamic State and the rest of militant outfits operating in Syria is the same: to overthrow the government of Bashar al-Assad.

Regarding the Syrian opposition, a small fraction of it is comprised of defected Syrian soldiers who go by the name of Free Syria Army, but the vast majority has been comprised of Islamic jihadists and armed tribesmen who have been generously funded, trained, armed and internationally legitimized by their regional and global patrons.

Islamic State is nothing more than one of numerous Syrian militant outfits, others being: al-Nusra Front, Ahrar al-Sham, Jaysh al Islam etc. All the militant groups that are operating in Syria are just as fanatical and brutal as the Islamic State. The only feature that differentiates the Islamic State from the rest is that it is more ideological and independent-minded.

The reason why the US has turned against the Islamic State is that all other Syrian militant outfits only have local ambitions that are limited to fighting the Syrian government, while the Islamic State has established a global network of transnational terrorists that includes hundreds of Western citizens who have become a national security risk to the Western countries.

Regarding the dominant group of Syrian militants in the Idlib and Eastern Ghouta, according to a May 2017 report [3] by CBC Canada, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which was formerly known as al-Nusra Front until July 2016 and then as Jabhat Fateh al-Sham (JFS) until January 2017, has been removed from the terror watch-lists of the US and Canada after it merged with fighters from Zenki Brigade and hardline jihadists from Ahrar al-Sham and rebranded itself as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) in January last year.

The US State Department is hesitant to label Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) a terror group, despite the group’s links to al-Qaeda, as the US government has directly funded and armed the Zenki Brigade, one of the constituents of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), with sophisticated weaponry including the US-made antitank missiles.

The purpose behind the rebranding of al-Nusra Front first as Jabhat Fateh al-Sham (JFS) and then as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and purported severing of ties with al-Qaeda has been to legitimize itself and to make it easier for its patrons to send money and arms.

The US blacklisted al-Nusra Front in December 2012 and persuaded its regional allies Saudi Arabia and Turkey to ban it, too. Although al-Nusra Front’s name has been in the list of proscribed organizations of Saudi Arabia and Turkey since 2014, it has kept receiving money and arms from its regional patrons.

Finally, regarding the deep ideological ties between the Islamic State and al-Nusra Front, although the current al-Nusra Front has been led by Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, he was appointed [4] as the emir of al-Nusra Front by Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, the leader of Islamic State, in January 2012. In fact, al-Jolani’s Nusra Front is only a splinter group of the Islamic State, which split from its parent organization in April 2013 over a leadership dispute between the two organizations.

Sources and links:

[1] Four years and one caliphate later, Islamic State claims Idlib comeback: https://uk.news.yahoo.com/four-years-one-caliphate-later-claims-idlib-comeback-143938964.html

[2] Raqqa’s dirty secret: the deal that let Islamic State jihadists escape Raqqa: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/raqqas_dirty_secret

[3] Syria’s al-Qaeda affiliate escapes from terror list: http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/terror-list-omission-1.4114621

[4] Al-Julani was appointed as the emir of al-Nusra Front by al-Baghdadi: http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/16689

As might be expected the political intrigue created by the decision of the President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev to postpone the elections from October to April has two components: domestic and foreign policy.

One could also distinguish two components in the foreign policy component. The first is the attitude of the leading world players to the fact of the transfer of presidential elections and the nomination of Aliyev for a fourth term. In this regard, many observers note that the US in its official reaction to the upcoming events, has limited itself to calling on the Azerbaijani authorities to act within the framework of the current constitution. In fact it means that they acknowledge the transfer of elections and nomination for the fourth term.

It is obvious that the priority of the Trump Administration in the world and in the post-Soviet space will be the U.S. geopolitical interests, and while choosing partners for cooperation he will not be guided by the presence or absence of the level of democracy, or the protection of certain declared principles, as it was before.

Russia’s traditionally restrained reaction to the postponement of the election and the presidential nomination of Ilham Aliyev shows that President Vladimir Putin is satisfied with the way Aliyev demonstrates his readiness to take into account Russia’s interests in the region.

And, of course, the second but the most important issue on the foreign policy agenda of Azerbaijan is the situation of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. Today we cannot unfortunately estimate the situation of the conflict only by the negotiation process intensity. The public of Armenia and Azerbaijan consider that these negotiations are ineffective. And the rounds of negotiations cause mockery over participants, both in a press, and in social media.

Therefore, it is difficult to assume that the negotiation process in this format (with the previous participants, both in terms of propaganda and effectiveness) will be successful after the presidential election campaigns in Azerbaijan, Russia and the elections of the Prime Minister in Armenia.

As for the internal political situation in Azerbaijan after the postponement of the elections in the country the influence of the West on the situation in the country has been exposed by opposition parties and movements.

If the opposition party seeks to come to power by constitutional means, it must constantly work with the electorate. Opposition parties Musavat and Umid as well as the Azerbaijani Popular Front (APF) and the National Council of Democratic Forces (NCDF) refused to participate in the presidential elections on April 11. Moreover, the last two parties called for a boycott of the presidential elections and planned some protests in the near future. This confirms the idea that some opposition forces in Baku were waiting for support of the West, and the leadership of the republic broke simply their plans.

Should those candidates for the presidency of Azerbaijan who will take part in elections be afraid of boycotting the election campaign by the opposition parties?

As far as I know in any country boycotts of election campaigns by any parties did not affect the results of the ballot.

It’s another matter that the opposition parties often become the source of stovepiping of the most unpleasant information about the representatives of the ruling party during the election campaigns.

Today in Azerbaijan we are witnessing compromising information “leaks” about certain high-ranking officials and just fake news aimed at undermining the reputation of the authorities and individual candidates. Azerbaijan is not protected from the influence of some media and political technologists carrying out orders of their “employers”.

According to the well-known Azerbaijani political scientist, Adgezal Mamedov, foreign political technologists work today in all post-Soviet countries and at all elections without exception. Their goal is the political destabilization of traditional societies and the introduction of turmoil into the ranks of nationally-oriented elites in favor of various destructive political forces that cover their dependence on foreign political centers with beautiful slogans.

However, the parties boycotting the elections are always in the minority. Moreover, they split the critics of the authorities into a systemic opposition and an irreconcilable opposition, thereby increasing the chances of candidates from the ruling party or allied parties to be elected. So, since the opposition parties announced of their boycott of presidential elections in Azerbaijan, voters should forgot about these parties – at least until the end of the election campaign.

In this sense, a number of the opposition parties mentioned before made a strategic mistake refusing to participate in the presidential elections.

Meanwhile, a holy place is never empty. So, the parties Modern Musavat, the Azerbaijani Popular Front Party (APFP), and the Liberal-Democratic Party have already announced their intention to participate in the presidential elections on April 11. Several candidates have also been nominated by initiative groups. So, elections in the country will be alternative in any case.

The participants of the forthcoming campaign are determined. Predictions about the future results of the presidential elections will certainly appear in the press. Although no one in Azerbaijan doubts today that the current president of the republic will win.

By Ryan McMaken*

According to the usual news sources, Donald Trump’s new budget proposal “envisions steep cuts to America’s social safety net” and will “gut social programs.” Most of the cuts were proposed to pave the way for more Pentagon spending.

In truth, Trump’s proposal doesn’t matter, and Congress will set to work piling on more deficit spending for both social programs and for the Pentagon.

But, the debate of “gutting” social programs will no doubt be used to perpetuate, yet again, the myth that the United States is ruled by libertarian social Darwinists who ensure that no more than a few pennies are spent via social programs for the poor.

Now setting aside the question of whether or not social programs are the best way to address poverty, the fact is that the United States spending on social programs is on a par with Australia and Switzerland, and can hardly be described as “laissez-faire.”

Moreover, government spending on healthcare per capita in the United States is the fourth largest in the world.1

Governments in the United States pour money into social-benefits programs at rates typical to a Western welfare state.

We can debate whether or not the way this is done is sub-optimal or not, but the fact remains, that if we’re going to talk about social programs, the amount of spending in the US is not low in a global context.

According to the 2016 social expenditure database at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), public social spending as a percentage of GDP in the US was 19.4 percent:

While it is true the US is hardly the highest on this list, its social spending is higher than that of Canada, Australia, Ireland, and Iceland, all of which we are often told are far more “generous” countries in terms of their welfare states. Indeed, if the typical American leftist were asked if the US should spend as much as Canada or Australia on social benefits, the response is very likely to be an emphatic “yes.”

And yet, the US outpaces all of these, and has spending levels comparable to that of Switzerland. Indeed, the difference between Switzerland and the US in this measure is four-tenths of one percent. The OECD average is 21.4 percent, a matter of 2.1 percentage points difference from the US.

When we turn to the matter of healthcare, we find that the US is a world leader in terms of governmental healthcare spending.

According to the World Health Organization, only Luxembourg, Norway, and the Netherlands spend more government money on healthcare per capita.

In the US, the sum is $4,153 per capita, and in Norway it is $5,154. In the United Kingdom, the total is $2,716.

This presents a problem for advocates for more government control of the healthcare system, of course. Often, their line of argument is that Americans are too “stingy” with social health benefits. When confronted with the fact that government spending is quite high, however, they switch tactics, and then declare that if the US adopted a more government-regimented system, then spending would actually be lower. This was a tactic employed by Bernie Sanders.

This latter claim may or may not be so, but the one thing we do know is that the US already spends more taxpayer money on healthcare than most everyone else. So, it seems hard to fathom that the “problem” — whatever that may be — is a product of too little government spending on health care.

If advocates for reform want to argue over how the money is spent, let them do so, but the debate should hardly include any proposals to increase government spending.

In the US, government spending on healthcare as a percentage of total government spending, is one of the highest among wealthy nations. Although, by this measure the US is equal with Japan and the Netherlands.

I am not a defender of the US government’s gargantuan military budget, but even considering that huge expense, government healthcare spending still takes up an unusually large amount of government spending in the US.

There is no shortage of articles in publications like Slate and The Nation stating that “the American social safety net does not exist” and that the US has a “stingy social safety net.”

Now, if by “stingy” one means, “poorly administered,” “ineffective,” or “counterproductive,” then one would be on to something. But if by “stingy,” one means “underfunded,” well, there’s little evidence of that.

Even many advocates for a reduced federal budget are likely willing to consider ideas that would spend taxpayer dollars more effectively. After all, if it’s a given that one is going to pay a large federal tax bill, one usually would rather see that money go to something like housing for a single mother and her children who are living in a car.

But are federal dollars actually doing this well?

Critics of American “stinginess” are themselves quick to point out that all that American spending on social benefits isn’t pushing down poverty rates as in other countries. Even if one believes that governments are generally poor at accomplishing the goals they set out to accomplish, it seems that in this regard, the US government is especially bad.

A Modest Proposal: Dismember America’s Huge Welfare State

There may be many reasons for this. But it is also worth noting that among the Western welfare states, the United States is by far the largest with 320 million people. The next largest country isn’t even half that size, and is Japan with 125 million people. And, of course, Japan’s geography, culture, are demographics are completely different from that of the US. Once we get to governments of the size and physical scope of the US government, we’re looking at something on a scale that can’t possibly be considered  “responsive” or “accountable” by any measure. It becomes nearly impossible to make changes in such an enormous apparatus which itself cannot possibly take into account the vast number of different populations and conditions that exist across a place as huge as the United States.

One immediate solution is to decentralize the welfare state immediately, and take it out of the hands of the federal government. But that by itself isn’t a magic bullet, since we know that in California, which has its own supplemental welfare state on top of the federal one, poverty is higher than in any other state.

Nevertheless, if we’re going to hear constantly about what successes the Scandinavian welfare states are, for example, we might use this as an excuse to create welfare states on a more Scandinavian scale. Given that the largest Scandinavian nation-state (Sweden) has 10.1 million people, this means breaking up the American welfare state into at least 30 totally independent smaller pieces and going from there. These programs would then be under the control of local residents — as they are in, say, Denmark — and not something controlled by distant, untouchable Washington bureaucrats and politicians. An even better size for each piece would be something on the scale of Norway, which has five million people, and is thus the size of Minnesota or Colorado. At the very least, no government larger than a US state ought to be in the business of social benefits.

When it comes to government, bigger has never been better.

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

Source:
This article was published by the MISES Institute.

Notes:
1. See the World Health Organization’s 2015 “World Health Statistics” report.

By James Borton

The United States aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson, powered by twin nuclear reactors and accompanied by a formidable Carrier Strike Group of one guided-missile cruiser, two destroyers, eight aircraft squadron fighter jets, and a crew of 5,000 US sailors, sails into Da Nang’s port this week. Stretching more than three football fields with a beam of 252 feet and a displacement of 100,000 tons, the ship’s enormous wake signals to China and the region Washington’s resolve to defend its national interests and to conduct freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea.

Its ceremonious arrival also underscores a closer comprehensive partnership with Vietnam, once an enemy and now a friend.

Relations between the U.S. and Vietnam have evolved in the 43 years since the fall of Saigon, when the last remaining US marines were tasked with getting embassy employees to safety. A convergence of Vietnam’s foreign policy activism and a U.S. shift toward a renewed Asia-Pacific strategy has created a congruent state for both countries, one focused on economic trade, diplomacy, security, defense, education, culture, and the bitter legacy of the Vietnam War.

Despite the passage of time, memories of the war are never far from the surface for Washington and Hanoi. With enthusiastic support in the past from former Secretary of State John Kerry and U.S. Senator John McCain, both Vietnam War veterans, this reconciliation of the sweeping sorrows and losses from the war was realized in 1995 through normalization between the two countries. Also, due in part to Senator McCain’s leadership, Washington lifted its ban on lethal military equipment sales to Vietnam and the US Navy has undertaken a series of military exercises with their Vietnamese counterparts.

Today an increasing number of veterans have made their pilgrimages to see a land and people they once fought against, or to seek closure from old wounds. Many of them served as a bridge between Washington and Hanoi even before the formal normalization. The Vietnamese government claims that in recent years, more than 400,000 Americans – many of them former military personnel – have visited the country every year.

In the words of 68-year-old Grant Coates, chair of the POW/MIA Committee at the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation, who recently returned from Vietnam: “Our lives were forever shaped by this war and now in close cooperation, America and Vietnam are searching to identify the unaccountable remains of Americans killed in Vietnam, almost 1,600 and more than 300,000 Vietnamese.” Coates has made five trips to Vietnam and with each visit he has witnessed dynamic changes in the country. But most importantly, he has experienced the affection the Vietnamese express for Americans.
For now, Hanoi and Washington want to advance their naval cooperation in the wake of China’s militarization of disputed reclaimed atolls and rocks in the South China Sea. Tensions in the disputed region rise daily as Chinese patrol boats and paramilitary ships harass Vietnamese fishing boats and at times ram and destroy them.

China’s aggression has also challenged US naval supremacy in the western Pacific, prompting the White House to berate China over its trade imbalance, its military activities in the South China Sea, and its ties to North Korea.

Tensions in the region have prompted Vietnam to enter into a strategic dialogue with the U.S. a year before discussions with China. Vietnam upgraded its formal communications with Washington to deputy minister level prior to doing so with China. In the past, China was always first. While the U.S. has historically taken the diplomatic high road in its resolve to stay out of this territorial dispute, there’s increasing recognition from both U.S. and Vietnamese senior policy shapers that China does present a common security concern to both countries.

Secretary of Defense James Mattis during a two-day visit to Hanoi at the beginning of the year claimed that: “strong relations between the two countries were based on mutual interests, including freedom of navigation in the South China Sea.”

Although no US aircraft carrier has been to Vietnam since the end of the war in 1975, other smaller warships have made high-level visits as ties have improved. That includes a 2016 visit by the submarine tender USS Frank Cable and the guided-missile destroyer USS John S. McCain to Cam Ranh Bay, a crucial logistics complex during the Vietnam War.

The Department of Defense’s plan includes increasing the size of the US naval fleet from 272 to 350 warships, leading to a greater US military presence in the region. The action is consistent with the Trump campaign pledge “to make America great again.”

The Asia-Pacific is the most economically dynamic region in the world, and sound engagement is vital to US competitiveness in increasingly integrated global markets. Despite a few policy decisions made by the United States over the past year that may have undermined relations with Vietnam, particularly the withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Vietnamese remain buoyant about their economic relationship with the United States.

In his first year in office, Trump’s economic advisers focused on the nearly US $32 billion merchandise trade deficit with Vietnam while the Vietnamese government emphasized its desire to further “normalize” bilateral trade relations as part of the “comprehensive partnership” both nations share. In addition to the bilateral trade balance, other issues now being discussed in Washington include market economy status for Vietnam; US arms sales to Vietnam; trade in catfish; a possible bilateral investment treaty; and Vietnam’s potential membership in two regional trade agreements.

Both countries continue to affirm that the South China Sea is a waterway of strategic significance to the international community, underscoring the necessity of freedom of navigation.

In May 2017, during the formal meeting between President Nguyen Xuan Phuc and President Trump, the United States delivered a refurbished Hamilton-class cutter to Vietnam through the Excess Defense Article (EDA) program, as well as the first tranche of six coast guard patrol boats, financed by the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) program.

While much has been written about the impressive economic relationship between America and Vietnam, the U.S. is now Vietnam’s largest export market. According to the General Department of Vietnam Customs, trade between Vietnam-US increased 43.5 times, from the import-export turnover of $1.08 billion in 2000 to $47.15 billion in 2016.

Few defense analysts doubt that Vietnam will be purchasing US-manufactured fighter planes anytime soon. However, Vietnam’s leadership is quite concerned about China’s disregard for international law, destructive reclamations, and continued assaults on their fishermen. What is clear is that China’s actions in the South China Sea are fueling an increased nationalism among Vietnamese, many of whom fear for a loss of their national legitimacy found in the nation’s threatened ancestral fishing grounds.

Vietnam’s policymakers remain deeply divided on how fast to engage with the United States. Current Party infighting politicizes almost every aspect of Vietnam’s external relations with China and the U.S. It is not that there are pro-China and pro-American camps, but that Party conservatives are concerned about the negative fallout from China if they move too fast and get too close to Washington.

Perhaps the aircraft carrier’s port call confirms what Vietnamese President Tran Dai Quang shared at the APEC state dinner last November, when, in addressing President Trump, he said: “Nothing is beyond reach for our two nations.”

The opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints expressed by the authors are theirs alone and don’t reflect any official position of Geopoliticalmonitor.com.

The field for NCAA Tournament will be announced March 11, and basketball fans want to know which teams will be a part of March Madness. Researchers at the University of Illinois may have discovered the secret to forecasting the field. They also make a case that the much-maligned RPI really is a dependable tool for tournament decision-makers.

In their paper, “Modeling the NCAA basketball tournament selection process using a decision tree,” published in the Journal of Sports Analytics, Computer Science Professor Sheldon H. Jacobson and his former graduate student, Shouvik Dutta, created a decision-tree model to model the process used by the Selection Committee.

“The Committee has a well-defined set of criteria that they use in making their picks. There is always a certain amount of confusion over which teams, especially those on the bubble, will be selected and which will be left out,” Jacobson said.

Using the same data used by the Selection Committee, Jacobson and Dutta created a step-by-step process, comparing teams in pairs and assessing which teams are most dominant. By modeling the process, they provide a data-driven foundation for who should make the tournament based on the publicized criteria. Between 2012 and 2016, their model predicted 90% of the bubble teams correctly.

“The teams that we select to make the tournament typically are those eventually selected by the Selection Committee. However, every year, there has been one team that we select that the Committee does not. This suggests that, even with all the data available, there is a certain amount of human input and uncertainty that goes into the selection process.” Jacobson noted.

Jacobson and Dutta also make the case that RPI is simple to understand, easy to compute, and very similar to other metrics that some argue should be used in its place.