Replanting trees after events like last year’s catastrophic Western wildfires not only is critical to forest recovery, but could actually help soils take up more carbon from the atmosphere than if the burned areas were just left idle or cultivated.

That’s according to a new study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) coauthored by Umakant Mishra — a geospatial scientist in the Environmental Science division of the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Argonne National Laboratory — and six other researchers from across the country. The goal of their study was to determine how much carbon is absorbed, or sequestered, in the topsoils of reforested areas compared with pristine forest and disturbed land. The researchers found that in the next 100 years, already existing reforestation in the country could help topsoil absorb an additional 2 billion tons of carbon, which is about 1 percent of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

“When people measure carbon sequestration they typically focus on the vegetation, because it is much easier to see and measure. No one has published an analysis like this with soils before.” — Luke Nave, research scientist with the University of Michigan and the Northern Institute of Applied Climate Science

“If there’s a small change in soil carbon, it can affect the carbon in the atmosphere dramatically,” Mishra said. “We tried to find lands that are undergoing reforestation in the United States to determine at what rate they’re sequestering carbon. Using our analyses, we found there’s about a half million square kilometers in the U.S. under reforestation currently.”

That’s not counting the forest fire areas that burned in 2017 in California, Oregon and across the West — but the data from the study could help forest managers decide how to best replant those areas to take up the most carbon.

In their study, researchers looked at 15,000 soil profile observations from two national databases, as well as remote sensing information on reforested areas across the country. One of the most important purposes of the research was to determine the rate at which reforested and undisturbed forest soils absorb carbon from the atmosphere. In the past, those numbers have been a bit broad and undefined, but the scientists were able to narrow them significantly, said Luke Nave, lead author and a research scientist with the University of Michigan and the Northern Institute of Applied Climate Science.

“When people measure carbon sequestration they typically focus on the vegetation, because it is much easier to see and measure,” Nave said. “No one has published an analysis like this with soils before.”

Biomass accumulates carbon faster in the near term, but soils take up carbon more slowly and steadily over the long term, so the rates are very different, he said.

And the lack of soil data left predictive models often conflicting on whether a land area will be a carbon source or sink, Mishra said.

The researchers found that over the course of a century, topsoils on already existing reforested cultivated land like farms can take up between 0.8 and 1.6 billion tons of carbon, while topsoils associated with reforestation of disturbed forests can take up about 0.5 billion tons. That means a total of 1.3 to 2.1 billion tons of carbon will be removed from the atmosphere over the next 100 years with no additional effort.

Understanding the rates and being able to predict outcomes are key for decision makers when they look at replanting and other forest management methods. Of course, those rates don’t account for the carbon that was released into the atmosphere from the original forest fire. But they can help mitigate the damage of increasing wildfires over time, Mishra said.

“I think that wildfires are increasing because of the warming planet,” Mishra said. “A lot of carbon goes into the atmosphere as part of that process.”

Narrowing down the carbon sequestration rates to a much smaller scale, such as hectares, and having more details about how the landscape is disturbed can help forest managers be more effective on the ground. At the micro scale, managers can zoom in on particular ecoregions for individual projects.

Still, there are barriers to expanding replanting efforts across the country. Often the Forest Service doesn’t have enough resources to replant areas burned by wildfires, Nave said.

Next, the researchers want to start narrowing the rate numbers down to smaller time and area scales so they’ll be more useful to land managers.

By Shivani Singh*

Earlier this year, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’ Science and Security Board announced their decision to move the Doomsday Clock closer to midnight. Around the same time, the US Department of Defense released the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) – these two developments draw from the same global security environment but are in stark contrast to each other in the faith they place in nuclear weapons. Amongst a slew of modernisation measures that the new NPR proposes, two stand out: development of low-yield nuclear warheads and an expansion of the scope of nuclear weapons use by the US against an adversary.

According to the new NPR, the US plans to deploy “low-yield sea-launched ballistic missile nuclear (SLBM) warheads” and re-commission a “modern nuclear armed sea-launched cruise missile (SLCM),” again with a low-yield nuclear option. Introducing a low yield nuclear option is a form of ‘tailored deterrence’ that the US has been contemplating for quite some time now, especially vis-à-vis Russia. Russia has been known to allegedly lower the nuclear threshold by increasing its repository of non-strategic nuclear weapons, also commonly known as tactical nuclear weapons, thus bringing back US concerns about limited nuclear use. Russia currently possesses 4,500 nuclear warheads of which 2,000 are believed to be non-strategic.

Quoting Russia’s modernisation drive as one of the primary reasons for US policy change, this move is likely to close the gap between Russian and US nuclear capabilities in terms of their non-strategic nuclear weapons. However, it can be considered militarily inexplicable for one important reason. Russia’s decision to modernise its military with non-strategic nuclear weapons was to compensate for its lacking conventional military strength, in which domain the US is far superior.

The rationale behind US deployment of a low-yield nuclear option as mentioned in the NPR hinges on its so-called ability to contain a possible limited nuclear escalation by countries like Russia. However, escalation control only makes for a credible theoretical framework and has slim chances of any practical implementation. A low-yield, non-strategic nuclear warhead can cause enough damage to invite a full-scale nuclear response.

On one hand, the NPR document emphasises measures like “decreasing misperception and miscalculation and avoiding destabilising nuclear arms competition,” while at the same time proposing the re-introduction of a nuclear-tipped SLCM (which was decommissioned in 2011) in the long-term. This is likely to increase the chances of an accidental cataclysmic nuclear exchange precisely because of the ability of a cruise missile to disable any interception or detection, leading to potential miscommunication between two adversaries.

The NPR text also expands the circumstances that can lead to a possible use of nuclear weapons by the US against an adversary by introducing a new and rather ambiguous category of “non-nuclear strategic attacks.” This could include a host of possibilities from cyber warfare, conventional attacks on civilian population and infrastructure, to a chemical or biological weapons attack. The text goes on to say that “It remains the policy of the United States to retain some ambiguity regarding the precise circumstances that might lead to a US nuclear response.”

Employing ambiguity in a country’s nuclear doctrine is not new; the French nuclear doctrine, for example, maintains vagueness as to what constitutes ‘national interests’. Nonetheless, lack of transparency in explicitly stating the circumstances that would justify a nuclear strike against an adversary, especially if the US uses non-strategic nuclear weapons, can create space for a pre-emptive strike from the adversary due to uncertainty about a possible first strike.

In its definition of the “extreme circumstances” that would invite a nuclear response, the document includes non-nuclear strategic attacks on the US and its allies; even a conventional attack on one of its allies’ strategic infrastructure could qualify for US nuclear first use. This change has to be seen in consonance with the US decision to modernise its Nuclear Command, Control and Communications (NC3) system that facilitates the deployment of a nuclear weapon in times of crisis, thus justifying a nuclear response at the slightest suggestion of even a miscalculated or misinterpreted early warning assessment. This eventuality leads to the question about whether ambiguity, in this particular case, can actually serve to enhance deterrence. ‘

The NPR uses the “uncertain international security environment” and Russia’s muscle-flexing as justifications for significantly modernising its existing nuclear arsenal. Although it claims to be responding to changing strategic necessities, it is also true that as the Doomsday Clock nears midnight, in many ways the NPR carries the potential of doing further disservice to nuclear non-proliferation, and making the global security environment more perilous.

* Shivani Singh
Researcher, NSP, IPCS

By Rachael Strogoff*

Australian professor Clive Hamilton’s book, Silent Invasion: China’s influence in Australia recently arrived in bookstores, following the withdrawal of three previous publishers. The challenges preceding its publication corroborate the book’s premise: how foreign influence operations have targeted Australian political, academic, and media sectors to create an environment favourable to the interests of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Ever since China opened under Deng’s reforms, Australia has benefited from the inward flow of Chinese university students, workers, and investments, and China became its largest export market in 2009. But the CCP’s 21st century strategic pursuit of soft power – the ‘peaceful rise’ Hu Jintao promised through mutually beneficial economic and cultural exchange – does not resemble Joseph Nye’s formulation. Instead, Australian institutions are feeling the impact of what Christopher Walker and Jessica Ludwig describe as ‘sharp power’.

Soft power comes from persuasive appeal of a nation’s culture and politics, and CCP’s ideology and closed society hold no attraction for a democracy. In contrast, sharp power exploits the asymmetry of openness, penetrating democratic institutions abroad to monopolise messaging, cutting away at dissent and distracting from criticism to shape states’ policies in its favour. Cross-sectoral spending in Australia allowed Beijing to pursue its interests using the familiar tools of censorship and propaganda. With debates over proposed legislative reforms targeting foreign interference and espionage, Australia faces the challenge of defending its interests and sovereignty against the authoritarian reach of its most important trading partner.

Buying into Australian Politics

Loose regulations regarding foreign political funding enabled easy access to Australian politics. Donations flowed through CCP-linked individuals friendly with Australia’s power brokers in Canberra and beyond. One such individual, Chinese real estate mogul Huang Xiangmo, caught the attention of Australian intelligence for his spending, and in December, revelations of his ties to Labor’s Sam Dastyari forced the senator’s resignation. While Huang covered the legal bills and trips to China, Dastyari repeatedly confronted defence officials in parliament with questions that reflected a pro-Beijing stance and personally sought approval of Huang’s citizenship application. When Huang threatened to withdraw his AUD 400,000 donation due to a Labor official’s criticism of China’s South China Sea activities, Dastyari appeared by his side at a press conference to reassure Chinese media that it was not Australia’s place to get involved in the dispute.

Across the political aisle, former Liberal Party Trade Minister Andrew Robb received a campaign donation from Huang the day he signed the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Months later, Robb retired from politics to take a high-paying position as economic advisor to Landbridge Group, a CCP-linked firm granted a 99-year lease to operate Australia’s Darwin Port. Darwin had been chosen to host a joint training facility for Australian and US troops in 2011. But ex-Foreign Minister Bob Carr, who remains influential in policymaking as director of the Australia China Research Institute (ACRI) established with a $1.8 million donation by Huang, dismissed criticism and pointed to the US response to the deal as true foreign interference. Huang and the politicians benefiting from his largesse did not violate Australian law. However, the lack of disclosure breaches voluntarism fundamental to Nye’s formulation of soft power, as voters were not allowed to judge for themselves whether Chinese funds had influenced domestic politics.

Producing Propaganda

ACRI opened in 2014, replacing the defunded independent China Research Centre. Its work illustrates how the CCP exercises sharp power through co-opting or exploiting academic and policy institutions. A vocal critic of Australia’s military alliance with the US, Carr rejects security concerns about Chinese acquisitions of Australian infrastructure – seen in the Darwin deal and the Turnbull administration’s veto over the sale of Australia’s largest electrical grid – as paranoid Sinophobia and nationalism. Unlike its academic predecessor, ACRI operates as a think-tank promoting a “positive and optimistic view of Australia-China relations,” with the mission and funding sources of a corporate, not university, entity. Sinologists and Chinese dissidents question the neutrality and rigour of its research.

Media Monopoly

The CCP retains influence or control over virtually all Chinese Australian media outlets. A Chinese consular advertising budget is directed to newspapers willing to publish editorial layouts produced in China. The regime has deals to provide Australian mainstream media outlets with Chinese language content, even delivering its official China Daily insert in newspapers. Media outlets that cover issues sensitive to Beijing – Tiananmen Square, allegations of organ harvesting in prisons, Tibet – face the loss of advertisers and subscribers susceptible to commercial and political pressures from the party. Even Western institutions are not immune to self-censorship, as shown by the three publishers who rejected Clive Hamilton’s book.

Hamilton’s response to Chinese authoritarian interference perhaps provides a blueprint for confronting sharp power within a democratic framework. The ethics professor exercised his civil rights and academic freedom to raise public awareness, conducting media interviews, publishing articles, appearing at a literature festival as an author without a book, and submitting research to parliament that informs ongoing debates. His approach carries personal and professional risks, and Hamilton already stands accused of stoking dangerous nativist elements on shaky evidentiary grounds. Still, Beijing’s attempts to monopolise its narrative abroad instead provoked a domestic uproar and drew international attention to Chinese interference, demonstrating that sharp power can appear dull in the daylight of democracy.

* Rachael Strogoff
Research Intern, IPCS

By Sven Milekic

Zagreb state attorney’s office filed an indictment accusing 22 members of rebel Croatian Serb forces of committing war crimes against Croats in villages in the Slavonia region in 1991.

The state attorney’s office in Zagreb announced on Saturday that it has charged 22 former members of rebel Serb forces for war crimes in the villages of Cetekovac, Balinci and Cojlug in the eastern region of Slavonia in September 1991.

Eight of the indictees are accused of commanding the other 14 to “molest, beat and murder” Croat civilians, as well ordering them to “illegally take [the civilians] hostage”.

The eight indictees also ordered the others to “torture and kill prisoners of war” and rob Croat civilians, and to burn and destroy 59 of their homes and business facilities, as well as a local Catholic church, the charges claim.

Some of the eight commanders are further accused of “personally taking part in torture and killings of civilians and prisoners of war”.

The indictment claims that the suspects were responsible for large-scale shelling, which killed some civilians and destroyed or damaged their property.

According to the indictment, the accused killed ten villagers in Bajinci in their own houses.

The indictment says that the accused set an ambush on the roads surrounding the villages and killed seven more civilians who were passing through in their cars.

The suspects are also accused of capturing a group of civilians who hid under the bridge between Bajinci and Cetekovac and made them walk along as a human shield, and killed two people who refused.

In Cetekovci, the accused beat and kicked two captured Croatian police officers, killing them afterwards, according to the indictment

In total, the accused are suspected of killing 20 civilians and two prisoners of war.

Zagreb county court will now decide whether to confirm the indictment.

By Georgi Gotev

(EurActiv) — Austria plans to use its upcoming presidency of the European Union this year to shift the bloc’s focus from resettling refugees within the EU towards keeping further waves of migrants outside the bloc’s external borders, Chancellor Sebastian Kurz said on Friday (9 March).

Kurz is governing in coalition with the anti-immigration Freedom Party, making Austria the only Western European country to have a far-right party in government. This follows an election last year in which Europe’s migration crisis dominated the agenda.

Austria will take over the rotating six-month presidency of the EU from Bulgaria in July. Bulgaria’s coalition government consists of the centre-right GERB party of PM Boyko Borissov and the United Patriots, three rightist forces of which at least one, Ataka, can be described as far-right.

Borissov has recently said he wanted Bulgaria and Austria to have a “joint presidency”.

The EU has been bitterly divided over immigration, with eastern member states like Poland and Hungary refusing to take in their share of refugees under a resettlement system. Kurz, an immigration hard-liner, has pledged to use his good relations, particularly with Hungary, to bring the two sides closer.

“Our aim is very clear – that in Europe there should not only be a dispute over redistribution (of refugees) but also, at last, a shift of focus towards securing external borders,” Kurz told a news conference outlining Austria’s priorities for the presidency.

Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic have repeatedly rebuffed requests from Brussels and western EU states to host some of the hundreds of thousands of mostly Muslim refugees that have streamed into the EU since 2015.

The bitter row has undermined trust between the bloc’s members and weakened their unity.

Under Kurz, Austria has moved from calling on the eastern Europeans to carry their share of the burden to criticising the debate on quotas and calling for a new system altogether.

Kurz has said there is no point arguing over the current system of quotas because eastern states refuse to accept them. He has argued in favour of a system in which migrants rescued in the Mediterranean are returned to Africa rather than brought to Europe, and has pledged to stop illegal immigration altogether.

Under its previous government, Austria teamed up with the Visegrad countries and Serbia and Macedonia to stop refugee flows via the so-called Western Balkans route, an initiative outside the EU framework.

Migration summit

“Protection (of borders) alone will not solve the migration question but the decisive question is what happens to people after their rescue – are they brought to central Europe or are they taken back to the countries of origin or other safe regions where they can be provided for?” Kurz said.

Asked what solutions he had in mind, he said expanding the mandate of Frontex, the EU border agency, was one option but there were others and it would depend on talks with leaders at various events, including a summit on migration and security on 20 September.

Other priorities Austria has set itself include promoting Europe’s competitiveness and working towards EU accession for Western Balkan countries, particularly Serbia and Montenegro, he said.

Kurz added that he also hoped the bloc would make progress on ensuring internet companies like Facebook and Google pay more tax on profits in the countries where those profits are made.

Prince William, second in line to the throne, is being sent to the Holy Land by the UK Government “to promote diplomatic and cultural ties”. In effect he’ll be helping to normalize 70 years of Israeli occupation and sanitize the unimaginable cruelty that has gone with it. His trip cuts across the Boycott Divestment & Sanctions movement’s efforts to bring pressure for justice.

By Stuart Littlewood*

Kensington Palace has announced in a tweet that “the Duke of Cambridge will visit Israel, Jordan and the Occupied Palestinian territories in the summer.”

The visit “is at the request of Her Majesty’s Government.”

The Jerusalem Post reports that the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu immediately welcomed the news, saying: “It is a historic visit, the first of its kind, and he will be received here with great enthusiasm.” And President Reuven Rivlin wrote on his Twitter account that Prince William will be “a very special guest” and his visit will be “a very special present for our 70th year of independence.”

Royals are supposed to remain aloof from politics, at home and abroad. The Monarch, for good reason, has avoided any state visit to Israel since the entity established itself in treacherous circumstances back in 1948.

So why the sudden change in Palace policy?

Recruiting Prince William to shmooze the Zionists follows the warm welcome extended to Netanyahu by Theresa May to the infamous Balfour Declaration celebrations in London last November and her earlier speech oozing adoration for Israel.

In that speech she attacked the successful BDS campaign calling it unacceptable and warning that her government would “have no truck with those who subscribe to it”.  The Israel lobby meanwhile has agitated furiously for the UK to shut down BDS.

Mrs. May was ticked off for her hostility to BDS by 200 legal scholars and practicing lawyers from all over Europe who pointed out to her that BDS is a lawful exercise of freedom of expression and outlawing it undermines a basic human right protected by international convention.

Any efforts to repress BDS amount to support for Israel’s violations of international law and a failure to honor the solemn pledge by States to ‘strictly respect the aims and principles of the Charter of the United Nations’.

So why is she so stiff-necked about it? After all, Netanyahu is on many a wanted list for crimes against humanity and should, in a sane world, be locked up. What’s more, he is under investigation for corruption in his own country. Israel, as everyone knows, is in flagrant breach of umpteen UN resolutions of the sort that would have brought crippling sanctions down on any other offender.

The international community’s failure to act has left civil society no option but to fill the vacuum with BDS.

All the same Mrs May and the Israel lobby are pressing ahead with their anti-BDS programme and it looks like they’re getting special help from the Royal Family. But if Prince William seeks to undo the efforts of civil society he sets himself against the people.

According to May’s Middle East minister Alistair Burt, the official reason for the royal trip is that it’s “an important and unique opportunity to promote diplomatic and cultural ties in the region”, which is shorthand for enriching big business post-Brexit. So that’s OK then. Don’t let the misery of decades-long military occupation get in the way of new riches, eh?

Kensington Palace’s tweet received this reply from a certain Suzanne Levy, who describes herself as a full-time ‘kook’:

“Fantastic news, but please correct your erroneous terminology. The Palestinian Territories are not occupied by Israel – they are under the rule of Hamas and the PA.”

As if jumping to her kooky instruction the British embassy in Israel released a Hebrew-language version of the Kensington Palace announcement omitting the words “occupied territories” and replacing them with “Israel and the Palestinian Authority”.

In denying the Israeli occupation Ms Levy, like other hasbara trolls, is at odds with the United Nations, international law, world opinion and documented history. Even the UK Government officially refers to Palestine as the OPT (Occupied Palestinian Territories), so the edit by its own embassy is puzzling.

Unless, of course, it tells the truth and the plan is to prevent Prince William from actually experiencing the Occupied Territories by confining him to the witless ‘Palestinian Authority’. The PA has precious little legitimacy and is led by a ‘quisling tendency’ who have done next to nothing for the Palestinians. Their reward for wasting the nation’s time and wrecking its prospects is a life of comparative luxury, very different from that suffered by the unfortunate people they are supposed to serve. They can be relied upon to give the Prince a suitable skewed view of things.

Here’s acid test number 1. The Occupied Territories include Gaza. So will the Israelis and May allow Prince William to visit there, shoot the breeze with Hamas (whose political wing are not proscribed as  terrorists in the UK and who struggle to run the devastated place after 10 years of vicious blockade, almost daily air strikes, repeated military ground incursions and occupation of its territorial waters and airspace by Israel) and to see for himself the true horror of the humanitarian crisis all this has caused? If the answer is no, the entire visit should be called off. But it won’t be.

Acid test number 2 is this. Prince William will likely succeed to the throne one day and become Defender of the [Christian] Faith, a 500-year-old obligation. As a true Christian – if that is what he is – he’ll know all about the cry for help issued only months ago by the National Coalition of Christian Organizations in Palestine to the World Council of Churches and the entire ecumenical movement. It was signed by over 30 organisations in Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza.

They say:

“We are still suffering from 100 years of injustice and oppression that were inflicted on the Palestinian people beginning with the unlawful Balfour declaration…. A hundred years later and there is still no justice! Discrimination and inequality, military occupation and systematic oppression are the rule…. Despite all the promises, endless summits, UN resolutions, religious and lay leader’s callings – Palestinians are still yearning for their freedom and independence, and seeking justice and equality.”

The message ends with these ominous words:

“Things are beyond urgent. We are on the verge of a catastrophic collapse…. This could be our last chance to achieve a just peace. As a Palestinian Christian community, this could be our last opportunity to save the Christian presence in this land.”

William must be allowed to hear direct the serious concerns of the Christian and Muslim communities and take a robust line that involves consequences for the occupier if those concerns are not properly dealt with.

Prince William’s wife Kate (Duchess of Cambridge) is expecting their third child towards the end of April so he’ll probably make the trip without her. But expect the visit to be accompanied by waves of media rapture over the new arrival, with Israel’s propaganda machine working flat-out to milk maximum PR benefits and subliminally stamp the Royal seal of approval on their apartheid regime.

If Prince William does set foot in the Holy Land his mission must obviously be very different to the one described by Alistair Burt or wished for by Netanyahu and May.  If he is seen to lend legitimacy to a grasping, racist enterprise like the Israel project, which shows no respect for human rights or international law, it will surely come to haunt him.

* Stuart Littlewood worked on jet fighters in the RAF then pursued a career in industrial marketing. Since retiring has been a newspaper columnist and produced two photo-documentary books. He is a regular contributor to a number of internet news magazines. Stuart’s book Radio Free Palestine, with Foreword by Jeff Halper, tells the plight of the Palestinians under brutal occupation. It can now be read on the internet by visiting RadioFreePalestine.org.uk. He contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com.

Qatar on Saturday filed a complaint with the U.N. Security Council regarding alleged violations of its airspace by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Bahrain.

In a letter to U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres and the Dutch President of the U.N. Security Council, Karel Van Oosterom, Qatar said UAE military planes violated Qatari airspace twice in January and February, according to the official QNA news agency.

The Qatari letter said that a Bahraini military aircraft had also violated the country’s airspace on Feb. 25.

The letter described the alleged violations as “brazen” and warned that such attempts would increase tension in the region.

It called on the U.N. Security Council “to take all necessary measures to safeguard international peace and security”, going on to underline that it preserves the “full right to respond to any violations”.

There was no comment from the UAE or Bahrain on the Qatari complaint.

Last year, the UAE and Bahrain, along with Egypt and Saudi Arabia, severed diplomatic and trade relations with Qatar, accusing Doha of supporting terrorism.

Qatar has consistently denied the allegations, accusing the four-nation bloc of infringing on its sovereignty.

Original source

On the recent visit of the Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, the Indian Hindu regime and ultra conservative Hindu press, put up a deplorable show of third-world blather, bluster and anti-Sikh meltdown against Canadian ministers.

Canada was baselessly accused of supporting “Sikh Separatism,” without evidence. Canada denied these accusations as ridiculous and offensive while the Indian Hindu regime despotically demanded the Canadian government to suppress free speech of Canadian Sikhs denouncing Hindu India’s mass-murdering establishment – the fact it didn’t talk about.

The ultra-conservative Hindu press, run by rogue upper-caste Hindu businessmen of India, acts as press agent of the Indian Hindu regime- hardly journalistic by any stretch of standards. During the visit of the Canadian PM, the ultra-conservative Hindu press pandered hysterically against Canadian PM, alongwith with its sacramental anti-Sikh racism, exalting its criminal complicity with Hindu Exterminationists- a reprobate ritual they have been doing since last 70 years, discrediting their own journalistic ethics. In one example, Shivaram Vij, writing for the Washington Post from New Delhi went to the extent of claiming Sikhs as a problem. Literally!

Anti-Sikh vituperative writings by India’s Hindu press are longstanding. In 1982, Girilal Jain, the foremost anti-Sikh racist, editorialized: “De-turbaning the Sikhs,” advocating physical degradation of Sikhs while declaring Sikhs as enemies of India. Exterminationist vernacular against Sikhs by the ultra-conservative Hindu press supporting ethnic cleansing of Sikhs includes blatant misrepresentation, selective distortion and dehumanizing dispositioning of Sikhs to label Sikhs as unwanted, enemies, separatists and anti-nationalists.

Anti-Sikh Ethnic Cleansing

Murderous anti-Sikh progression in Hindu India has accrued unspeakable horrors since 1980s. In 1984, the “India Army” ethnically cleansed Sikhs under its military pogroms code-named Operation Bluestar and Woodrose on exterminationist pretexts, justifying civilian population as indiscriminate military targets-a well established fact of a war crime. Later in the year, after the assassination of Indira Gandhi by two of her Sikh bodyguards, the mass-murdering regime of Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi went on ethnic cleansing of Sikhs, with the exterminationist call of incitement to genocide, “Blood-for-Blood,” broadcasted nationally. Widespread ethnic cleansing and genocidal rape of Sikhs was premeditated.

Girilal Jain, the then editor of Times of India- in front page editorial of The Times of India blamed the “anti-national” and unwanted Sikhs for “flaming” the Hindus while remaining cold-bloodedly silent about Hindu savagery across India.

Not satisfied enough with the genocidal terrorism against Sikhs in 1984, India’s exterminationist regime, in an expedited parliamentary session, undemocratically passed 59th amendment to the constitution in 1989, taking right of life away – allowing the police and military to exterminate the “unwanted” and “anti-national” Sikhs in rural Punjab. Any Sikh falsely designated a threat to the state was disappeared, tortured, raped and “liquidated” – under Hindu India’s exterminationist laws. Sikhs endured mass disappearances, genocidal rape, torture under a decade long campaign of their ethnic cleansing.

The exterminationist colonization of India has included ethnic cleansing, state terrorism, torture and rape of Sikhs, Muslims and Dalits- not just as a policy, but as law. Inalienable and natural rights including due process, fair trial and freedom of expression are nonexistent, constitutionally- to enable political Hinduism practice its exterminationist crimes against humanity.

Exterminationism has been a genocidal practice of caste Hindus in India for centuries- with 300 million considered Untouchables, the Acchut or Pariahs, who are murdered, raped and degradated religiously under the caste system. Caste system demands extreminationist allegiance towards deprivation and derogation of human life -above any moral obligation towards humanity. For last 70 years, Hindu India’s Exterminationist regimes include a rogue gallery of mass-murderers, rapists, tyrants and international war criminals. In fact, the current Prime Minister, Narendra Modi is a mass-murderer under whose regime thousands of Muslims were massacred and brutally raped in the State of Gujarat. Narendra Modi is a longtime member of the Hindu Supremacist organization, the RSS- the ultra-racist wing of Hindu Nationalism, based upon blood purity of Hindu caste system, a shared value of the Nazism.

India’s caste exterminationist regimes rule ruthlessly, defying natural rights and democratic consent- governing illegitimately under international and natural law. The ongoing exterminationist cleansing of Indian minorities threatens the moral nature of the entire humanity and international law, requiring civilized international community to condemn and resist it- even more so now than before. Canada and its leaders will surely face an unattractive reality of having relations with murderous regime of Hindu Exterminationists, while standing up for international law. However, the international law and the civilized world needs to denounce the exterminationist caste system, the biggest exterminationist program against humanity- a crime against humanity.

Seventy years after its birth, Pakistan is struggling to get a grip on Sunni Muslim ultra-conservatism and its militant offshoots that were aided and abetted by successive governments as well as Saudi Arabia and at times the United States. The stakes for Pakistan are high as it confronts mounting international pressure that includes China, its closest ally, to crackdown on militancy.

A string of recent events illustrates the government’s difficulty in shielding Pakistan from retaliatory action by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), an anti-money laundering and anti-terrorism-finance body, as well as further sanctioning by the United States. FATF this month put Pakistan on notice that it could be blacklisted in June and face global banking isolation if it failed to demonstrate its ability to combat funding of militancy.

The US Treasury last year forced Pakistan’s Habib Bank to close down its US operations and fined it $225 million because there were flaws in its systems that “opened the door to the financing of terror.”

Former Pakistani caretaker finance minister Salman Shah told Asia Times that “there were payments originating in Saudi Arabia that came to Pakistan, but there was no proper documentation.” Mr. Shah said FATF had highlighted the fact that “the current banking mechanisms in place in Pakistan are enabling their usage for terrorists, money-laundering (and) narcotics smuggling, which has prompted the FATF grey-listing.”

Other recent setbacks include a court decision that bars the government from detaining or putting Muhammad Hafez Saeed under house arrest. Mr. Saeed, believed to be the mastermind of the 2008 Mumbai attacks that left some 170 people dead, was designated as a terrorist by the United Nations and the United States, which put a $10 million bounty on his head.

A Saudi-educated religious scholar, who associated with Saudis involved in the 1980s in the anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan and went on to co-found Al Qaeda’s incubator, was widely seen as enjoying support of the Pakistani military because of his anti-Indian militancy.

Pakistan’s foreign ministry declared earlier this year that it welcomed Palestinian ambassador Walid Abu Ali’s “active participation in events organized to express solidarity with the people of Palestine” after the Palestine Authority recalled him for sharing a stage with Mr. Saeed.

While unable to act directly against Mr. Saeed, the government has banned his Jamaat ud-Dawa, believed to be a front for Lashkar-e-Taibe, one of South Asia’s deadliest groups, as well as one its associated charities, Falah-Insaniat Foundation (FIF), and has confiscated scores of their properties, including hospitals, in the provinces of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan.

Interior secretary Arshad Mirza told a Senate panel that the groups had been barred from raising funds and have had their weapons licenses cancelled.

Conscious that militant violence could cast a shadow over Chinese investment in a $50 billion plus China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a crown jewel of China’s Belt and Road initiative, the military has recently invested heavily in development of North and South Waziristan, troubled hubs of militant activity, and a base for the Haqqani network, a group associated with the Taliban.

Nonetheless, authorities in the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, which is governed by the political party of cricket-player-turned politician Imran Khan, who is also widely believed to have close ties to the military, gave $2.5 million to Darul Aloom Haqqania, a militant religious seminary.

Dubbed a “jihad university,” Darul Aloom Haqqania, headed by Sami ul-Haq, a hard-line Islamist politician known as the father of the Taliban, counts among its alumni, Mullah Omar, the deceased leader of the Taliban, Jalaluddin Haqqani, the head of the Haqqani network. Asim Umar, leader of Al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent, and Mullah Akhtar Mansoor, Mullah Omar’s successor who was killed in a 2016 US drone strike.

In yet another incident, a court ruled that Pakistanis should be identified by their faith and that applicants for public office or joining the military or the judiciary, declare their beliefs to be eligible. Failure to do so amounted to “betraying the State” and “exploiting the Constitution,” the court said.

In a bow to a deeply-seated, Saudi-inspired 1974 amendment of the constitution that declared Ahmadis, a sect viewed by orthodox Muslims as heretics, the court asserted that it was “alarming” that “one of (Pakistan’s) minorities” was “often mistaken for being Muslims” due to their names and general attire.”

Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui, the presiding judge, cautioned that this “can lead them to gain access to dignified and sensitive posts, along with benefits.”

Another court recently summoned reporters from the country’s largest private television station on charges of “ridiculing” a ruling that banned Valentine’s Day celebrations and barred media from covering them.

Meanwhile, Pakistan is under pressure to curb its draconic blasphemy law that has fuelled extremism, moved the judiciary towards militant rulings, and undermined the country’s rule of law. The law was one reason the US State Department In January listed Pakistan as a country guilty of “severe violations of religious freedoms.”

The incidents reflect the fact that Saudi-inspired Sunni Muslim ultra-conservatism has become entrenched in significant segments of the Pakistani state and bureaucracy as well as of the population.

The entrenchment is the result of successive governments’ playing with religion for political gain as well as long-standing Saudi efforts to bolster ultra-conservatism as an anti-dote to Iranian revolutionary zeal in a country that borders on Iran and has a Shiite minority that accounts for approximately one fifth of the population.

Pakistan has been a focal point of the kingdom’s four decades-old funding campaign. Huge sums were pumped in the 1980s in cooperation with the United States, into financing and arming the anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan as well as into religious seminaries that dot the country’s education landscape until today.

The United States in recent years has invested $65 million to rewrite schoolbooks it provided for Pakistani and Afghan seminaries that employed Saudi-style concepts of jihad and ultra-conservatism in support of the struggle against the Soviets.

Saudi Arabia, according to militant sources, has in the past two years pumped large sums into militant seminaries in Balochistan, a province that borders on Iran.

More recently, Saudi officials have suggested that the kingdom may halt its global funding of ultra-conservative educational, religious, and cultural facilities as part of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s effort to return his country to an unspecified form of moderate Islam and improve its image tarnished by its sponsorship of ultra-conservatism.

That, however, may not have much immediate impact on Pakistan. Ultra-conservatism has struck deep roots in Pakistani society as well as the state and it will take years if not a generation to uproot it. That is the message that emerges from the recent string of judicial, societal, and policy developments that spotlight the difficulties in Pakistan’s uphill struggle with ultra-conservatism and militancy.

After several years of ethnic strife and civil war and decisively defeating the separatists, it was thought that peace would prevail in Sri Lanka, that would facilitate the country to march towards economic growth and social advancement. However, the recent communal clashes in Sri Lanka that has necessitated the imposition of national emergency have belied the hopes of politics in Sri Lanka becoming stable and progressive.

It is said that communal violence happened in Kandy region in central province due to the death of a Sinhalese Buddhist youth allegedly at the hands of a group of Muslim men in an incident of road rage. It is difficult to believe that one such incident has resulted in such massive communal violence, causing destruction of property and attack on individuals and families. Obviously, there should have been simmering discontent and development of feelings of hatred between the communities over a period of time and this attack due to road rage must have happened, as it became a spark to kindle the fire in a heated climate.

Obviously, the intelligence department in Sri Lankan government have failed to identify such simmering discontent among communities and it’s potential to cause serious unrest and violence. The political leadership of the Sri Lankan government has also shown extraordinary lack of understanding of the ground realities, as a result of which the government has failed to take preventive steps.

In any case, it is good that the Sri Lankan government has acted with great alacrity and initiated all possible steps at it’s command to put down the violence and ensure peace by declaring national emergency for ten days. The situation is now returning back to normal outwardly, though the feelings of animosity and anger developed among people of different communities are unlikely to go away so soon.

The image of Sri Lanka in the eyes of the outside world has certainly suffered due to this communal violence and the Sri Lankan government’s efforts to project Sri Lanka as a peaceful country and encourage investment from abroad and promote tourism by people from across the world have suffered a setback.

It is always known that once bitterness happen between religious and caste communities and violent incidents occur, it is bound to happen again, unless earnest , intelligent and forward looking measures would be taken to avoid the conditions in future that cause such communal hatred. It calls for high level of maturity and the statesmanship on the part of Prime Minister and President of Sri Lanka to take the necessary proactive steps.

As usual in such scenario, Sri Lankan government may appoint an enquiry committee to look into the reasons that caused such communal violence and to suggest steps to prevent the recurrence.

Whatever the enquiry committee may conclude, there are some obvious pointers that should be noted without loss of time.

Sri Lanka is not the only country where such communal violence in different forms has taken place. It frequently happens in other countries like India, Bangladesh and several African nations. Even China is not an exception to this and the Rohingya crisis in Myanmar is a recent one.

In most cases, for such incidents of communal violence ,the root cause is the gradual shifting of demographic balance between one community to other. There are certain religions where more births are recommended and encouraged in families to make the people belonging to the religion numerically strong. Such conditions inevitably create sense of insecurity among the people and cause bitter feelings.

To prevent recurrence of such incidents, Sri Lankan government should take some special steps to protect the existing demographic balance between different religious groups and prevent religious conversions which may happen by force or by enticement. It is a well known fact that there are certain religious leadership today across the world who want to convert people belonging to other religions in a systematic way and they extend fund support and adopt other methods to achieve the objective.

While Sri Lanka government should take stringent steps to promote communal harmony by promoting appropriate climate of harmony and the political leadership in Sri Lanka should avoid narrow and short sighted partisan outlook to win votes and support, the basic necessity of maintaining demographic balance in Sri Lanka between different religious groups should get utmost priority.

North Korea’s Nuclear Conundrums

As each day passes, North Korea’s Kim Jong Un has an increasing chance to share the fate of Iraq’s Saddam Hussein. For North Korea, unlike Iraq, weapons of mass destruction are a proven fact and plenty of biochemical weapons have been stockpiled alongside nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles. The North’s weapons of mass destruction are impossible to contain within the peninsula, and that’s precisely the problem the U.S. and the UN see. Recent reports show North Korea supplied chlorine gas to Syria (NYT, Feb. 27, 2018) and transported nuclear warheads to Iran (Eurasia Review, Dec. 10, 2017).

On the day that North Korea completes development of nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles that can reach the U.S., the regime will ask the U.S. to withdraw armed forces from South Korea and sign a nonaggression pact, so that intervention of U.S. forces can be prevented when the North annexes the South under Kim’s rule. With nuclear threats, the North can easily bring the South to its knees. Adm. Harry Harris Jr. was correct when he said the North’s nuclear program is for forced military takeover of the South (AP, Feb. 14, 2018). Indeed, for the past 70 years, that has been the regime’s foremost goal and even written in its Constitution.

But with their overall capabilities of proliferation with weapons of mass destruction, the regime’s illicit activity has crossed the “red line.” Today, North Korea is among the most dangerous terror-sponsoring nations; it has also earned a reputation to be the most repressive and murderous nation on the planet. But its tactical nuclear threat at the U.S. was a grave miscalculation, and it has now backfired. As Gen. Joseph Dunford said, it is “unimaginable…to allow a nuclear weapon [from North Korea] to land in Denver, Colorado” (Politico, July 22, 2017).

Can North Korea give up nuclear ambitions now? Not a chance. A denuclearized North Korea will collapse internally and Kim Jong Un cannot accommodate denuclearization without readying for a regime change; the bellicose regime that refuses to back down will be defeated by external forces. Thus, the regime’s collapse is a matter of when, not a question of if, regardless of whether Kim de-nukes or not, since the regime’s time for stability and long-term management has run out.

The Trump administration has only one goal — denuclearization of North Korea — and Secretary of State, Tillerson put it succinctly: “I will continue our diplomatic efforts until the first bomb drops” to North Korea (Business Insider, Dec. 12, 2017). China, South Korea and North Korea all strongly oppose U.S. military action to defuse the North’s nuclear crisis, since any form of military conflict with the U.S. will lead to irreversible damage to North Korea, up to sudden collapse of the regime.

China and South Korea’s position on the fate of North Korea differs starkly from Japan’s, and that’s where third-party observers can see exactly what China and South Korea are planning for the Korean Peninsula: to sustain the Kim regime and have the two Koreas united as China’s satellite state. More on this later.

The Trump administration’s efforts include full use of diplomatic channels with China, Japan and Russia regarding contingencies for crisis management of North Korea, in the event of military action as well as finetuning of geopolitical concerns. Japan wants to secure safety of its citizens kidnapped by North Korea (Evening Fuji, Mar. 6, 2018). Russia suggested a “Ukraine for North Korea” trade to President Trump (Eurasia Daily Monitor, Nov. 9, 2017) asking for “help” in kind. China deployed 300,000 troops to its border with North Korea, and some experts believe they would move in to secure the North’s nuclear facilities in the event of military conflict and control millions of anticipated North Korean refugees into China (RedState, Feb. 5, 2018).

Collapse of North Korea and Contingencies

What contingencies are possible or should be prepared for North Korea after U.S. military action?

A recent article by Chan & Loftus laid out scenarios for a unified Korea after the regime’s collapse (The Diplomat, Jan. 10, 2018). Expecting substantial policy changes against the U.S. and Japan that the united Korea is likely to pursue under Chinese influence, the authors urged the U.S. to prepare for contingencies ahead of time.

But the scenarios were based on the authors’ understood role of South Korea as an ally of the U.S. and Japan in the Indo-Pacific region. Do the U.S. and Japan really trust South Korea’s government? To the contrary, there is every indication that South Korea has betrayed the U.S. and destroyed alliance with the U.S. and Japan, and the Moon administration has served China for Xi Jinping’s pleasure. U.S. trust for South Korea’s government is at the lowest point since the Korean War. It is realistic to expect the U.S. to exclude South Korea from participation in rebuilding a unified Korea. Japan’s government has shown strong distrust and dissatisfaction toward South Korea and condemned Moon’s Communist ideology in unusually harsh terms (Evening Fuji, Mar. 6, 2018).

China has biggest concerns about U.S. military option. A June 2017 survey of Chinese scholars yielded a wide variety of responses to the North’s nuclear crisis, from continued full support to severance of relations with North Korea, with most opting for limited support (Goldstein, Sept. 3, 2017). The survey outcome is consistent with China’s Korea policy. China wants a satellite state in the Korean Peninsula as a “strategic buffer” to keep the U.S. military from the border, which resulted in ambiguous policy toward the North’s nuclear program in favor of the regime’s stability. But a belligerent Kim with nuclear warheads is less than desirable. Xi may have eyed Moon for a contingency. In the aftermath of U.S. military option, Xi would prefer Moon to lead a more servile and softer satellite state in lieu of the Kim regime.

But the U.S. and Japan have no trust for Moon. It is very unlikely for the U.S. and Japan to let the Moon administration assume responsibility for crisis management of a unified Korea in the aftermath of U.S.-led military action against North Korea. With South Korea excluded, the crisis management after a second Korean war is more likely to involve multi-national governance and peace-keeping forces stationed in North Korea, and China could not object to that.

The Moon-Kim Summit As Inter-Korean Conspiracy

Moon Jae-in is the odd man at the wrong time. He has only meddled in the U.S.-led efforts to curb Kim Jong Un’s nuclear ambitions. Many wonder what Moon really wants. A short answer is, the two men can also be called “Moon Jong Un and Kim Jae-in,” both being nationalistic Communists who want a permanent unified Communist state in the Korean Peninsula. Thus, they share many common goals, such as withdrawal of the U.S. forces from Korea, nonaggression treaty between North Korea and the U.S., protection of the North’s dictatorship under Kim’s rule, foundation of one Communist Korea, and hostile policy against Japan, among others.

The Majority Leader of South Korea’s Parliament openly talked about a transfer of the ownership of land to the government. The Moon administration has prepared for a landmark amendment to the nation’s Constitution, paving the way to a Communist state. Most recently, Moon’s Security Advisor publicly spoke of moving the U.S. military out of South Korea. The list goes on.

A recent series of events that have led to the announced summit between Seoul and Pyongyang in April were the products of inter-Korean conspiracy. Every detail was already decided on well before the Winter Olympics and ahead of the formal meetings of the two Koreas. What the world has witnessed is a cunning political show meant to confuse the Trump administration and its allies.

The bottom line is, should North Korea want denuclearization, they would come forward and begin direct talks with the U.S. Why does the North need the South’s assistance in denuclearization talks with the U.S.? That’s the heart of deception and the Moon-Kim conspiracy. It’s like the two men are holding their hands together and circling around Trump in the middle.

South Korea’s every move is for undoing the UN and U.S. sanctions on North Korea, while North Korea can safeguard their nuclear ambitions by having South Korea as the bridge (or scapegoat, for better) to connect with the U.S. If the denuclearization talks fail, which North Korea really means, the frail bridge is to blame, not the fat Rocket Man on it. The underlying assumption is the Moon administration’s belief that Trump would not want to unleash wrath at his ally, South Korea, for giving North Korea the time and money necessary for completion of nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles, when the Trump-Kim talks ultimately collapse (as designed and so wished by the two Koreas).

How To Solve A Problem Like Rocket Man

The Kim regime has successfully deceived the U.S. administrations, from Clinton to Obama, and seems to think they will outsmart the Trump administration and ultimately win the nuclear game. But the nuclear crisis has one critical difference now: the Americans had not felt desperate about the North’s nuclear threats and proliferation before, but they do now.

North Korea has never backed down but always progressed toward advancement of nuclear and missile technology. At the current stage of near completion, the regime has absolutely no reason to stop. Only fools would believe Kim Jong Un’s latest message of denuclearization to the South Korean envoy and to the U.S.

This year, North Korea already feels the same level of poverty-stricken desperation they had in the 1990s. In Pyongyang, the price of rice per kilogram rose to 7,000 Won against an average monthly income of 3,000 to 4,000 Won (NKTV, Mar. 5, 2018). Even when 3.5 million perished from starvation in 1995 to 1999 (BBC, Aug. 30, 1999), the residents of Pyongyang were saved. Thus, the current economic pressure Pyongyang residents feel should be noted.

The North’s situation shows that the latest rounds of heavy sanctions have had effects. The two Koreas are desperate about undoing U.S. and UN sanctions at their best for the establishment of a single Communist regime in the Korean Peninsula. It is a critical time. If the U.S., Japan and their allies fail to stop the North’s nuclear ambitions this time, they would become hostage to the North’s constant nuclear threats for many years to come. As former CIA analyst, Michael Lee said, military option is the only solution to North Korea’s nuclear crisis. This author believes so, too. If North Korea’s Kim regime collapses, so would South Korea’s Moon administration. Most South Koreans now feel betrayed and many began to walk out to the streets and scream to Moon.

*Max S. Kim is a Seoul-based freelance journalist

Four months since President Duterte declared Marawi ‘liberated from terrorist influence’ after the slaying of militant leaders Isnilon Haplion and Omar Maute during the final throes of battle, the vast majority of the city’s war-weary former residents have not yet been allowed to return home.

More than 200,000 of Marawi’s inhabitants remain displaced and are at the epicentre of what has become a prolonged humanitarian crisis, which is beginning to foster an atmosphere of hopelessness and despair among the resilient but increasingly forlorn community of Marawian evacuees.

The exiled are desperate to resume their lives and begin the slow process of rebuilding everything they have lost, yet the path ahead appears uncertain, dangerous and littered with obstacles.

The government says the full reconstruction and rehabilitation of Marawi could take up to four years to complete, whilst the flattened streets of the city centre remain littered with unexploded ordnance. The scale of devastation across the war-ravaged city makes a return to normality a distant prospect.

In the interim, the prolonged marginalization and disenfranchisement of Marawi’s exiled community could create fertile ground for recruitment by ISIS in the areas of western Mindanao worst-affected by the displacement crisis. Should the government be doing more?

The scale of the humanitarian crisis is huge. More than 353,000 people from around 77,000 families were displaced by the five-month war which pitted government forces against jihadists from the Maute and Abu Sayyaf groups. The vast majority fled during the early days of the conflict after militants took the authorities by surprise and over-ran the city on 23 May last year, leaving only around 2,000 civilians stranded in areas of heavy fighting. Several-hundred were taken hostage by the Mautes.

Most internally-displaced persons (IDPs) sought refuge in the nearby provinces of Lanao del Sur and Lanao del Norte, with smaller numbers residing in Misamis Oriental and South Cotabato. The majority of those who fled have stayed with friends or relatives, yet tens-of-thousands more have been forced to seek shelter in cramped conditions in hastily-established state-run temporary evacuation centres.

The military initially hoped to defeat the jihadists within a few weeks, but as residents anxiously waited for news the conflict ran-on for five long months as the city was reduced to rubble through intense ground battles and sustained aerial bombardment. The scale of devastation was immense, as security forces engaged in some of the heaviest fighting witnessed in the Philippines since World War Two.

Whilst the small number of civilians trapped in the conflict zone endured a desperate daily battle for survival, dodging bullets and launching daring attempts to escape from their captors, those who had already managed to flee to safety were confronted with a new set of dire challenges.

In overcrowded evacuation centres, health became a major concern as cases of fever, diarrhoea and respiratory illnesses soared. Inadequate sanitation facilities increased the risk of waterborne diseases, whilst safe drinking water was in short supply. Dwindling food supplies led to a rise in malnutrition among the elderly and young children, many of whom remain out of education as twenty of Marawi’s 69 schools were totally destroyed. Most other schools suffered extensive damage and remain closed.

The sheer extent of the unfolding humanitarian emergency overwhelmed local authorities, who were ill-prepared to cope with the burgeoning crisis. The siege of Marawi not only destroyed homes but also jobs, livelihoods and entire communities, prompting a sudden exodus with little prior warning.

Some families from the outer-regions of the city were able to return home in the weeks immediately following the ‘termination of military operations’ in the city by the armed forces in late-October. A few thousand others have been moved to temporary resettlement villages built by the government, the largest of which is in Sagonsongan and will eventually be able to accommodate 4,600 families.

Yet the majority of Marawians remain displaced. According to the latest figures released by the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) only 87,306 individuals from 16,930 families have returned to Marawi so-far, leaving another 266,615 residents from 53,323 families still without a home.

Contamination of the main battle area with IEDs planted by the militants and unexploded ordnance (UXO) from military air raids presents the most immediate barrier to return. Task Force Bangon Marawi (TFBN), the multi-agency group set-up by the government to co-ordinate the rehabilitation effort, is currently working alongside military engineers to clear the hard-hit central Banggolo area.

As of the end of December, TFBN said 30% of the area had been cleared with the army having removed 2,853 items of UXO and 415 IEDs from the ruins. Military spokesman Col. Romeo Brawner says clearing operations in the area, which covers 24 of the city’s 96 villages, are scheduled to be completed by mid-April. Even then it will not be safe for residents to return permanently, only to pay a fleeting visit.

The government estimates that full reconstruction and rehabilitation of the city will take up to four years and cost PHP50bn, yet some have predicted the final bill will surpass PHP150bn. International organizations such as the World Bank and foreign governments including Australia, China, Japan and the US have all pledged financial support, whilst President Duterte has allocated an initial PHP10bn for the rehabilitation of Marawi in this year’s budget. Despite these commitments, little can be done to speed up recovery and get residents home sooner.

More however could be done to support Marawi’s displaced inhabitants while they are living in a state of flux. Nine months after the siege began host families are still struggling with the burden of care, whilst the basic needs of many IDPs staying in evacuation centres are still not being met. It is now clear that most evacuees will not be able to return home for years, prompting calls for greater support.

In the present void, resentment and anger are rising. This could play directly into the hands of the very people who drove Marawi’s residents from their homes. The Philippine military has already voiced concerns over radicalization in the provinces surrounding Marawi, warning that ISIS-linked groups such as the Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters (BIFF) and remnants of the Maute group are actively seeking to recruit new fighters, first targeting young men from the most marginalized communities.

Marawi’s residents are eager to return home, but their city has been reduced to rubble and large parts of it will remain uninhabitable for the foreseeable future. The conflict will leave lasting scars not only on the landscape, but also in the minds of those who witnessed the horrors inflicted by ISIS and those who have lived through its aftermath in desperate conditions.

By extending Martial Law until the end of 2018 and looking to bolster the military’s presence in Mindanao, as well as reaffirming his commitment to pass a law creating a new autonomous Muslim region in the south, President Duterte is at least attempting to ensure that the siege of Marawi is not repeated elsewhere in the region whilst concurrently dealing a blow to ISIS’ recruitment ambitions.

Yet with an eye on securing peace for the future, Duterte’s administration is arguably not doing enough in the present to help Marawi’s displaced residents recover and get their shattered lives back on track. Despite starting the process of rebuilding the city and providing various means of assistance to IDPs, the state’s response has been criticized in some quarters as being too slow and inequitable.

The void is being filled by NGOs and the charitable nature of victims’ friends and families. Yet as time passes and funding dries-up, these additional resources will likely wear thin. Duterte must hope that radical groups are not able to also fill part of the void and take advantage of the situation.

Just like the siege itself, the path home for Marawi’s displaced inhabitants is set to be long, arduous and fraught with setbacks.

“The concept of strategic culture captures the essence of inter-State behaviour, looking at the set of preferences that states have in using one foreign policy tool or another.” — Jack Snyder

Like individuals, Nation-States also bear distinctive personality based on its shared historical memories that has been shaping its identity, consciously or unconsciously since time immemorial. The foreign policy of a Nation-State is therefore, an extension of its own distinctive personality personified in the global realm of world politics.

The identity of a Nation-State that has been shaping its unique identity or personality or the way it is perceived by other Nation-States is nothing but the sum total of its shared historical memories that come to the making of its culture. This ‘unique culture’ act as the DNA of a Nation-State and its own foreign policy formulation is nothing but the exact mirror or replica of this DNA, that can broadly be called as its ‘strategic culture’ that plays the most pivotal role in the making of its foreign policy.

It also provide answers as to why India has always been ‘reactionary’ (i.e. react/act after an event) in its security strategy, not having ‘pre-emptive’ posturing like the US or Isreal?

As we are witnessing 70 years of operation of Indian foreign policy (IFP), it is but natural for any curious onlookers of IFP to ask some pertinent questions about what has been going into the making of the foreign policy of world’s largest democracy having the oldest civilizational history of mankind on this planet earth. How the IFP has been conceptualized from the Nehruvian years to the present day of a de-ideolized and globalized interconnected interdependent world? Why India chose to be non-aligned in the good old Cold War days? Why India went nuclear in 1974 and again in 1998? Why IFP was reoriented in the post cold war days via adopting various futuristic ‘grand strategies’ like ‘Look West’ and ‘Look East’, now transforming into Act East and Act West policies?

The word ‘strategy’ is ubiquitous and can be found in all walks of life. The word ‘strategy’ has military connotations, because it derives from the Greek word “strategos” which means “to plan the destruction of one’s enemies through effective use of resources.”

The term ‘Strategic Culture’ was coined by Jack Snyder in 1977, while analyzing erstwhile Soviet Russia’s military strategy, where he felt that the origins of Soviet strategic thinking had a deeply rooted influence from Soviet history and the leaders of the Soviet Union did not behave according to any “rational choice theory”. Snyder defined strategic culture as “the sum total of ideals, conditional emotional responses, and patterns of habitual behaviour that members of the national strategic community have acquired through instruction or imitation and share with each other with regard to [nuclear] strategy.”

‘Strategic culture’ is an existential reality like real-politik . Nation-states do have established notions and habits regarding security policy, but that does not mean that these must play the primary role in guiding said policy. An elite Indian Foreign Service (IFS) mandarin may have an agenda item that would be considered counter-cultural for that nation (as has often been argued regarding pre-emption for the United States) but are able to push it through the resistant mechanisms of strategic culture; nonetheless.

With the winding down of the Cold War, India started to recast its approach to the world. In order to understand India then opening up, the US Department of Defense commissioned the RAND Corporation to do a project on “India’s Future Strategic Role and Power Potential”. The project leader was George K. Tanham. His influential finding, disseminated in an essay, “Indian Strategic Thought: An Interpretive Essay” (1992), was that India lacked a strategic culture. Tanham attributed limitations in strategic thinking to India lacking political unity historically; the Hindu concept of time discouraging planning; the cultural view of the mystery of existence; the fact that Indian‟s were largely kept out of strategic circles by the British; and, lastly, to little interest in strategic planning in the elite ever since.

In the realist narrative India is a ‘Soft State’ (a term coined by economist Gunnar Myrdal in “Asian Drama”, 1968) and ‘weak power’. This betrays its lack of an understanding of and felicity in power play between nations.

It is a commonplace of the discourse on Indian security that India does not have a strategic culture and that Indians have historically not thought consistently and rigorously about strategy. At the very least, Indians have not recorded their strategic thinking in written texts, the only exception being the ancient classic i.e. Arthasastra. That India does not have a tradition of strategic thinking is not altogether incorrect.

On the other hand, since India’s independence in 1947, it has had to deal with a number of security challenges, and the volume of writings on these issues is enormous. Newspaper and magazine commentary is probably the largest single source on Indian thinking. In addition, the strategic community has produced a corpus of scholarly writings on security.

Finally, there are the texts of Indian prime ministers and other leaders who have over the years written and spoken publicly on security policy.
India’s ‘strategic culture’ is based on two broad based contours of philosophical foundation with its own belief-system with commensurate instrumental implications. The belief-system of its philosophical base includes certain age old guiding views viz sacred permeates Indian identity, goals are timeless, not time bound, India’s status is a given, not earned, knowledge of truth is the key to action and power and world order is hierarchical, not egalitarian.

India’s ‘strategic culture’ is the synthesis of its various historic experiences and ideas of different schools. Existing and developing as it had been since the beginning of the history of its political civilization, it was only after independence that India’s ‘strategic culture’ came into its mature form since only then were Indians able to systematically address its strategic issues according to strategic needs of their modern Nation-State.

Centered upon New Delhi’s South Block atop Raisina hill, contemporary India’s strategic culture mainly meant Nehruvian legacy i.e. Jawaharlal Nehru’s views about security and the world, in a rather long time (1947-’64). Later on, with the weakening of the dominance of Nehruvian legacy, India’s ‘strategic culture’ experienced constant changes and now even more under PM Narendra Modi’s politico-cultural and economic vision for making a ‘New India’ but the spirit or soul remained unchanged being unalterable like ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’, ‘Sarve Bhavantu Sukhina’, ‘Kriyantu Vishwam Aryam’, etc.

To conclude succinctly, India’s security strategy, to some degree, changed correspondingly, yet it remained stable due to the great influences of ‘Indic culture’ cum Nehruvian heritage in the making of India’s foreign policy. The ending of the Cold War witnessed that Nehruvian legacy, being more idealistic and less realistic, challenged by new strategic concepts, gradually lost its predominance, as ‘Bhisma-Pitamah’ of India’s strategic thinking late K. Subrahmanyam, too agrees. The evolution of India’s ‘strategic culture’ finally resulted in the fundamental changes of India’s security strategy, her nuclear strategy in particular which has profound bearing on her foreign policy reorientation in a post Cold War era.

*Sourabh Jyoti Sharma, Assistant Professor, Gauhati University, D.K. College

Joint space activities at the European level date back to the 1960s, with the creation of two organizations, working with different principles: the European Space Research Organization (ESRO) and the European Launcher Development Organization (ELDO). In both cases, the goal was to pool resources of different European countries to conduct projects that were too ambitious for a single country.

ESRO was an integrated structure, with funding according to the GDP, while in ELDO each participating country developed independently a part of the Europa launchers. ESRO was a success while ELDO failed, and in 1975 a single European Space Agency (ESA) was created on the basis of ESRO and ELDO, working as an integrated structure like ESRO, but with more flexibility in financing – space research being funded according to GDP whereas space systems and launcher programs were financed only by the countries choosing to participate.

Since 1975 ESA has enjoyed a great success in pooling together the means of many countries. It must however be underlined that ESA is not an organization making European space policy. It implements decisions taken by its member states, at the level of ESA Council meetings at the Ministerial level, and manages the corresponding programs.

Additionally, ESA has been created by its own treaty and is not formally within the perimeter of the European Union. Like other organizations such as CERN, it is an intergovernmental agency, and some of its member states, like Switzerland, do not belong to the EU. Therefore, the question of the definition of a common European space policy, and the related issue of the relationships between ESA and the EU (and its executive body the European Commission) have been raised since the 1980s.

The first document referring to a common European space policy emerged in 1988. That year, the European Commission stated that the EU must create a common space policy between national activities to boost technological innovation and better ensure security. Today, the European Space Agency (ESA) is made up of 22 member states, which all contribute funds and intellectual resources. ESA’s budget for 2017 got a 9.5% increase, reaching 5.75 billion euros. There are seven ESA location sites spread across Europe, with different functions, such as the European Astronauts Center in Cologne and the European Space Astronomy Centre in Madrid. ESA also has liaison offices in the USA, Russia and several ground tracking stations in many other parts of the world.

Although it is made up of many members, one political assumption has shaped ESA’s behavior. The assumption is that in order to be a powerful space actor, Europe must have autonomous, balanced and comprehensive (covering all sectors) space programs. For Europe, avoiding dependence on other space powers for access to space is seen as a crucial strategic objective. Several ESA projects, which will be outlined below, demonstrate this goal. Member states are also committed to using satellites in a collaborative manner and under common EU standards (both for competition and financial regulations).

The other strategic objective of ESA has been to set a precedent in the use of space for peaceful scientific advancement. This process began with Horizon 2000, which was the first long-term comprehensive program outlining the future direction of ESA in space sciences. It focused on solar system sciences, as well as astrophysics and astronomy. In 1987, the European Union ratified the Single European Act, which in Title VI enlarged the European market community to include research and technological development, as well as market space objectives such as sharing standards, intellectual resources, trade and education. ESA also looks at space from the view of commercial interests, something which is normal in any democracy with strong market players vying for influence. Yet it remains a pioneer of peaceful and altruistic scientific exploration in space, setting a stable behavioral precedent for nations new to space investigation.

Projects For Autonomy In Space

EU crisis management in space consists of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, implemented by the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (currently Federica Mogherini, who is also Vice-President of the Commission) and member states. Currently, ESA, representing the will of its member states, is concentrating its efforts on becoming more independent in space and increase its autonomy in other spheres – for example in security, environmental and economic affairs. This trend can be demonstrated by taking a closer look at a few projects.

The most well-known European project which aims to increase autonomy is the development of an independent global satellite navigation system (GNSS), known as Galileo. Galileo is the only civilian controlled GNSS, and it is the result of cooperation between ESA and the European Commission. In December 2016, the Galileo satellite navigation system began operating initial services, with over 18 satellites providing positioning, timing and navigation information around the globe. The system is fully interoperable with GPS, and its coverage will increase geo-location precision ten-fold, with the aim of enhancing navigation services, infrastructural synchronization, security for public services (via robust encryption) and location accuracy for search and rescue situations – all free of charge. Galileo will also hold great scientific value. It will be able to gather information about environmental events, such as tracking deforestation or rising sea levels, shifting polar ice caps, biomass density and even soil moisture. In fact, Galileo possesses more functions than the US Global Positioning System (GPS). The entire system is scheduled to be fully operational by 2020, breaking the US monopoly on the GNSS market and increasing the EU’s economic and military independence.

Indeed, possessing an autonomous GNSS system means European states must no longer rely on GPS for several critical economic functions, which contributed around 6-7% of EU GDP. For example, aviation, communication, precision agriculture, financial transactions all depend on the precise time-keeping functions provided by satellites. The network also allows the EU to partake in the lucrative business of selling bandwidth for telecommunications and boosts the quality of services on the ground. Galileo does not come without risks, however. The system – which was initially planned at a time when cyber-attacks were not a large concern – uses binary encryption and is therefore vulnerable to jamming and spoofing. As Europeans rely more on Galileo’s services, the more important goal will be to take measures to defend against cyber-threats.

In addition, Europe has several operational launchers, including Ariane – 5, which has been developed with ESA funding by Europe’s space industry, and is the most-used European rocket launcher (averaging six or seven launches per year) and is pivotal to maintaining autonomous access to space for European nations. The same scheme has been at work for the development of a smaller launcher, Vega, with a large role for Italy. Europe cooperates also with Russia in using the Soyuz. In December 2014, the ESA Council decided to develop Ariane – 6 as its next launcher, to maintain Europe’s place in the commercial launch service market and to better equip European missions. Ariane-6 first flight is planned for mid-2020.

ESA has also placed significant funds – in partnership with Russia – into its ExoMars mission. The project aims to deploy a rover on the surface of the Red Planet, which will then collect and analyze samples from 2m beneath the planet’s surface, in the hope of finding evidence of previous life. Its first attempt to land hardware on Mars – the Schiaparelli lander – failed due to a computer glitch during the landing sequence, causing the device to crash land. Despite this first disappointment, the project has secured funding to carry out its activities until 2020, the proposed date for landing the rover on Mars. Success would make ESA the only space organization aside from NASA to successfully land hardware on Mars.

Furthermore, ESA has several future projects on-going or planned, alone or in cooperation with other organizations. An important case is in the field of space meteorology, for which ESA provides its technical expertise to another European intergovernmental organization, EUMETSAT, which provides nonstop satellite data on weather and climate. The Meteosat Third Generation (MTG) is a project to be completed in 2020 with the launch of six new satellites, which will “monitor the atmosphere, ocean and climate” for the European Union.

In space sciences, the “Cosmic Vision,” which outlines ESA objectives until 2025, has clarified the main themes of ESA’s future research inquiry. The Cosmic Vision themes are: planets and life, the solar system, fundamental laws, the universe, and the hot and energetic universe.

Examples of ESA’s growing space capabilities include the Athena advanced telescope. Athena, to be launched in 2028, will “address fundamental open questions in astrophysics”. The telescope will observe materials just before they are consumed by black holes, to measure the environmental conditions around black holes and the energy capacity of the universe. While initially a similar project had been planned with NASA and Japan, ESA decided to continue autonomously due to NASA’s changing priorities.

Research Projects

Increased autonomy is one facet of European common space projects. ESA’s identity in space is equally and distinctly defined by scientific pursuits, which constitute an impressive list of projects. ESA is thoroughly committed to the use of space for peaceful scientific research and it partners with many other space agencies in the pursuit of cutting-edge projects and discoveries. Research areas include biology, environmental sciences, physics, radiation sciences and technology. Like every other space agency that is considering longer space flights in the future, ESA is interested in the effects of space on the human body and mind. ESA has used the Kubik incubator system to conduct cell biology experiments inside the International Space Station (ISS) over the last ten years.

Additionally, it is also interested in stem cell research to find ways to mediate bone marrow loss that occurs during space flight and collaborates with NASA to research blood rushes to the head and decreased blood pressure experienced by astronauts in space. This experiment is conducted on rats inside the Space Shuttle Myocyte.

ESA also experiments with growing plants in space, as an important step in longer space missions or even future colonization attempts. As plants need light and their roots follow gravity, the question of how dark, zero-gravity environments affect plant growth is a fascinating one. The ESA GRAVI-1 experiment proved that plants react to low gravity levels and the Tropi experiments showed that plants react to red light.

Additionally, ESA focuses on life support with the Micro-Ecological Life Support System Alternative team, which states that: “by finely tuning how microbiological cells, chemicals, catalysts, algae, bacteria and plants interact we could process waste to deliver never-ending fresh supplies of oxygen, water and food”.

In the realm of physics, space can serve as a convenient laboratory which allows for controlled environments unlike any on Earth. For example, scientists can conduct experiments on fluids, metals or plasmas in zero gravity. Alloys are an important component in the construction of jet engines or X-ray detectors. ESA scientists are exploring the effects of microgravity on such alloys. ESA is also interested in plasma research for medicinal and microchip purposes.

Outer space is also incredibly useful for studying radiation – its localization outside of Earth’s protective layers makes it possible to get a closer look at the sun and cosmic radiation. Radiation is important for future space travel, as astronauts get bombarded with far more radiation than we do on Earth. Understanding these effects is thus crucial to the success of longer space flights. ESA has a solar facility on the Columbus module which has been studying solar radiation since 2008. This ongoing project will allow for a greater understanding of solar flares and sun spots and will also work to improve current climate models.

Finally, ESA is testing new technologies in space. For example, the Meteron project (Multipurpose End-To-End Robotic Operations Network) is being tested inside the ISS to assist its future missions. This project investigates remotely operated robots that connect astronauts on the ISS with machines on Earth. These robots can simplify future missions by scouting good landing areas and improving communication networks over vast distances in space.

ESA technology in space additionally benefits many systems on Earth. The Vessel ID system, for example, monitors marine traffic, and ESA is hoping to develop its own maritime surveillance service, not just for economic reasons, but also to better protect the environment and monitor fishing in protected areas. Such endeavors can benefit us all.

The development of ESA research projects also represents an important diversification in global space investigation. Indeed, whilst NASA focused, until 2017, principally on landing humans on Mars, ESA is considering the use of a moon base, where several states could continue to cooperate and conduct space exploration, in light of the finite lifespan of the ISS. The United States decided in 2017 to follow the same path and to give priority to a return to the Moon in the 2020s, and the “Moon Village” concept of ESA fits very well with this new American strategy.

Whereas some experts have noted that such an endeavor would incur hefty costs, others have applauded ESA’s ambitions to promote peaceful collaboration in outer space. Such plans indicate that space exploration is moving away from a situation of domination by a few select nations and organizations.

Implications For Outer Space Security

Although the European Space Agency is made up of more than 20 member states, it nonetheless possesses what could be considered a strategic culture, in the sense that it has uniform values and outlines some core objectives to maximize its security and its position. ESA has two primary values which act as guidelines. One is the creation of European autonomous space system, in order to create greater security and economic independence from bigger space powers. The other is the use of space for scientific experiments in numerous fields, which can benefit all humanity and sets a precedent for using space for peaceful and progressive scientific means.

From a geopolitical perspective, the possession of a sophisticated space program constitutes a source of national pride, enhanced military capacity and a potential means of increasing a nation’s geopolitical standing in international affairs. Although ESA is a tool at the service of its member states, which pursue their own domestic goals for outer space activity within ESA framework, or at national levels, it interestingly serves an example of the collaborative development of a space program which requires the coordination of shared strategic goals. This is a reality which holds interesting implications for outer space security.

Significantly, there is a now a key grouping of countries committed to the peaceful use of outer space technology for research, giving hope to those who advocate the cooperative use of space, instead of its potential weaponization and fragmentation. ESA’s commitment to outer space research could hold numerous benefits for mankind’s efforts to monitor and mitigate the effects of global warming, improve health care and respond to health crises. Finally, achieving European independence and autonomy from larger space programs would constitute a significant shift in the geopolitical complexion of outer space security. One can also add that ESA, as a very efficient tool to federate means of a large number of countries wanting to define and pursue common goals in space, can become a model for a future World Space Agency.

Yet faced with rapidly evolving global security issues, it will be interesting to see whether the national security priorities of ESA member states allow the agency to remain committed to peaceful and research-oriented goals.

*Prof Nayef Al-Rodhan, (http://www.sustainablehistory.com/ and
https://oxford.academia.edu/NayefAlRodhan), Honorary Fellow at St. Antony’s College, University of Oxford, and Senior Fellow and Head of the Geopolitics and Global Futures Programme at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy, Geneva, Switzerland. Author of “Meta-Geopolitics of Outer Space: An Analysis of Space Power, Security and Governance,” (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012). Tweets at @SustainHistory

By Baria Alamuddin*

For Londoners, one of the most notorious events of 2006 was the fatal poisoning of former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko. Not only was this bold attack by Russian operatives on British streets a psychological shock, but the botched use of polonium left traces throughout the city and exposed the public to dangerous doses of this radioactive material. History appears to be repeating itself in 2018, with an attack against another Russian former double agent in remarkably similar circumstances.

Sergei Skripal was jailed for treason in Russia in 2006, having been accused of passing on state secrets to British intelligence. He relocated to the UK after being released as part of a 2010 spy swap. It is established convention among global intelligence agencies that individuals benefitting from such deals are subsequently untouchable; although Putin darkly warned that any traitor would “come to regret his choice thousands of times over.”

Having settled with his family in the quiet cathedral town of Salisbury, Skripal must have assumed that the world had forgotten about him and he could live out his retirement in peace. Indeed, CCTV footage and eyewitness accounts from prior to the attack show him dining in a restaurant and shopping leisurely with his daughter.

Skripal and his daughter were later discovered collapsed on a bench, having been attacked with a deadly nerve agent; a substance probably manufactured by a state with chemical weapons capabilities. One of the first policemen on the scene was also rushed to hospital in a critical condition and military teams specializing in chemical contamination were deployed. At the time of writing, Skripal and his daughter remain dangerously ill.

Although Moscow predictably denied involvement, a prominent state TV presenter had a chilling message: “I have a warning for anyone who dreams of such a career… The profession of a traitor is one of the most dangerous in the world.” He continued: “Don’t choose England as a place to live… In recent years there have been too many strange incidents with a grave outcome.”

This attack follows a succession of recent suspicious deaths of UK-based Russian dissidents and their relatives. One report identified 14 such incidents. This is in addition to numerous politicians and media figures who fell foul of Putin and were murdered in Russia itself, including journalists Anna Politkovskaya and Anastasia Baburova, and activist Natalya Estemirova. It is impossible to attribute responsibility for all these deaths, although observers note that Putin’s hard-man image is reinforced by being seen to act with impunity against his enemies, wherever they may be found.

Of arguably more menacing geopolitical import is the growing flood of evidence concerning how Moscow has subverted election processes across the Western world. If Putin was merely endeavoring to promote preferred candidates, that would be one thing. However, this meddling has mendaciously sought to stoke social tensions and undermine public trust in democracy itself. Fake social media accounts have incited ethnic groups against one other and encouraged certain demographics not to vote at all. The hacking of political parties’ computer systems, then leaking incriminating data online, has become standard procedure.

Investigations have shown how Russian operatives were particularly active in the crucial swing state of Florida during the 2016 US presidential election. Elaborate fake identities and bank accounts were created. For example, these professional saboteurs staged pro-Trump rallies and paid activists to build giant cages containing mannequins of Hillary Clinton, while crowds were goaded into chanting “lock her up.” Putin felt particular hostility toward Clinton, who he saw as instrumental in measures against Moscow during her time in the State Department.

In Eastern Europe (notably Poland, Hungary and Ukraine), as well as bank-rolling far-right candidates, Russian agents have mobilized minority factions in neighboring states against each other. They staged arson attacks against political headquarters, vandalism campaigns, and fascist rallies. Moscow may not be solely responsible for the rebirth of the far-right, but it has expended considerable energy in stimulating these trends. In a vicious self-feeding circle, the cultivation of white supremacist American groups fuelled momentum among like-minded European factions, all of whom received backing from Russia. Italy this month was the latest election where a majority of votes were won by far-right and populist factions, with evidence of Russian meddling behind the scenes. The lights of liberal Europe are going out one by one.

Americans have been stunned by their president’s reluctance to take action against Russian meddling. The White House went to extraordinary lengths to block a package of Congress sanctions against Moscow, and Trump took great pains to stress Putin’s denials of meddling following their meetings. Trump is understandably reluctant for the legitimacy of his presidency to be called into question. However, Americans are increasingly wondering what kind of “kompromat” Putin is wielding over the leader of the free world.

Following Putin’s announcement of an “invincible” new generation of nuclear weapons (the accompanying video appeared to portray a nuclear strike against Florida), American military experts expressed horror at their leadership’s lack of Russia strategy. One Western diplomat told me after emerging ashen-faced from a briefing by a Russian counterpart that “Moscow’s capabilities are real” and I should go and enjoy myself “before Armageddon.” Putin promised “global catastrophe” in the event of any nuclear confrontation, chillingly asking: “Why do we need a world if Russia ceases to exist?”

One general stressed before a US Senate hearing that Russia saw no negative consequences for its actions: “They don’t fear us,” he warned. Senators furthermore questioned the chief of US Cyber Command Adm. Mike Rogers about the failure to respond to Russian cyberattacks, particularly given evidence that Moscow was already escalating its activities toward the 2018 mid-term elections. Rogers replied that he would need a policy decision from the president for such actions. Asked if he had been granted such authority, Rogers simply responded: “No, I have not.”

As both a permanent member of the UN Security Council and a major protagonist in undermining global security, Russia has inflicted fatal damage upon international law institutions. In Syria, Ukraine, Georgia and other states where Moscow holds a stake, it has repeatedly wielded its veto to prevent any international response. Russia’s dominance of Syrian airspace has wrought a particularly grizzly toll on citizens, while the ongoing slaughter in the Damascus suburb of Eastern Ghouta would have been inconceivable without Russian cover — on the ground and via diplomatic channels.

Are we entering a new Cold War? With Putin next week almost certain to be elected for a fourth six-year term, relations between Russia and Western democracies can only worsen. However, the lethargic and hesitant response to this threat entices Moscow toward an even more bellicose global posture.

In its lethal actions against individual dissidents, and its broader efforts to sabotage liberal democracy, Putin’s Russia appears more ruthless and unconstrained than ever before. This would have aroused immense concern even if Western nations were united in a common strategy to contain and confront Putin’s aggression.

However, with a US administration that appears beholden to Moscow, and European leaders standing like terrified rabbits caught in the headlights of an oncoming truck, there are scant prospects of a credible deterrent to convince Putin that his destabilizing actions have meaningful consequences.

• Baria Alamuddin is an award-winning journalist and broadcaster in the Middle East and the UK. She is editor of the Media Services Syndicate and has interviewed numerous heads of state.

After the historic news of imminent Trump-Kim talks, some in the US are casting doubts that the president, with his reality TV skills, is able to pull off diplomacy talks, while Trump’s team say they won’t turn into “theater.”

President Donald Trump accepted an invitation to meet with Kim Jong-un, after the latter agreed to halt further nuclear tests, and said later that such a meeting could result in “the greatest deal for the world,” or end without an agreement.

Trump’s critics, from establishment to media, have questioned Trump’s resolve and competence to pull that off.

We have to realize there’s nothing more complex than nuclear negotiations,” the former deputy national security adviser to President Barack Obama, Ben Rhodes, said. “There’s no place in the world more volatile than the Korean peninsula. You cannot just approach this like a reality show. This has to be something where you bring in the experts, you invest in the same type of capabilities in our government that we’ve seen this administration turn their back on: Science and diplomacy.”

Central Intelligence Agency Director Mike Pompeo said the planned meeting is not a show. “President Trump isn’t doing this for theater. He’s going to solve a problem,” he told Fox News Sunday.

The US Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin reiterated earlier statements by the White House, that Washington would make no concessions before talks with North Korea and would maintain “maximum pressure” on the country.

“Now we have a situation where the president is using diplomacy but we’re not removing the maximum pressure campaign,” Mnuchin told NBC’s “Meet the Press” program on Sunday.

The US sees denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula as an ultimate goal of direct talks between Trump and Kim, he said.

“There shouldn’t be confusion,” Mnuchin stated. “The president has made it clear that the conditions are that there’s no nuclear testing and there’s no missiles and those will be a condition through the meeting.”

We have to realize there’s nothing more complex than nuclear negotiations,” the former deputy national security adviser to President Barack Obama, Ben Rhodes, said. “There’s no place in the world more volatile than the Korean peninsula. You cannot just approach this like a reality show. This has to be something where you bring in the experts, you invest in the same type of capabilities in our government that we’ve seen this administration turn their back on: Science and diplomacy.”

Central Intelligence Agency Director Mike Pompeo said the planned meeting is not a show. “President Trump isn’t doing this for theater. He’s going to solve a problem,” he told Fox News Sunday.

The US Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin reiterated earlier statements by the White House, that Washington would make no concessions before talks with North Korea and would maintain “maximum pressure” on the country.

“Now we have a situation where the president is using diplomacy but we’re not removing the maximum pressure campaign,” Mnuchin told NBC’s “Meet the Press” program on Sunday.

The US sees denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula as an ultimate goal of direct talks between Trump and Kim, he said.

“There shouldn’t be confusion,” Mnuchin stated. “The president has made it clear that the conditions are that there’s no nuclear testing and there’s no missiles and those will be a condition through the meeting.”

There is substantial evidence that the so-called Shirazi cult, whose members stormed Iran’s embassy in London on Friday, operates under the auspices of Britain, Iran’s Prosecutor General Mohammad Jafar Montazeri said.

“There are many clues that the Shirazi cult is under the aegis of Britain, as this country seeks to repeat what happened (in Iran) in the era of Constitutional Revolution,” Montazeri said at a television talk show on Saturday night, referring to the British interference in Iran amid a movement in the 1900s that led to the establishment of parliament.

Highlighting the indisputable link between the Shirazi cult and the UK, the Iranian prosecutor general decried the London Police’s handling of Friday’s attack on the Iranian embassy, saying the police forces were only watching the trespassers and did not intervene even when the Iranian flag was taken down.

He further lashed out at the Shirazi cult for provoking rift and tension among Muslims, saying the cult’s insulting comments about Islamic sanctities prove that it is being operated by the enemies of Islam.

Montazeri also noted that leaders of the cult, based in the city of Qom, have been already given warnings to avoid improper and divisive measures, stressing that the Judiciary will take strong action against any cult or group trying to defy the law in Iran.

In a statement on Friday, Iran’s Foreign Ministry condemned the attack, during which four members of Shirazi cult, dressed in black, raided the Iranian embassy in London, climbed on to a first-floor balcony of the building, took down the Iranian flag, and waved flags of their radical cult in an apparent protest against the Islamic Republic.

The Foreign Ministry also summoned Britain’s Ambassador to Tehran Nicholas Hopton to express Tehran’s protest over the attack.

It seems a long time ago, but I still remember the wonderful stories that my grandmother once told me when I was a child; the story of one thousand and one nights, the Prophets companions, and the most reminiscent is the story of Ibn Battuta, a geographer and explorer who lived in the medieval period.

Ibn Battuta was born on February 24, 1304 and died at the age of 65 in Marinid, Morocco, his homeland.

The evidence to corroborate the relationship of Islam in Morocco and Indonesia can be seen from the equation of wooden carving ornaments, which are rich in color on the roofs of some mosques in Morocco and with those of cultural heritage buildings in Indonesia; such as Sunan Gunung Jati Mosque in Cirebon and Said Naum Mosque in Jakarta.

The close relationship between Morocco and Indonesia dates back to Battuta’s visit to Tanah Rencong, Aceh in 1345. Batutta met the Sultan of Pasai who was at that time ruled by Sultan Al-Malik Al-Zahir Jamal-ad-Din.

Batutta wrote in his diary that the island of Sumatra is rich in camphor, betel nut, cloves, and tin. Ibn Batutta lived in a wooden house in the Sultanate of Pasai for two weeks before continuing his journey to China and had made a stopover in Malacca for several days using one of the sailing ships owned by Sultan of Pasai who also provided all the equipment for this Moroccan explorer.

Although, many people say that Morocco is distant from modernity as in the big cities of the world, in fact this country is unique. It is located on the African continent, thus making the country of 33.8 million inhabitants rich in culture mixed with values that are standing still in there. The very tough Berber tribes who live in the Sahara Desert in the western part of the country are native Moroccan.

There are about six languages used by the Moroccan population such as; Arabic, Berber, Arabic-Morocco, Arab-Hassanya, and French, which is a relic of colonialism and almost all levels of society can communicate with the six languages.

Ouadia Benabdellah is the Ambassador of the Kingdom of Morocco who has been appointed to a diplomatic post in Jakarta since November 11, 2016. The 58-year-old man feels obliged to establish a harmonious bilateral relationship between Morocco and Indonesia, with all the challenges.

Friendly residents of Jakarta, hot and humid air, and heavy traffic are the first impression when Benabdellah sets foot in the capital. After a few months, he already felt like Indonesian people in general, who are accustomed to the street conditions in Jakarta which are almost always crowd every day.

Just like food, Benabdellah who always looks cheerful can even be laughed when he is asked where is his favorite vacation spot in Indonesia, although he mentioned Lake Toba, Bali, Lombok, Yogyakarta, and Bandung and perhaps the next destination will be Garut in West Java.

Similar to Indonesia, the majority of Moroccan people are 99% Muslim and with the motto of God, Country, and King, this God-blessed country upholds the royal institution which is currently ruled by King Mohammed VI Saadeddine Othmani.

Morocco is also called as Al-Maghribi, which in Arabic means the place where the sun sets. There is naturally a reason why this country is called Al-Maghribi, especially it is called because of the beauty of the sunset, clearly visible from the beach tips located on the edge of the Mediterranean Sea.

Rabat is the capital of Morocco and like the capitals in other countries, the rhythm of life is always interesting, especially due to the acculturation of culture in Morocco; Berber has a strong traditional side mixed with European culture. The capital city of Rabat is crowded with office buildings in beautiful Art Deco-style architecture, luxury hotels as a holiday stop, as well as fine dining restaurants and classy places to visit.

Casablanca is the largest city fortified sitting next to the Atlantic Ocean. Casablanca is also a port and commercial city located in the western part of Morocco. The remains of French colonial legacy are evident and Casablanca is even called a city that has high artistic works of art, considering many of Art Deco’s charming heritages in the form of buildings that now have been turned into Art Galleries and Museums, and in addition to the beautiful beaches.

Casablanca is decorated with charming Mauresque-style buildings that are a blend of Moorish and European Art Deco style. The Moors came from the middle-ages and lived in Al-Andalus (read: Spain), Morocco, and also Africa. The majestic Hassan Mosque is the most beautiful Icon of Casablanca, completed in 1933, with a 210-meter-high minaret over which a laser decoration is directed to the city of Mecca. The city with a population of 3.36 million people truly a pamper to the travelers who go there with many good things that deserve to be collected as a typical souvenir from the Berber land.

Casablanca was originally founded by a Spanish merchant in 1575 at the site of a village called Anfa, which was the place the robbers came from the north coast of Morocco. The city that had been devastated by the earthquake in 1755 was rebuilt by Sultan Alawi and now Casablanca is like a beautiful woman who often polishes her face to look more beautiful and the city has grown to become the largest economic and industrial center in Morocco. Behind the city walls, there are brick houses that are settlers of French descent and the narrow streets become an impressive place to explore.

Benabdellah who has given the general lecture at one of the campuses in Malang and Jakarta, told a lot about his beautiful country, which is also one of the fastest growing centers of Sufism, especially in Fez (Fes). Moroccan distance that seems far away in the African continent can certainly be ruled out if the Indonesian people, especially Muslims who want to see closer the authentic Islamic arts and culture that are usually visited in another country when finished performing Umrah, even though it is a relic of the Moroccan.

The long history of the Moroccan Empire and the culture of the nation which is a mixture of Arabs and Berber, the inhabitants of Saharan Africa, as well as European influence, usher Moroccans to a world history recognized by the international community. The Moors ruled the Andalusia region of Spain, from the early eighth century to the end of the fifteenth century, it can be said that Spain was under the rule of the Moors for almost 800 years and left a World cultural Heritage, UNESCO, namely – Alhambra and Mezquita. The influence of Moorish culture reaches far beyond the city and state boundaries; Sevilla, Córdoba, Granada and Cádiz are well known throughout Europe and North Africa as the great learning centers, renowned for the high arts and charming architecture of the houses.

The authenticity of the Moroccan face which also holds the height of the Moor Al-Andalus civilization in Spain will provide historical value to anyone who wants to know and see Morocco up close. The smiling diplomat said clearly to me during a special interview session that took place at his embassy in early January 2018, that there are many beautiful places in Morocco and will be a pity if not visited; such as seaside tours on the outskirts of Mediterranean, religious tours (Sufi tourism), mountain tourism, skiing, health tourism, culinary tours, desert tours, as well as golfing circuits.

Fez is slightly different from Rabat and Casablanca, and Fez is the center of scientists, priests, and craftsmen. Fez is very confident with the history and culture of a city of over one million people. In Fez, there are still about 70,000 people who choose to live in the so-called Medina, which is filled with donkeys as found in the old towns of Central Asia. Fez is one of the religious tourism destinations and there are many Indonesian students studying in this marvelous city, as described by Benabdellah.

The attractiveness of Fez is truly remarkable; long, colorful, unbroken walled alleys leading to a box shape with a beautiful fountain that greeted people’s noses with the aromatic marinated dishes coming from citizen’s homes, rooftops that seem to reach the sky, the craftsmen who never stop creating masterpieces and the open doors which always welcome the guests to admire the beauty of their creation. Fez, really an ideal place to fall in love and even Erwina Wigneswara Pidekso, chief of one of the largest Sharia Banks in Indonesia said she wanted to return to visit Morocco with a million of beauty.

Benabdellah added that the relationship between Morocco and Indonesia is full of history and ambassador who loves jazz and Sufi music wants to deepen the bilateral relations between the two countries, not only in the field of economy or tourism but also in the arts and culture. In July 2017, renowned calligrapher Filali Baba, an artist Henna, and a silver handicraftsman came to Jakarta and demonstrated their skills and received rave reviews from the Indonesian people. The Embassy of the Kingdom of Morocco plans to hold other major events in the coming months, such as performing arts, music, and culinary.

Benabdellah, who also graduated from Business Management from a renowned campus in France, indicated that Morocco wants to improve the field of exports and imports with Indonesia. Morocco still needs more imported Indonesian tea and coffee that have been exported to the world, even since centuries ago. As the world’s number one phosphate producer and exporter, Morocco is always ready to ship it to Indonesia which is looking to develop its agricultural productivity. Of course, there are many business sectors that can be developed together in the future.

As a person who likes to travel to get to know other people up close; their life and their culture, the man who adores blue color told about the famous Argan’s oil. If the Indonesians want to look 15 years younger, then they must go immediately and find the original Argan oil in the corners of the city in Morocco and feel the greatness of the oil that is also used as food spice, especially by the Berber people. The oil contents of high y-tocopherol making Argan oil an alternative medicine for cancer patients. The Moroccan government will even increase Argan oil production from about 2,500 tons to 4,000 tons by 2020.

The governments of both countries give each other eternal memories. If in the South Jakarta there is Casablanca road, then on the busy main road of Rabat city, there is Soekarno Street or Rue Soukarno, located just beside the large post office in Morocco and named in honor of the first President of the Republic of Indonesia who was meritorious while rallying the power of the third world countries in the 1955 Asian-African Conference in Bandung, West Java. Come to Morocco and be ready to fall in love with this fascinating country.

*Nia S. Amira is an Indonesian author, journalist and linguist. She writes on culture, international affairs, multiculturalism and religious studies. Her articles have appeared in over thirty newspapers and digital media that are published in Europe, Asia, and the United States.

(RFE/RL) — The United States remains the world’s top weapons seller, accounting for 34 percent of global arms sales over the past five years, a new study shows.

Russia was the second-largest exporter with about 20 percent global arms deliveries, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) reported on March 11 in its latest overview of global weapons transfers.

The U.S. share of arms sales is up from 30 percent recorded in the 2008-12 period, SIPRI said.

“Based on deals signed during the Obama administration, U.S. arms deliveries in 2013–17 reached their highest level since the late 1990s,’ said Aude Fleurant (EDS: a woman), director of the SIPRI Arms and Military Expenditure Program.

‘These deals and further major contracts signed in 2017 will ensure that the USA remains the largest arms exporter in the coming years,’ she added.

U.S. arms went to at least 98 countries, with a large portion of U.S. exports consisting of combat and transport aircraft, SIPRI said.

The research group said Russia exported weapons to 47 countries as well as to rebel forces in eastern Ukraine, where Moscow-backed separatists are fighting the central government in Kyiv. Overall, Russian arms sales fell 7 percent from the prevoius five-year period.

France was the third-largest exporter with a 6.7 percent share, followed by Germany and China.

SIPRI said it uses a five-year cycle to evaluate global arms sales to even out abnormalities caused by any one big weapons order during a specific year.

Even though pursuing a double policy of promoting Hindutva politics and allowing hate politics targeting Muslims, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi who is on perpetual world tour, also talks about useful issues.

PM Modi has expressed his desire to make solar energy affordable so that common people could adopt solar energy use.

French President Emmanuel Macron is in India in connection with the first summit of the International Solar Alliance (ISA) in New Delhi. ISA, headquartered in Gurgaon near New Delhi, is now a treaty-based inter-governmental organisation that was established following the Paris Declaration as an alliance dedicated to the promotion of solar energy among its member countries.

On his first visit to India after he assumed office in May 2017, French President Emmanuel Macron India and France inked, during just 11 minutes of their talks, total 14 pacts in the areas of railways, education and logistics support between the armed forces of the two nations. The leaders also assured to protect classified information, and discussed ways to enhance cooperation in civil nuclear power.

In this connection, speaking at the founding conference of the International Solar Alliance (ISA), Prime Minister Narendra Modi presented a 10-point action plan that includes making affordable solar technology available to all nations, raising the share of electricity generated from photovoltaic cells in the energy mix, framing regulations and standards, consultancy support for bankable solar projects and creating a network of centres for excellence.

Modi addressed the gathering first summit of the International Solar Alliance (ISA) held on Sunday and co-hosted by President Ram Nath Kovind and his French counterpart Emmanuel Macron saw 23 heads of nations and 10 ministerial representatives in attendance. Modi said that the Vedas consider the Sun the soul of the world and a life nurturer.

Today we need to look at this ancient idea to find a way to combat climate change. India will produce 175 gigawatts of electricity from renewable sources by 2022. Of this, 100 gigawatts will come from solar energy.

India has allowed France to use its airports for military purposes. Terms and conditions are not revealed. India’s greed or nuclear terror goods is well known.

Solar energy can have a variety of uses – agriculture, solar water pumps, clean cooking. The distribution of 28 crore LED bulbs in three years has saved $2 billion and four gigawatts of electricity. *The development of solar energy will not just lead to our prosperity, but will also reduce the carbon footprint of the earth. We must ensure that better and affordable solar technology is available to all. If we link other forms of energy to solar, the results will be even better. We need to encourage innovation in the solar energy sector to find different uses for it. For the good of humanity, we will have to move out of the personal and work as a family to achieve our aim”

PM Modi has also called for concessional and less-risky finances for raising the share of solar electricity in the energy mix and pledged to generate 175 gigawatts (GW) of electricity in India from renewable energy sources by 2022.

For achieving the ISA target of over 1,000 GW of solar generation capacity and mobilization of investment of over USD 1 trillion by 2030, Modi called for concessional financing and less-risky funds being made available for such projects.

India, PM Modiji said, will generated 175 GW of electricity from renewable sources including 100 GW from solar.

As a demonstration of India’s commitment to ISA, Modi said 500 training slots will be created for member countries and a solar technology mission will be started to lead R&D in the sector. ISA secretariat has to be strengthened and made professional, he said, adding that solar energy presents a permanent, affordable and reliable source for meeting energy needs of mankind.

To supplement solar energy generation, India has distributed 28 crore LED bulbs in the last three years which have helped save USD 2 billion and 4 GW of electricity, the prime minister said.

Going by his actions so far, like the black money and demonetization and GST – people of India gained nothing out of all this but the demonetization has harmed the people just like the GST move as they are burdened with more problems and expenditures. Modi considers Indian as being equals of Americans and they have to pay more as the impression goes.

The PM speaks of innovation in solar energy. But the government’s approach is anywhere but being innovative. When it comes to solar energy the government has a blinkered view of encouraging only photovoltaic and selling the country to China. Why is the government blind to CSP technologies which can be indigenized to a much greater extent and generate employment on a much larger scale?

All said and done, if solar energy is subsidized for the poor and common people that would benefit India in a great measure.

But will the USA, now a big strategic partner of India, allow subsidies to be given to the poor?

That is indeed the trillion dollar question.