By Hannah Brockhaus

On Saturday Vatican police arrested former Vatican diplomat Fr. Carlo Alberto Capella, who has been under investigation for the violation of laws concerning the possession of child pornography and its distribution or sale.

Capella was recalled from the U.S. Nunciature in Washington, D.C. in September 2017, after the Vatican was informed Aug. 21, by the U.S. State Department, that there was a “possible violation of laws relating to child pornography images” by a member of the Holy See’s diplomatic corps.

It was stated April 7 that the arrest warrant for Capella was issued at the end of an investigation by the Vatican’s Promoter of Justice. The priest is being held in a cell in the barracks of the Vatican Gendarmerie.

He is being held under paragraph 3 of article 10 of Law 8, which applies the penalty of at least one to five years imprisonment and a fine of 2,500 to 50,000 euro for the distribution, dissemination, transmission, or sale of child pornography, or its possession for these purposes.

According to Saturday’s statement, Capella is also being held under paragraph 5 of article 10 of the law, which indicates that if the amount of pornographic material was “a considerable quantity” the above penalty increases.

Since being recalled, Capella has resided within Vatican City. The State Department’s request in September that the Vatican lift the priest’s diplomatic immunity was declined. However, information regarding the findings of the U.S. State Department was passed along to the Vatican’s Promoter of Justice.

Capella was ordained a priest in Milan in 1993 and entered the diplomatic corps in 2004. He has previously worked as a diplomat in Hong Kong and as the Holy See’s liaison to Italy.

According to Article 4 of Law 8 of the Vatican City State, which was instituted by Pope Francis in 2013, child pornography is defined as “any representation, by whatever means, of a minor engaged in real of simulated explicit sexual activities as well as any representation of the sexual parts of a minor for primarily sexual purposes.”

Law 8 applies even to crimes “committed abroad” by “internationally protected” Vatican citizens.

The possession of child pornography is also considered a “canonical crime” in the Church, and in 2010 Benedict XVI added it to the list of “most grave delicts,” meaning crimes dealt with directly by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and can result in dismissal from the clerical state.

The use of tariffs to address the United States’ trade imbalance with key trade partners will hamper longstanding U.S. economic leadership. Bilateral negotiations with concerned trade partners and WTO mechanisms would provide a less disruptive approach to settling trade disputes. Unilateral imposition of tariffs may invite retaliatory measures and trigger a trade war, which may spiral out of control. Allies and partners may suffer collateral damage, regional and global production chains may be affected, and it may set an unhealthy precedent for other countries to emulate in resolving trade disputes with partners. Against the backdrop of U.S. withdrawal from the TPP and efforts to renegotiate NAFTA, KORUS and the U.S.-Japan FTA, the Trump administration’s tariff policy may only exacerbate doubts about enduring U.S. commitment to uphold established trade regimes.

The steel and aluminum tariffs (and the preceding tariffs on solar panels) were the next big salvo in a protectionist trade policy under the “America First” program. The Trump administration considered this tariff policy a step towards rectifying America’s trade deficit with other countries and reviving American manufacturing. However, although China is the largest producer of steel and aluminum, it is not the main supplier to the United States. The U.S. eventually recalibrated and gave exemptions to allies, giving the impression that China was the real target of the tariffs.

The gains for the U.S. from this tariff imposition are debatable and are unlikely to address the root cause of the trade imbalance, which is structural. Market forces profess no national affinities and investors will go where they can maximize their profits: American companies are no exception. They will invest where they can produce more for less and where a huge market offers enormous opportunities.

The interconnectedness of global production chains means that other countries may be indirectly affected by tariff impositions meant to punish China. Although there is no doubt that intellectual property theft and industrial espionage contributed in diminishing U.S. competitiveness, declining investment in research, development and STEM (sciences, technology, engineering and mathematics) education are also behind the decline of the United States’ competitive edge in technology. While an argument can be made for reviving basic industries such as steel for national security purposes, this runs against the principle of comparative advantage and the United States’ preference for high-value technology goods. The historic U.S. tax reform passed last year was designed to entice both foreign capital and American firms to stay in the United States; initiating a trade war would only serve to heighten risk and uncertainty among investors.

The practice of forcing foreign companies to transfer technology and proprietary secrets in return for market access and other unfair trade practices (e.g. dumping, subsidies, industrial planning, preferential treatment for state-owned enterprises and market restrictions) are cited as the reasons behind the recent reduction of American firms investing in China. Although it remains to be seen how Section 301 tariffs will address these issues, they are seen as a strong message, domestically and internationally, expressing U.S. displeasure with Chinese trade practices. However, it should be noted that Chinese investments in the U.S. will also suffer from setbacks due to an ever-expanding interpretation of national security.

For the U.S., addressing the trade imbalance and reviving U.S. manufacturing should not come at the expense of disrupting the established economic trade order and heightening perceptions of American exceptionalism among U.S. allies, such as Canada, Mexico, Brazil, South Korea and Japan. Calling for the renegotiation of bilateral (e.g. KORUS, U.S.-Japan FTA) and multilateral trade arrangements, especially those the U.S. initially led (e.g. NAFTA, TPP), because of perceptions that U.S. was disadvantaged in such deals will erode U.S. appeal. The fact that TPP-11/CPTPP pushed through even without U.S. participation suggests a strong reaction against the U.S.’ attitude. This will be disastrous for America’s goal of remaining the world’s pre-eminent economic actor, as stated in the U.S. National Security Strategy.

The recent round of tariffs fit into the pattern of a unilateral action designed to get back at countries which have “taken advantage of America.” They were imposed with little or no consultation with allies and undermine global trade rules. Key U.S. agricultural and manufacturing exporters stand to suffer from potential Chinese retaliation, and may lobby the administration to reconsider its policy. Other supplier countries, such as Brazil and Argentina, could benefit from a U.S.-China trade war by absorbing lost market opportunities of U.S. soybean exporters. The European company Airbus could replace Boeing as the top aircraft manufacturer for China.

It may be possible that President Trump is testing the waters with these tariffs to see how China reacts. His determination to use tariffs— despite criticism of this policy by prominent officials in his administration— demonstrates how serious he is about keeping his campaign promise to slash the trade deficit and restore U.S. industrial might. This may provide him with some leverage in negotiations with Beijing. There is still a window before the tariffs go into effect. This presents an opportunity for the two sides to sit down and discuss. It remains to be seen whether the U.S.’ imposition of tariffs will compel China to adjust its trade practices, but Trump has clearly registered his administration’s determination to stem U.S. losses and commercial decline on account of what he considers unjust external forces.

This article was published at China-US Focus

Iranian leaders are struggling, three months after anti-government protests swept the Islamic republic, to ensure that environmental issues that helped sparked a popular uprising in Syria in 2011 leading to a brutal civil war don’t threaten the clergy’s grip on power.

Like Syria, Iran has been confronting a drought that has affected much of the country for more than a decade with precipitation dropping to its lowest level in half a century. Environmental concerns have figured prominently in protests in recent years, often in regions populated by ethnic minorities like Azeris, and Iranian Arabs.

Unrest among ethnic minorities, who account for almost half of Iran’s population, takes on added significance with Iran fearing that Saudi Arabia’s activist crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, and the Trump administration’s antipathy towards the Islamic republic bolstered by the appointment of a hardliner, John Bolton, as the president’s national security advisor.

Mr. Bolton has called for regime change in Iran, aligning himself with a controversial exile opposition group, while Prince Mohammed is believed to have tacitly endorsed thinking about stirring unrest among Iran’s ethnic minorities even if he has yet to decide whether to adopt subversion as a policy.

Iran has repeatedly accused Saudi Arabia in the past year of supplying weapons and explosives to restive groups like the Baluch and the Kurds.

Yet, concern about environmental degradation and its potential political fallout goes beyond fear that it could facilitate interference by external powers. Demonstrators in the province of Isfahan last month clashed with security forces after they took to the streets to protest water shortages. The protest occurred some three months after Iran was wracked by weeks of anti-government demonstrations.

The protest was the latest in a series of expressions of discontent. Anger at plans in 2013 to divert water from Isfahan province sparked clashes with police. The Isfahan Chamber of Commerce reported a year later that the drying out of the Zayandeh Roud river basin had deprived some 2 million farmers or 40 percent of the local population in the Zayandeh-Roud basin of their income.

“Over 90% of (Iran’s) population and economic production are located in areas of high or very high water stress. This is two to three times the global average in percentage terms, and, in absolute numbers, it represents more people and more production at risk than any other country in the Middle East and North Africa,” Al-Monitor quoted Claudia Sadoff, director general of the Sri Lanka-based International Water Management Institute, as saying.

A panel of retired US military officers noted in December that “since the 1979 revolution, the per capita quantity of Iran’s renewable water supplies has dropped by more than half, to a level commonly associated with the benchmark for water stress. Even more troubling, in large swaths of the country, demand for fresh water exceeds supply a third of the year. Fourteen years of drought have contributed to the problem, as has poor resource management, including inefficient irrigation techniques, decentralized water management, subsidies for water-intensive crops like wheat, and dam building. As a result, parts of the country are experiencing unrest related to water stress.”

By identifying water as one of the country’s foremost problems, the government recognized that mismanagement leading to acute water shortages risks becoming a symbol of its inability to efficiently deliver public goods and services.

The government has sought to tackle the issue by promoting reduced water consumption and water conservation, halting construction of dams, combatting evaporation by building underground water distribution networks, introducing water metres in agriculture, encouraging farmers to opt for less water-intensive crops, multiplying the number of treatment plants, and looking at desalination as a way of increasing supply.

With agriculture the main culprit in Iran’s inefficient use of water, Iranian officials fear that the crisis will accelerate migration from the countryside to urban centres incapable of catering to the migrants and, in turn, increase popular discontent.

A US study suggested in 2015 that decades of unsustainable agricultural policies in Syria; drought in the north-eastern agricultural heartland of the country; economic reforms that eliminated food and fuel subsidies; significant population growth; and failure to adopt policies that mitigate climate change exacerbated grievances about unemployment, corruption and inequality that exploded in 2011 in anti-government protests in Syria.

The Syrian government’s determination to crush the protest rather than engage with the protesters sparked the country’s devastating war, currently the world’s deadliest conflict<.

“We’re not arguing that the drought, or even human-induced climate change, caused the uprising. What we are saying is that the long-term trend, of less rainfall and warmer temperatures in the region, was a contributing factor, because it made the drought so much more severe.” said Colin Kelley, one the study’s authors.

“The uprising has…to do with the government’s failure to respond to the drought, and with broader feelings of discontent in rural areas, and the growing gap between rich and poor, and urban and rural areas during the 2000s, than with the drought itself,” added Middle East water expert Francesca de Chatel.

Adopting a different emphasis, Ms. De Chatel argued that demonstrations in Syria, despite the drought, would not have erupted without the wave of protests that by then had already swept the presidents of Tunisia and Egypt and subsequently toppled the leaders of Libya and Yemen.

She asserted further that the protest movement-turned-war in Syria would not “have persisted without input and support from organised groups in Syria who had been planning for this moment for years and certainly since before 2006 or the start of the drought.”

For Iranian leaders, the threat is real irrespective of the difference in emphasis between Mr. Kelly and Ms. De Chatel. Former Iranian agriculture minister Issa Kalantari warned in 2015 that left unresolved the water crisis would force 50 million Iranians to migrate in the next 25 years.

In other words, the environmental crisis that drives migration and unemployment and fuels discontent risks political upheaval. Similarly, multiple groups and external powers have for years contemplated regime change in Tehran.

The issues that were at the core of the initial protests in Syria in 2011 – unemployment, corruption and inequality – were at the heart of Iranian anti-government demonstrations in December and January.

Despite a renewed focus on the water crisis, the government’s Achilles Heel could prove to be the fact that its response has included shooting the messenger who bears the bad news as environmentalists increasingly find themselves in the firing line.

Authorities arrested in January Kavous Seyed-Emami, a dual Iranian-Canadian nation who directed the Persian Wildlife Heritage Foundation, and six other environmentalists. It asserted two weeks later that Mr. Seyed-Emami had committed suicide in jail after confessing to being a spy for the United States and Israel.

Three more environmentalists were arrested a month later while Mr. Seyed-Emami’s wife was prevented from leaving Iran.

State TV subsequently reported that Mr. Seyed-Emami and his colleagues had told Iran’s enemies that the country could no longer maintain domestic agriculture production because of water shortages and needed to import food.

Said Saeed Leylaz, a Tehran-based economist and political analyst: “Public opinion has become sensitized to environmental issues. So the government may see the organizations and institutions who work on environmental issues as problematic.”

By Irakli Dzhaparidze

The irrational and a little selfish activity of some politicians leads to destabilization of the situation in the South Caucasus. The media of Azerbaijan and Georgia are zealously writing about the problems of Ukraine and the Nagorno-Karabakh, but the disputes between the South Caucasus countries are ignored for some reason, although the CIA is seriously working to pique this topic.

The disputes about the area almost 200 kilometers wide along the Azerbaijani-Georgian border have not been settled yet. There are questions on a large number of churches, towns, rivers. Because of this, the public organizes protests and riots, many people have suffered, the governments take away books, textbooks, and items of cultural values. A section of the Georgian-Azerbaijani border is mined, residents disappear for unknown reasons, and local authorities treat crimes on ethnic and religious grounds carelessly. The situation is the same on the Georgian-Armenian border.

The CIA has not wasted time since the declaration of independence in this region and seized influence (mainly through money) on non-governmental organizations, politicians, media, religious organizations, and human rights advocates. For this reason, indigenous minorities and their territories are attacked by the authorities trying to get rid of dissidence and prerequisites for their transition to the control of the neighboring state. Contradictions are growing, which as a result will allow the CIA to apply the strategy of “managed chaos” and take these territories.

At the same time Turkey conducts a policy of economic, media, political, and linguistic expansion towards Azerbaijan. There is a strong emphasis on the Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic: Turkey has practically separated it from Azerbaijan. Erdogan’s imperial aspirations are also aimed at Adjara: in 2016, Tbilisi and Ankara signed an agreement on the transfer of 15 acres of the Georgian territory.

Because of all this it is almost impossible to see the basic idea of the American special services’ influence: the U.S. is consistently preparing the ground for another revolution in the entire South Caucasus, during which the region will totally be controlled, so, the U.S. will continue its anti-Russian expansion.

Source: http://sodrugestvo.info/?p=653360&lang=en

Prime Minister of Nepal Khadga Prasad Sharma Oli has rejected the concern expressed by several well wishers of Nepal that Nepal joining One Belt One Road initiative (OBOR) could lead to a dead trap. He has lightly dismissed such view stating that Nepal wants to be seen as a land linked and not as a land locked nation. Obviously, such response of the newly elected Prime Minister to the fear of the concerned people lacks clarity and perhaps reflects confused thinking.

While it is absolutely in order for Nepal to remain as a friendly neighbor with nearby countries like India and China and maintain honorable relationship with nearby countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh, the uppermost concern of Nepal’s newly elected Prime Minister should be to ensure that it’s economy would not get into the strangle hold directly or indirectly of any other country.

By its utterances and behavior, China has not concealed it’s ardent desire to dominate entire Asia , using it’s military might and economic muscle power. It unjustifiably and forcibly occupied Tibet and drove out the protesting Tibetans including the venerable the Dalai Lama outside Tibet. Now, China is protesting if any country would officially receive the Dalai Lama , showing it’s merciless attitude towards him.

Nepal should keep in view how China ran through Tibet with it’s force ,suppressed the dissension there and has now gained firm grip over Tibet. How can one think that the fate of Tibet would not happen to any other vulnerable country sharing border with China, particularly when it’s intention to dominate Asia is absolutely clear to any discerning observer in the world?

China’s claim on South China Sea has already upset several nearby countries such as Philippines. China’s claim on Senkaku island has created huge friction with Japan. Such territorial ambition of China is now threatening to destabilize the peace in South East Asia and Far East Asia.

In the last several years, China has been gradually and steadily penetrating into the economy of weak neighboring countries like Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Maldives by extending liberal loans and making investments and taking control of the projects in these regions. These countries already virtually face a situation of debt trap with China.

By extending huge loan to Sri Lanka, China has ensured that Sri Lankan government would be forced to hand over Hambantota port to China , with the possibility of China using it for military purpose in future with Sri Lankan government not being able to prevent such possibility . This is an event in the recent past that Nepal government should not ignore.

Between the year 2013 to 2017, China has extended loan and investment to Pakistan to the level of 61.99 billion USD, which consist of Gwadar port ( $793 million ) Road and rail ( $ 9784 million) , Lahore Metro ($ 1620 million), Energy ($ 33793 million) and additional loan ( $ 16,000 million). China – Pakistan Economic Corridor extends road and rail link from China upto Gwadar in Pakistan, passing through several cities including Islamabad and Lahore. Pakistan has handed over Gwadar port to China on 40 year lease, where there is strategic port. Considering the investments made by China in Pakistan and the debt extended to it which Pakistan will not be able to repay in future, Pakistan is virtually under debt trap of China. Many critics even think that Pakistan faces the threat of becoming an extended territory of China.

Nepal is a sovereign and independent country and it has to ensure that it would not depend beyond a reasonable level on any country.

It is very well known and China has not concealed the fact that the short term and long term object of One Belt One Road initiative launched by China is to achieve the twin purposes of strengthening the Chinese economy by getting orders for Chinese companies which presently suffer from huge under utilization of capacity and in the process get stranglehold on the economy and industry of the weak nearby countries , who would be tempted by the extension of investment and debt by China in these countries to support and fund the OBOR project.

Last 28 March 2018, China’s Xinhua News Agency reported that Kim Jong-un paid a two-day visit to China. According to Xinhua’s report, Xi Jinping and Kim Jong-un had a successful talk in which the latter expressed his commitment to de-nuclearization. Interestingly, the report was auspiciously made after the issue of an impending U.S.-China trade war gained traction. In light of this development, it is essential to re-examine China’s relevance vis-à-vis Trump’s North Korea Policy.

Situating China in Trump’s North Korea Policy

Before leaving office, Barack Obama reportedly warned Donald Trump that North Korea will be the biggest security threat to America. Based on this assumption, Trump identified North Korea as one of the challenges to the Indo-Pacific regional balance of power. In this regard, his North Korea policy underscored that the U.S. must be ready to use overwhelming force in deterring North Korean aggression and improving options for the de-nuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

In addition, his policy acknowledged the importance of China’s cooperation in dealing with North Korea. For instance, while Trump’s National Security Strategy identified the deployment of a layered defense system in South Korea as a priority action, it assured that this will not disrupt America’s long-standing strategic relations with China.

Moreover, in several occasions beginning with the 2017 U.S.-China Summit, Trump has urged China to increase economic pressure on North Korea by supporting U.N. Security Council Resolutions and cutting its trade and oil-supply links with Pyongyang in exchange for economic incentives from Washington.

Enduring China-North Korea Relations

Prior to the informal meeting between Xi Jinping and Kim Jong-un, China-North Korea relations was believed to be turning cold in view of Beijing’s support to economic sanctions against Pyongyang. However, as recent developments indicate, China and North Korea maintain mutually beneficial relations. Politically, albeit indirectly, China provides support to North Korea by criticizing the deployment of the THAAD missile system and the conduct of joint military exercise between U.S. and South Korea. On the other hand, as a regional security threat, North Korea diverts U.S. attention from China’s territorial and maritime assertiveness and provides political leverage to China.

This leverage lies in China’s historical ties with North Korea and Beijing’s role as a regional peace broker. Economically, China remains to be North Korea’s largest trading partner and primary source of crude oil. In fact, notwithstanding China’s economic sanctions against North Korea, overall bilateral trade grew from 2010 to 2016, while Beijing’s export to Pyongyang increased in 2017. Aside from this relatively stable trade relations, China provides North Korea with foreign direct investments and economic support that help prevent the collapse of the Kim Regime and satisfy the political elites in Pyongyang’s worker’s party, military, and security services.

Challenges in Trump’s North Korea Policy

While engaging China is essential in addressing the North Korean nuclear threat, two challenges in Trump’s North Korea Policy must be seriously considered. First, Trump’s North Korea Policy coincides with a forthcoming power transition in the Indo-Pacific in which strategic distrust characterizes U.S.-China relations. As a revisionist power seeking to redefine the regional status quo, China is expected to adopt a cautious and opportunity-driven approach in cooperating with the U.S. for the future of the Korean Peninsula.

Mindful of the recent trilateral meeting between U.S., Japan, and South Korea, China will most likely deny the U.S. and its allies of any political and strategic advantage by developing a coordinated agenda with North Korea once the relevant powers resume the Six Party Talks. Likewise, China will most likely use future peace talks to underpin its relevance as a regional power.

As underscored by Xi Jinping, “China will continue to play a constructive role on the issue and work with all parties, including DPRK.” This announcement, which coincides with brewing economic tensions between U.S. and China, actually conveys two messages: 1) China is indispensable in promoting de-nuclearization in the Korean Peninsula; and 2) China may use the North Korean issue as a political leverage against the U.S. in other issues.

Second, there are immutable contradictions between Trump and Xi’s North Korea policies. While Trump’s North Korea policy contemplates de-nuclearization and reunification, Xi’s policy limits the end-state to de-nuclearization and stability in the Korean Peninsula. Since China considers North Korea as a buffer state against the U.S. forces in South Korea, it is not in the strategic interest of Beijing to support a U.S.-sponsored Korean Re-unification.

Relatedly, while Trump’s view of de-nuclearization is limited to that of North Korea’s arsenal, China’s freeze-for-freeze proposal implicitly supports Pyongyang’s position, so much so that de-nuclearization of the Korean Peninsula should encompass the removal of U.S. military and missile systems from South Korea.

Indeed, these challenges indicate that China will play a complex and unpredictable role in Trump’s North Korea Policy.

*Christian Vicedo is a Senior Researcher at the National Defense College of the Philippines (NDCP). The views expressed are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the NDCP.

Gaining momentum recently and becoming more closely followed, China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is an ambitious project that seeks to connect Asia and Europe with the purpose of increasing trade and generating considerable economic growth. One of its aims is gaining access to the European markets and involves significant investments in infrastructure. At the same time, it offers economic alternatives for countries that are willing to take part in this project.

Moving ahead with the BRI also involves more attention towards Eastern Europe and Caucasus which represent an essential link between Asia and Europe. This means developing enhanced relations with the countries from these regions as well as an infusion of capital in the economies in question.

Moreover, no one can deny the geopolitical implications that this project also brings, even though it is branded solely as an economic super project. China moves ahead in building bilateral partnerships that make it more present in the European space and more importantly in the Russian backyard. It is interesting to observe that China is progressing largely unnoticed, using a strategy that is based on working with any country interested in its project, seeking not to get in dispute with any party, and maintaining a balanced approach to frozen conflicts.

Most of the Eastern European and Caucasus countries have good bilateral relations with China and welcome enhanced ties, especially in the light of more Chinese investments. China is also viewed as a new face to turn to. A few examples outline best China’s quiet presence in the region. For instance, Republic of Moldova is in the process of negotiating a free trade agreement with China, Georgia (which, from a geographical perspective is an important link to reaching Europe) has already signed such an agreement with China and the Chinese companies are already involved in the Georgian economic environment.

Furthermore, China is also an important partner for Azerbaijan which has a paramount strategic location for the transit sector. In Ukraine, Chinese companies are very active with investments in port terminals, transport infrastructure, and with more projects underway that go hand in hand with enhancing the partnership between the two countries in a variety of fields.

China also shows readiness to strengthen relations with Romania and Bulgaria, the latter to host the Central and Eastern Europe – China 16+1 Summit in 2018. Central and Eastern Europe – China 16+1 is a framework for cooperation through which China reaffirmed its commitment to invest and its partners showed openness to upgrade ties.

The cultural and educational dimension must be mentioned as well with China developing educational partnerships and opening cultural centers such as the one in Sofia, inaugurated in November 2017. Each country is specifically important for China, either as a transit hub, emerging economy, or as a promising market. The aim is to cooperate over a multitude of fields enabling the development of a multilevel and multi-layered cooperation with partners, thus strengthening China’s position in Eastern Europe and Caucasus.

It is yet unclear how these set of projects will be interconnected in the framework of the Belt and Road Initiative given the fact that they also depend on deepening political relations with a variety of states with different foreign policy aims. It is also unknown whether investments and deepened political relations will materialize according to the intentions announced.

At the same time, it is uncertain how China will use the political leverage gained through its initiative. A key question generated by the Chinese engagement is related to how other regional and global actors will react. In spite of these unknowns, the Chinese investments will continue to be very welcome in Eastern Europe and Caucasus especially because they are not conditional and have the potential to significantly contribute to the local and regional economic development.

*Mihai Chihaia is an Expert with the Romanian think tank Strategikon and is currently undertaking his PhD in International Relations. He has previously been an exchange research fellow at Tel Aviv University and worked as assistant to the European Commission Representative in the Political and Security Committee of the European Union.

India continues to be a dangerous place for working journalists as the largest democracy in the globe has lost three journalists in mysterious accidents within the first three months of the year.

Even the UN secretary general Antonio Guterres came out with a strong condemnation against the journo-killings and let the world know about India’s degraded index on safety and security of professional scribes.

In fact, within few hours the central Indian provinces of Madhya Pradesh and Bihar had lost three scribes on 25 &26 March 2018. Sandeep Sharma (36), a dedicated reporter of Bhind locality of MP, was deliberately mowed down by a truck in the morning hours, following which the television reporter (of News World) died in the hospital.

Sandeep, who had reported against the local sand mafia, even received threats and informed the police, but it did not help him to survive.

On the previous night, two journalists, namely Navin Nischal and Vijay Singh, were hit by a luxury vehicle in Bhojpur locality of Bihar and died on their way to the hospital. Navin (35), who used to work for Dainik Bhaskar and Vijay (26), who was associated with a Hindi magazine, were riding on a two-wheeler when the accident took place.

The bygone year witnessed the killing of 12 journalists, where tiny the northeastern state of Tripura contributed two casualties. The populous country thus emerged as one of the hazardous places for media persons after Mexico, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, etc.

India’s troubled neighbor Pakistan lost seven professional journalists and a media student to assailants in the year. On the other hand, its other neighbors namely Bangladesh, Myanmar and Maldives each witnessed the murder of one journalist last year.

However Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Nepal and Tibet (under Chinese occupation) evaded
journo-killing incidents during 2017.

Last year, India witnessed the killings of Hari Prakash (January 2), Brajesh Kumar Singh (January 3), Shyam Sharma (May 15), Kamlesh Jain (May 31), Surender Singh Rana (July 29), Gauri Lankesh (September 5), Shantanu Bhowmik (September 20), KJ Singh (September 23), Rajesh Mishra (October 21), Sudip Datta Bhaumik (November 21), Naveen Gupta (November 30) and Rajesh Sheoran (December 21).

On an average India loses five to six journalists annually to assailants, where the perpetrators normally enjoy impunity as the public outbursts against those murders remain lukewarm. However the horrific murder of Kannada editor-journalist Ms Gauri at her Bangaluru (earlier known as Bangalore) residence sparked massive protests across the country.

As the news of Gauri’s murder by unidentified gunmen spread, it immediately caught the attention of various national and international media rights organizations. Everyone out rightly condemned the incident and demanded actions against the culprits. Even the Communist leader and Tripura’s immediate past chief minister Manik Sarkar was influenced by the protest-demonstrations.

He personally joined in a rally in Agartala demanding justice over Gauri’s brutal killing, but when he young television reporter (Shantanu) from his State fall prey to the mob violence, he preferred to remain silent. The Tripura based journalists, while strongly condemning the murder of Shantanu, had to demand a response from Sarkar.

Later, one more journalist (Sudip Datta) was murdered by a trooper belonging to the State police forces, which put Sarkar, who was also in charge of State home portfolio, in an embarrassing position. Otherwise popular for his simplicity, Sarkar also received brickbats for the murder of three media employees (Sujit Bhattacharya, Ranjit Chowdhury and Balaram Ghosh) together in 2013. Amazingly, within this period, no other northeastern States reported a journo-killing.

As usual, central states like Jharkhand, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, etc. remained the killing field of journalists for many years and most of the journo-casualties in the country were reported from the zone. Shockingly most of the cases were not resolved legally and the victim families continue crying for justice for their irreparable losses.

India was ranked 136th among 180 countries in World Press Freedom Index (2017) of Reporters Sans Frontiers and the country was just ahead of its neighbors Pakistan (139), Sri Lanka (141) and Bangladesh (146). Norway topped the list of media freedom index, where as one party-ruled North Korea (180) was placed at its bottom.

India’s other neighbors namely Bhutan (84), Nepal (100), Maldives (117), Afghanistan (120) and Myanmar (131) ensured better press freedom. Pakistan lost seven journalists namely Muhammad Jan, Taimoor Khan, Abdul Razzaque, Bakshish Ellahi, Haroon Khan, Samar Abbas and Utpal Das along with a novice journalist (Mashal Khan) to assailants last year.

Bangladesh witnessed the murder of rural reporter Abdul Hakim Shimul and Maldives drew the attention of international media with the sensational killing of Yameen Rasheed, a journalist and human rights defender. Relatively peaceful Myanmar reported one journo-murder (Wai Yan Heinn) in 2017.

According to various international agencies over 95 media persons spread in 28 countries were killed in connection with their professional work last year.

This year it has reached to 10 casualties through the end of March. The statistics were dangerous in previous years (120 fatalities in 2016, 125 killed in 2015, 135 in 2014, 129 in 2013, 141 in 2012, 107 in 2011, 110 in 2010, 122 in 2009, 91 in 2008 etc).

The situation deteriorated in Mexico (14 incidents of journo-killings), Syria (12), Iraq (9), Afghanistan (8), Yemen (8), the Philippines (6), Somalia (5), Honduras (4), Honduras (4), Nigeria (3), Russia (3), Turkey (3), Yemen (3), Guatemala (2), Peru (2), Dominican Republic (2), Colombia (2), etc.

The year also witnessed 262 journalists sent to jails in different countries with a slight improvement from 2016 when 259 media persons were imprisoned worldwide. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, Turkey still tops the list of detainees in 2017 with 73 journalists were behind bars followed by China (41), Egypt (20), Eritrea (15), Vietnam (10), Azerbaijan (10), Uganda (8), Saudi Arabia (7), Bangladesh (4), Myanmar (3), Cambodia (2), Pakistan (2), India (2), etc.

In 2016, India witnessed the targeted killings of six working journalists, which was preceded by five cases in 2015. It improved its statistics in 2014 with the murders of only two scribes, but the year 2013 reported the killings of 11 journalists including three media workers in northeast India.

The vulnerable media community of the one-billion people living in India
continues to pursue for a national action plan to safeguard the media in the line of military, police and doctors on duty. Their arguments are loud and clear, if the nation wants the journalists to do their risky jobs for the country’s greater interest then their security, along with justice, must also be ensured.

ByIrakli Dzhaparidze

The ex-President of Georgia Mikhail Saakashvili wants to return to Georgia after the presidential elections to initiate a fight against the authorities in power. “I will come to Georgia and carry out all the programs with my team. I will not leave my people in trouble,” Saakashvili said. According to him, “Georgia is devastated, and this is a real threat, the situation can be improved only if we reverse the economy and raise the standard of living, increasing wages and strengthening economic opportunities.”

The former president hopes that the opposition will win in the presidential elections in 2018 and this victory will return Georgia to life, and he will be able to return to his homeland. Judging by his optimistic mood, he really hopes that he and his supporters will return to power. However, being abroad, he does not own the situation in the country, or he tries to convince himself and his supporters that it is quite possible to do this. Mr. Saakashvili believes that his party with an unsavory past can really unite the opposition and nominate a candidate who will win the election.

Even Saakashvili’s allies in Georgia sluggishly supported him. Therefore, it is unlikely that he will step into the same river twice. In Georgia Mikhail Saakashvili is accused of violent dispersal of the protest in the center of Tbilisi in November 2007. He is also accused of abuse of authority concerning the case of the murder of Sandro Girgvliani in 2006, embezzlement of budget. The prosecutor’s office claims that Saakashvili spent about nine million lari of budget for his personal needs.

It is unlikely that Mikhail will receive support in his country. He is like a political clown rather than a serious politician who can offer his country something worthwhile.

Moreover, his party has lost credibility in the country.

Source: http://sodrugestvo.info/?p=668822&lang=en

By Ty Joplin

To say politics in the Middle East is cliched to the point of being counter-productive. Nonetheless, it’s a mainstay in discussing the region because its political developments are so fast-moving that it makes even locals and experts’ heads spin.

The war in Syria is a tragic embodiment of this complexity.

Analysts and policy makers around the world began assuming the war would wind down and find a political solution once it was clear that ISIS was losing and nobody could viably challenge Assad’s hold on power.

Instead, it has dragged on, and become more intractable. The latest and perhaps greatest example of complexity is ISIS’ eventual military defeat, on paper a universally desired good.

Their departure as a military force also cause new waves of chaos to reverberate throughout the country and the region.

ISIS is on its last legs in the country—a shadow of the terrible force it once was. Now, controlling only a few towns on the Iraq-Syria border, it will likely be taken down military and remain as a group of disorganized cells around the region.

Their defeat will reopen a series of political vacuums that will likely reshuffle territory in Syria.

From the Kurdish perspective, defeating ISIS militarily may mean losing large chunks of territory in northern Syria. Right now, the only thing holding Turkey back is the presence of about two thousand U.S. troops in Manbij, Syria. But once they leave or are moved from the region as their primary mission is to ensure ISIS’ defeat, Turkey will likely pounce on the Kurds.

To understand this moment in the Syrian civil war, here is a break-down of how each side may react to the defeat of ISIS.

Uncertain Future for Syrian Kurds after ISIS

The Kurdish people are concentrated in northern Syria. Once ISIS began its blitzkrieg campaign to take over much of Syria and Iraq in 2014, the Kurds initially proved themselves as the only effective force to counter the extremist group.

As such, they succeeded in taking over much of the land they won from ISIS, including much of Syria’s oil fields near Deir Ezzour. But they have been subject to numerous assaults from Turkey, who view the Kurdish militias as terrorists due to their ties with Turkey’s Kurdistan Worker’s Party (PKK) which has been fighting against Ankara for decades.

In 2016, Turkey President Recep Erdogan intervened in northern Syria to oust the Kurdish YPG from the region. The operation stalled after failing to take Manbij from the Kurds, but Turkey kept its forces and influence in the areas it captured. Then, in early 2018, Erdogan again attacked Kurdish-held territory, this time in the Afrin region, an area just west of the land he captured two years previously.

Both times, Erdogan threatened Manbij, and has only been stopped by the fact that U.S. forces are present in the area, and any direct Turkish attack on U.S. soldiers could result in a strong U.S. backlash.

But the primary U.S. mission is not to defend the Kurds from Turkey, but merely to support them in their efforts against ISIS. Once those efforts are completed and areas are stabilized, the U.S. mission’s mandate will be over, and the troops may withdraw.

Although U.S. President Trump and his military officials have publicly disagreed about their exact plan for Syria, both want to see the end of ISIS. Trump wants troops out, saying ‘ideally’ the troops would be out within 6 months. Trump has repeatedly criticized U.S. involvement in the Middle East, decrying the costs of decades-long occupations.

As such, he will likely not be moved by Kurdish pleas to defend them against a Turkish force.

Military officials, for their part, have emphasized ‘stabilization’ as the way forward, which would leave troops in for longer. But stabilization is not nation building or democracy promotion, which was the U.S.’ posture in the Middle East for most of the 21st century, so even they are not interested in keeping an indefinite, long-term presence in the country.

Either way, troops are on their way out even if the timeline is debated, meaning the Kurds are losing their number one ally and reason not to be invaded.

Even if they may take a few more pockets of land in southeastern Syria from ISIS, they will face the overwhelming force of the Turkish Armed Forces, which they were utterly incapable of stopping in Afrin. They may lose Manbij and more territory east of the Euphrates river if Turkey decides to continue its campaign against Kurdish armed groups.

The U.S.’ Dwindling Role in Syria

Trump, as a sitting president, has been one of the most outspoken critics of U.S.’ presence in the Middle East.

“It’s time to get out of Syria… I want to get out, I want to bring our troops back home,” Trump said on April 3.

His military focus on defeating ISIS is largely a continuation of former president Obama’s plan for the region. But in withdrawing shortly after ISIS’ defeat, the U.S. would be willingly and knowingly forfeiting both a direct foothold in the country guaranteed by boots on the ground, and a strong partnership with Syrian Kurds. The Kurds will likely feel abandoned by the U.S. if Trump pulls out and lets their region be overrun by Turkey and Turkish-backed Syrian militias.

In other words, defeating ISIS may mean losing Syria for the U.S. As it stands now, they only have a limited presence, including a small military base near the borders of Iraq and Jordan, they have had little to no role in determining its landscape or negotiating key deals between the players in the country.

Their only directly influential presence is in Manbij, and once that goes, so too does their leverage over Turkey.

Turkey’s Post-ISIS Power Grab

Turkey would love to see the U.S. go so that they can swiftly move into Manbij.

Erdogan recently said in a speech that the Afrin mission was just one step of its larger objectives in Syria, and that more Kurdish-held towns and cities are next: “Now we will continue this process until we entirely eliminate this corridor, including in Manbij, Ayn al-Arab [Kobane], Tel-Abyad, Ras al-Ayn [Serekaniye] and Qamishli,” he threatened.

All of these locations mentioned lie east of the Euphrates river, and mostly lie along the border between Turkey and Syria. Importantly, the threat on Qamishli is also an indirect threat on Assad, who still has regime troops stationed inside the city.

The defeat of ISIS, in other words, means a big win for Turkey in its own agenda to capture much of northern Syria.

Assad’s Quest to Reclaim Syria

For Assad, the defeat of ISIS may also bring good news to his regime, which is now concentrated on slowly re-taking opposition-held land to unify the country.

When Turkey invaded Afrin, the Kurds went to Assad for help and he responded by sending militia groups to aid in the defense of the region. The Kurds, unable to rely on the U.S. in the event of a withdrawal, may ask again for Assad’s aid.

For the Afrin deal, the Kurds gave up key positions that they held in Aleppo in exchange for help, in addition to likely losing all of the Afrin region as a negotiating chip in post-war negotiations for autonomy. The Kurds in Syria have long wanted more sovereignty from Assad, and have pushed for Syria to adopt a federal system of governance to grant them more independence.

If they ask Assad for aid, they are effectively giving up much of their bargaining chips for negotiations of power, which is a major victory for Assad.

Assad too may be able to work out a deal with Turkey to oust Kurdish militias from agreed-upon regions in exchange for peace, but it is hard to gauge the likelihood of such a deal given Turkey’s historic support for armed struggle against Assad by sheltering and funding opposition groups.

Post-ISIS Chaos

All in all, defeating ISIS may close off one front while opening up several others in the country and exposing even more civilians to war. As it stands, the war in Syria has killed well over half a million people, displaced six million internally and created over five million international refugees who have fled to Jordan, Turkey and Europe.

Although the defeat of ISIS is recognized as a crucial good that is needed, given the group’s brutality and danger abroad, that fight also will carry several significant consequences that could expand the war in Syria and mutate it further.

What was once a battle between Assad and his opposition in 2011 has now transformed the country into a global platform to stage and project power and influence.

If ISIS is defeated, that will likely accelerate rather than reverse this trend.

Original source

The US, UK, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Pope Francis condemned Saturday’s chemical gas attack on Syria’s Douma, while Russia and the Syrian regime denied claims of chemical weapons use.

Rescue workers said dozens of civilians had been killed in the attack and at least 80 civilians have been killed since Friday after the regime launched fresh air raids on rebel-held areas of Eastern Ghouta, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a Britain-based monitor.

The head of the United Nations said on Sunday he was “particularly alarmed” by the alleged use of chemical weapons against civilians in Syria.

Secretary-General Antonio Guterres joined world leaders and global entities in voicing alarm and said in a statement that he was “deeply concerned” about renewed violence in the city of Douma, citing reports that sustained airstrikes and shelling had killed civilians, destroyed infrastructure and damaged health facilities.

“The secretary-general is particularly alarmed by allegations that chemical weapons have been used against civilian populations in Douma,” the statement said.

While noting that the United Nations was not in a position to verify such reports, Guterres said that any confirmed use of chemical weapons would be “abhorrent.”

He called on all parties to cease fighting and to provide “humanitarian access across Syria to all people in need.”

United States

US President Donald Trump said there will be a “big price to pay” after what he called a “mindless CHEMICAL attack” in Syria, allegedly involving chlorine gas.

Trump also called Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad an “animal.”

“President Putin, Russia and Iran are responsible for backing Animal Assad. Big price to pay,” Trump said in a pair of tweets which began with a discussion of the attack in Syria’s Eastern Ghouta, where rescue workers alleged that regime loyalists had used chlorine gas.

“Many dead, including women and children, in mindless CHEMICAL attack in Syria. Area of atrocity is in lockdown and encircled by Syrian Army, making it completely inaccessible to outside world,” the president said.

“Open area immediately for medical help and verification,” Trump said. “Another humanitarian disaster for no reason whatsoever. SICK!”

Trump also criticized his predecessor Barack Obama for not striking after warning that the use of chemical weapons in Syria was a “red line.”

“If President Obama had crossed his stated Red Line in The Sand, the Syrian disaster would have ended long ago! Animal Assad would have been history!” Trump said.

Meanwhile, US State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said in a statement, “these reports, if confirmed, are horrifying and demand an immediate response by the international community.”

“The Assad regime and its backers must be held accountable and any further attacks prevented immediately,” she added, noting that “Russia, with its unwavering support for the regime, ultimately bears responsibility for these brutal attacks.”
United Kingdom

The United Kingdom called on the need to open an urgent international investigation into the chemical attack reports.

In a press statement issued by the UK Foreign Ministry, a spokesperson said that the Assad regime and his supporters must end the violence against innocent civilians.

“The reports that showed a large number of victims in the chemical attack in the city of Douma are disturbing and, if proved correct, will be further evidence of the brutality of the Assad regime and the disregard of its supporters of international laws,” the statement read.

France

French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said reports of the chemical attack were extremely worrying and called for the United Nations Security Council to meet quickly to examine the situation.

Le Drian said France strongly condemned attacks and bombings by Syrian government forces in the last 24 hours in Douma, adding they were a “gross violation of international humanitarian law.”

France would work with allies to verify reports that chemical weapons were used, Le Drian said.

Referring to President Emmanuel Macron’s warning that France could strike unilaterally if there was a deadly chemical attack, Le Drian said that Paris would assume all its responsibilities in the fight against the proliferation of chemical weapons.
European Union

The European Union said the evidence points to the use of chemical weapons by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s forces against a besieged rebel-held town in Syria, calling for an international response.

“The evidence points towards yet another chemical attack by the regime,” the EU said in a statement. “It is a matter of grave concern that chemical weapons continue to be used, especially on civilians. The European Union condemns in the strongest terms the use of chemical weapons and calls for an immediate response by the international community.”

The bloc called on the UN Security Council to re-establish its checks to identify perpetrators of chemical attacks and on Russia and Iran to use their influence with Assad to prevent further attacks.

Turkey

Turkey strongly condemned what it said was a chemical weapons attack in Douma, saying there was a “strong suspicion” the Assad regime was responsible.

“We strongly condemn the attack and we have the strong suspicion it was carried out by the regime, whose record on the use of chemical weapons is known by the international community,” the Turkish foreign ministry said in a statement.

Turkey said that the incident showed that past UN Security Council resolutions on the use of chemical weapons in Syria were “once again” being ignored.

The foreign ministry called for an investigation by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and said it expected condemnation from the international community.

The foreign ministry statement did not explicitly refer to Russia and Iran, maintaining Turkey’s caution in not lashing out at its partners.

But it called on “the parties who have influence over the Syrian regime” to ensure that such attacks are halted and punished.

It noted that “in the past no measures have been taken against these attacks.”

Pope Francis

At the end of a Mass in St. Peter’s Square, the Pope said that, “there is no such thing as a good war and a bad war. Nothing, but nothing, can justify the use of such instruments of extermination on defenseless people and populations.”

He urged that “military and political leaders choose another path, that of negotiations, which is the only one that can bring about peace and not death and destruction.”

Moscow, Tehran, Damascus deny claims

Russia’s military is rejecting claims that Syrian government forces used chemical weapons in an attack on the rebel-held town of Douma.

Maj. Gen. Yuri Yevtushenko was quoted by Russian news agencies on Sunday as saying Russia was prepared to “promptly send Russian specialists in radiation, chemical and biological protection to Douma after its liberation from fighters to gather data that will confirm the fabricated nature of these statements.”

Yevtushenko said “a number of Western countries” are trying to prevent the resumption of an operation to remove Army of Islam fighters from Douma and “to this end they are using the West’s pet theme of the use of chemical weapons by Syrian forces.”

Iran also condemned the allegations as a “conspiracy” against its ally Assad and a pretext for military action.

“Such allegations and accusations by the Americans and certain Western countries signal a new conspiracy against the Syrian government and people, and a pretext for military action,” Iran’s foreign ministry said in a statement.

Tehran warned any military intervention would “certainly complicate the situation” in Syria and the wider region.

“With the Syrian army having the upper hand on the ground against the armed terrorists, it would not be rational for it to use chemical weapons,” the statement said.
Syria’s foreign ministry denounced accusations the government had deployed chemical weapons as an “unconvincing broken record.”

“Allegations of chemical use have become an unconvincing broken record, except for some countries that trade with the blood of civilians and support terrorism in Syria,” state news agency SANA quoted a ministry source as saying.

“Every time the Syrian Arab Army advances in the fight against terrorism, allegations of chemical use are used as an excuse to prolong the life of terrorists in Douma,” it said.

Douma is the last rebel-held town in Eastern Ghouta, once the opposition’s main bastion near Damascus but now battered by a seven-week regime assault.

The offensive has recaptured 95 percent of Ghouta, and the government announced on Sunday that it had reached a deal for rebels to be evacuated from their last holdout in Douma.

By Faisal J. Abbas*

US President Donald Trump has made it clear that, with Daesh defeated, he wants to end the US military presence in Syria and bring his soldiers home. The horrific chemical gas attack on Douma is an indication of how important it is that, rather than withdraw, America re-engage in Syria.

Despite the denials from Damascus, there can be no doubt who did this. The only people who have what was required to carry out such a monstrous attack — the capability, the chemical weapons arsenal, the callous disregard for civilian life — are the Assad regime. They have done it before. And unless they are stopped, they will do it again.

It has become evident that the only language the Assad regime understands is the language of force. In August 2012, Barack Obama said the use of chemical weapons in Syria would be “a red line.” A year later, when Bashar Assad attacked his own people with sarin gas, that “red line” was forgotten. Today, the people of Douma are paying the price for a US president’s vacillation.

However, who can forget the shock and awe when, in response to Assad’s chemical weapons attack in Idlib in April last year, President Trump ordered cruise missile strikes on the Syrian air base from where the attack was launched?

The Douma outrage cannot be read as anything but a response to the US announcement of withdrawal. It sends a clear sign to the international community of what kind of future awaits Syria — just when we all thought things could not become any worse.

Indeed, such a vacuum would no doubt be viewed as an opportunity by the malign powers at work in this region, chief among them Iran.

Douma should ring alarm bells in Washington; far from withdrawal, what is required is greater engagement. If America takes that path, it can be sure that the whole world, including Saudi Arabia and its allies, will follow.

By Richard Finney

The four member countries of the Mekong River Commission confronted predictions of social and environmental disaster if damming and other development projects in the region are allowed to proceed as planned.

The warnings, contained in a 3,600-page report prepared by the MRC Council, point to negative trade-offs between water, energy, and food resulting from the construction of eleven large hydropower dams on the Mekong’s main stream, and 120 tributary dams planned over the next 20 years.

Fish stocks will be especially hard hit, with an estimated loss of 30 to 40 percent of current fisheries by 2040 and an almost total loss of sediment flow to the Mekong Delta in Vietnam by that same year, according to the report.

An April 5 statement by environmental watchdog International Rivers warns that as dams come on line, “these impacts are expected to result in a drastic reduction in food security and agricultural productivity, alongside increased poverty levels and heightened climate vulnerability in much of the Lower Mekong Basin.”

Meanwhile, in an April 5 statement following the third MRC Summit, held this week in Siem Reap, Cambodia, the prime ministers of the four MRC member countries—Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and Thailand—pledged to consider the Council’s findings in planning future policy.

In a separate statement, Vietnamese Prime Minister Nguyen Xuan Phuc called however for “concrete and timely action,” according to an April 6 article in The Phnom Penh Post.

“Mekong water resources have been degraded both in quantity and quality, the amounts of alluvium and nutrients are decreasing and the ecosystem and environment are seriously deteriorated,” Nguyen said, quoted in The Post.

These impacts are “more permanent and severe” in the Mekong’s lower basin, and especially in Vietnam’s delta, Nguyen said, adding that the region now suffers from protracted drought, seawater intrusion into farming land, and the erosion of coastlines and riverbanks.

“The livelihoods of over 20 million people are under threat,” Nguyen said.

Dams will proceed

Laos meanwhile vowed to proceed with plans to build a string of dams on the Mekong, with Lao National Mekong Committee chairperson Sommad Pholsena saying the country’s hydropower projects are being planned and built in accordance with MRC rules and procedures.

“The Lao PDR [People’s Democratic Republic] stands with strong commitment to live in harmony with our neighboring countries,” Sommad told MRC delegates in Siem Reap on April 4, according to a report by the Vientiane Times.

The Xayaburi and Don Sahong Dams on Laos’s Mekong mainstream are now nearing completion, but public information on these projects is still incomplete, International Rivers said in its April 5 statement.

“At this 3rd MRC Summit, we call on the leaders of the lower Mekong governments to recognize the important findings and recommendations of the Council study and to urge a moratorium on further hydropower construction within the Mekong Basin until a regional study of renewable energy technologies and alternatives is completed,” International Rivers said.

Dams on the Mekong, which originates in western China, have a particularly adverse impact on downriver countries Vietnam and Cambodia, while their upriver neighbors reap the benefits of hydropower projects, experts say.

(RFE/RL) — Viktor Orban, Hungary’s rightwing, antimigrant prime minister, has declared a “historic” victory for his ruling Fidesz party in the national election, which handed him his third-consecutive term atop the country’s government.

“We have won,” the autocratic Orban told cheering supporters late on April 8 after preliminary results were released. “Hungary has won a great victory.”

“Dear friends, there’s a big battle behind us, we secured a historic victory — we got a chance, we created a chance for us to defend Hungary,” he added.

With 86.7 percent of the ballots counted, Fidesz had taken 49.29 percent of the vote, far ahead of the radical nationalist Jobbik party, which had 20 percent.

Under Hungary’s electoral system, which favors the larger parties, Fidesz and its small ally, the Christian Democrats, appear to be closing in on a two-thirds majority in parliament with 133 or 134 of the 199 seats up for election.

Winning a two-thirds majority in parliament would be important to Orban and Fidesz, as it would allow them widespread powers.

Opposition parties expressed concerns that such an outcome would allow the autocratic Orban to push through constitutional changes, continue a crackdown on civic groups, and further strengthen his influence over the state power structure.

Jobbik is forecast to win 26 lawmakers. The party leader, Gabor Vona, announced his resignation following the defeat.

“Jobbik’s goal, to win the elections and force a change in government, was not achieved,” Vona told reporters. “Fidesz won. It won again.”

A Socialist-led coalition was taking 12.2 percent of the vote, with 20 seats, while smaller leftist parties, DK and LMP, would likely have nine and eight seats, respectively.

Socialist Party President Gyula Molnar also said he was resigning after the election setback.

Turnout was higher than expected, at nearly 69 percent, and many Orban critics had hoped that would help the opposition parties.

However, Orban appears certain to win a third-consecutive term, and fourth overall, as prime minister.

“The high voter turnout puts every doubt into brackets,” he told supporters.

The results come close to matching preelection polls, which had put Fidesz at about 50 percent of the vote.

European Union leaders were closely watching the results amid concerns that a big victory by Orban’s party would likely boost similar right-wing nationalists in other Central European countries, particularly Poland and Austria, and increase concerns about EU cohesion.

Some 8.3 million residents in Hungary were eligible to vote. They cast two ballots — one for a candidate in their district and one for a party list, with 199 parliamentary seats up for election. Hungarians outside the country voting by mail choose only party lists.

After casting his ballot in a Budapest suburb, the 54-year-old Orban said the vote was about “Hungary’s future,” and reiterated he would stand up for Hungary’s interests.

“We love our country and we are fighting for our country,” he said.

Jobbik’s Vona cast his vote in the northeastern town of Gyongyos, said that the election results would “determine the fate of Hungary not just for four years but… for two generations.”

Orban, who also served as prime minister from 1998 to 2002, campaigned on a strong anti-immigrant platform and on April 6 called this vote an “election of fate” and a chance for Hungarians to reclaim their country.

Orban began his political career as an anticommunist liberal activist in the late 1980s, but he has been accused by critics of abandoning Hungary’s democratic path for an increasingly authoritarian direction.

Over the past eight years, his government has expanded control over the media and, through allies in the business sector, gained influence over the banking, energy, construction, and tourism sectors.

Some critics also accuse Orban of being too accommodating to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Orban has repeatedly criticized U.S.-Hungarian billionaire philanthropist George Soros, whom he accuses of meddling in Hungarian politics and leading the liberal opposition.

Jobbik was formerly one of Europe’s most far-right, anti-Semitic, and anti-EU parties, but it has attempted to rebrand itself as a more-centrist entity.

By Karl Romano

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte said Thursday he had accepted the resignation of his justice secretary, a controversial figure at the forefront of defending the chief executive’s war on drugs that has left thousands dead.

Duterte did not explain why he was letting go of Vitaliano Aguirre, one of his trusted aides. A day earlier, the national daily Philippine Star, citing unnamed sources, reported that the president would fire the justice secretary this week amid a deluge of public criticism over his performance.

“I accepted the resignation of Vit Aguirre, my fraternity brother, as secretary of justice. I am now in the hustings looking for a replacement,” Duterte said Thursday, calling the cabinet member by his nickname. He was speaking during an awards ceremony for outstanding farmers and fishermen at the presidential palace in Manila.

Media reports about Aguirre’s possible departure from Duterte’s cabinet began to surface in mid-March after a panel of state prosecutors dismissed drug charges against businessman Peter Lim and Kerwin Espinosa, a man whom Duterte had described as among the top drug lords in the central Philippines.

Following a public uproar, Aguirre in recent weeks said he had ordered a reinvestigation.

Espinosa’s father, local town mayor Rolando Espinosa, surrendered to clear his name last year. But he was killed in a shootout that he started, according to police, when authorities came to his jail to serve him a search warrant.

The younger Espinosa went into hiding, but police said he was later caught in the United Arab Emirates. He had admitted to being a drug trafficker during a public inquiry at the Senate and had also testified against Sen. Leila de Lima, Duterte’s arch critic who was detained for allegedly receiving funds from drug lords to finance her campaign.

De Lima has denied the allegation, accusing Duterte of having a hand in her detention as payback for her investigations of political killings linked to the president when he was still a longtime mayor of the southern city of Davao.

Aguirre, Duterte’s former law school classmate, also figured in a recent controversy for accepting into a witness protection program a woman who was jailed on corruption charges by the previous government.

Last year, two of Aguirre’s men at the Justice Department were also embroiled in controversy after allegedly extorting millions of pesos from a Chinese businessman to free more than 1,000 Chinese workers who were arrested on suspicion of working in the country without permits.

Sen. Risa Hontiveros said Aguirre’s resignation was too little, too late.

“The damage is done. By being allowed to stay in his post for the longest time, Mr. Aguirre turned the Justice Department into a leading purveyor of fake news, a manufacturer of fake legal cases to harass the opposition, and a refuge for drug lords, plunderers and other high-profile criminals,” Hontiveros said.

“Our justice system is now in shambles, with more and more people trusting it less and less,” she said.

She said Aguirre’s resignation was “a hollow gesture” meant to protect the president from further criticism.

“Sorry, but too late the hero for ‘justice zero’,” Hontiveros said, adding that by accepting Aguirre’s resignation, Duterte had also freed him from accountability.

“I urge the public to continue to exact accountability from this administration and closely follow the executive branch’s process of appointing a new justice chief,” Hontiveros said.

Aguirre has been among the most vocal defenders of Duterte’s anti-narcotics war that has left more than 4,000 dead in police operations since 2016, according to official figures. Rights groups, however, said the figure could be much higher if killings by pro-government vigilantes were factored in, running to about 12,000.

(Civil.Ge) — The Russian-backed authorities of Abkhazia and Tskhinvali Region/South Ossetia rejected in their statements the Georgian Government’s new peace proposal intended to enhance economic and people-to-people exchanges between residents of the two regions and the rest of the country.

Commenting the proposal on April 4, Abkhaz “foreign minister” Daur Kove said Tbilisi had “exhausted its leverages of pressure on Abkhazia,” and was now “skilfully masking its real intentions” through demonstrating its “supposed friendliness” before the international community.

“I would like to call on the political leadership of Georgia to stop lying and serving its selfish ambitions,” Kove also noted, adding that the only “step towards a better future” was Tbilisi’s recognition of the “independence of the republic of Abkhazia,” and establishment of “full-fledged interstate dialogue.”

Tskhinvali authorities commented on the proposal yesterday, with their “foreign ministry” denouncing the Government’s new initiative as “yet another PR activity and its crude attempt to present Georgia before the international community as a peace-loving state with a constructive leadership.”

They also accused Tbilisi of trying to “entice the citizens of the republic of South Ossetia,” describing the proposal as “illusory and unrealistic.” “This is not the first time Tbilisi has voiced its desire to establish cooperation with South Ossetia, so it is hardly worth taking such statement seriously.”

Tskhinvali authorities then stressed that the only way forward was signing of a legally binding non-use of force agreement, recognition of the “independence of the republic of South Ossetia and the genocide of the South Ossetian nation.” “Only these decisions will contribute to interstate dialogue and cooperation between South Ossetia and Georgia.”

As trade tensions threaten to boil over between the two nations, US President Donald Trump insists his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping will scrap barriers to commerce “because it is the right thing to do.”

Washington is seeking to cut a deal with the Chinese government to eradicate a trade deficit and allow US products to enter the market in Asia more freely. The US president has also accused China of intellectual property theft, through practices that require US business to transfer technology information to Chinese companies.

On Sunday, Trump spoke of his close friendship with the Chinese premier but added that trade barriers will come down. “China will take down its trade barriers because it is the right thing to do. Taxes will become reciprocal & a deal will be made on intellectual property. Great future for both countries,” he said.

It’s unclear why Trump appears confident of a positive result. However, any deal could see the US withdrawing from plans to hit Chinese imports worth $50 billion with tariffs. China has said it will impose similar trade barriers on products like soybeans, corn products and other agricultural items.

Speaking on Sunday, US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin admitted that there is a risk of a trade war between the United States and China, but he doesn’t expect one. “Our expectation is that we don’t think there will be a trade war; our objective is to continue to have discussions with China… I don’t expect there will be a trade war – it could be, but I don’t expect it at all,” he told CBS’ Face The Nation.

The United States Trade Representative, an agency responsible for developing US trade and investment policy, has identified 1,300 Chinese products that could be slapped with extra import tax.

“The proposed list of products is based on extensive interagency economic analysis and would target products that benefit from China’s industrial plans while minimizing the impact on the US economy. Sectors subject to the proposed tariffs include industries such as aerospace, information and communication technology, robotics, and machinery,” the USTR said.

The agency added: “After a detailed investigation, USTR found overwhelming evidence that China’s unreasonable actions are harming the US economy. In the light of such evidence, the appropriate response from China should be to change its behavior, as China’s government pledged to do many times.”

By Katharina R. Lestari

Abdul Gafar, a 31-year-old Indonesian fisherman, says he now has to wear a face mask each day after an oil spill at a port in Balikpapan, in East Kalimantan province.

A fire near the port as a result of the spill later killed at least five people — all fishermen.

The spill, caused by a fractured underwater pipeline, has reached Kampung Baru a floating village located about four kilometers from the port, where he, his wife and two children live.

“We’ve had to wear face masks since the incident on March 31. We can’t stand the smell. It’s very strong and smells like diesel fuel,” he told ucanews.com.

“We often get headaches,” he said.

Worse, the fuel from the spill has coated the pillars of his wooden home raising fears his house could go up in flames.

“We have to be very careful which means cooking in a neighbor’s kitchen. His home has not been touched by the spill yet as rocks have prevented the fuel reaching his house,” he said.

Most houses in the floating village, home to about 7,000 fishermen and their families, are covered by the spill. Only a few remain clean as rocks surround them.

“We can’t go fishing, either,” he said, adding that he could earn about 200,000 rupiah (about US$15) per day from fishing or collecting crabs.

The spill also resulted in a personal loss for Gafar.

His cousin, Agus Salim, 40, was one of the fishermen killed in the fire.

State of emergency

According to Suseno, who heads the Balikpapan Disaster Mitigation Agency, the fire was probably set off by a spark close to where a vessel was docked at the port and was quickly put out.

Of the five men who died, “the last body was found by a search and rescue team on April 3,” he said.

Efforts were still ongoing to mend the fractured pipeline belonging to the state-owned oil and gas company Pertamina.

In the meantime, the spill has spread over an area of around 12 square kilometers badly affecting several communities along the coast.

Lucia Dian Wulandari, who lives in Margo Mulyo village, can also smell the fuel.

“The smell is very strong particularly after rain,” said the 44-year-old parishioner at Sts. Peter and Paul Church in Dahor.

Authorities in the city — a major mining and energy hub and home to one of the few oil refineries run by Pertamina — had declared a state of emergency.

Government’s responsibility

Environmental groups have called on the government to take responsibility for what they call an ecological disaster, conduct an investigation and prosecute those found to be at fault.

“We want the administration of Balikpapan city to sue the company which caused the spill,” said Topan Wamustofa Hamzah, an advocacy manager from the Indonesian Forum for the Environment.

“We also want police to enforce the law and immediately name a suspect,” Hamzah said, during a protest on April 4 in front of the mayor’s office to demand immediate action to stop and clean up the spill.

A similar demand came from Father Fransiskus de Sales Sani Lake, coordinator of the Commission for Justice, Peace and Integrity of Creation of the Society of the Divine Word in Kalimantan.

“Also make sure that those affected by the spill are safe and can return to their normal lives as soon as possible,” he said.

For Gafar, that cannot come soon enough.

“We just want to fish. If it takes too long, where can we go fish?” he said.

International large-scale education assessments (ILSAs) are used to compare the performance of countries’ educational systems, but these rankings can be misleading and should not be the sole determinant informing educational policy, Judith Singer and Henry Braun caution.

They note that, because of overlapping margins of error, there may not be any statistical difference between the ranked average performances of many countries.

Furthermore, ILSA rankings may not reflect education-system features so much as they reflect broader cultural attitudes and behaviors that impact ILSA performance.

The authors write that, despite discrepancies in data and cross-cultural equivalence challenges, some aspects of ILSAs could be harnessed, in combination with within-country analyses, to pinpoint deficits in educational systems and find solutions.

One such case is by looking at the strength of the relationship between socioeconomic status and school performance; for instance, the relationship between scores and socioeconomic status is noticeably weaker in Canada than in the United States.

Looking into patterns such as this may prompt countries with less equitable systems to experiment with strategies their neighbors have used to improve educational equity, Singer and Braun say.

They conclude by outlining five suggestions for improved use of ILSA data, including linking ILSA data to other data sources and using findings from ILSA analyses to stimulate randomized field trials that test the effects of specific interventions.