Smoking during pregnancy has well-documented negative effects on birth weight in infants and is linked to several childhood health problems. Now, researchers at the University at Buffalo Research Institute on Addictions have found that prenatal marijuana use also can have consequences on infants’ weight and can influence behavior problems, especially when combined with tobacco use.

“Nearly 30 percent of women who smoke cigarettes during pregnancy also report using marijuana,” said Rina Das Eiden, PhD, RIA senior research scientist. “That number is likely to increase with many states moving toward marijuana legalization, so it’s imperative we know what effects prenatal marijuana use may have on infants.”

Through a grant from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, Eiden studied nearly 250 infants and their mothers. Of these, 173 of the infants had been exposed to tobacco and/or marijuana during their mothers’ pregnancies. None were exposed to significant amounts of alcohol.

Eiden found that infants who had been exposed to both tobacco and marijuana, especially into the third trimester, were smaller in length, weight and head size, and were more likely to be born earlier, compared to babies who were not exposed to anything. They also were more likely to be smaller in length and weight compared to babies exposed only to tobacco in the third trimester. The results were stronger for boys compared to girls.

“We also found that lower birth weight and size predicted a baby’s behavior in later infancy,” Eiden said. “Babies who were smaller were reported by their mothers to be more irritable, more easily frustrated and had greater difficulty calming themselves when frustrated. Thus, there was an indirect association between co-exposure to tobacco and marijuana and infant behavior via poor growth at delivery.”

Furthermore, women who showed symptoms of anger, hostility and aggression reported more stress in pregnancy and were more likely to continue using tobacco and marijuana throughout pregnancy. Therefore, due to the co-exposure, they were more likely to give birth to infants smaller in size and who were more irritable and easily frustrated. The infants’ irritability and frustration is also linked to mothers who experienced higher levels of stress while pregnant.

“Our results suggest that interventions with women who smoke cigarettes or use marijuana while pregnant should also focus on reducing stress and helping them cope with negative emotions,” Eiden said. “This may help reduce prenatal substance exposure and subsequent behavior problems in infants.”

Participating in the Eurovision Song Contest may be linked to an increase in a nation’s life satisfaction, according to new research.

The study, by scientists at Imperial College London, found that people were four per cent more likely to be satisfied with their life for every increase of ten places on the final score board – e.g. their country finishing 2nd rather than 12th.

The research, published in the journal BMC Public Health, also found doing badly in the contest was associated with a greater increase in life satisfaction compared to not taking part at all.

The team, who were surprised to find the result, say the research chimes with previous studies that show success in big events, such as sporting fixtures, can boost a nation’s health and wellbeing.

Dr Filippos Filippidis, lead author of the research from the School of Public Health at Imperial, said: “This finding emerged from a jokey conversation in our department. Our ‘day job’ involves investigating the effect of public policies, environmental factors and economic conditions on people’s lifestyle and health. Our department employs people from lots of different countries and around the time of the Eurovision Song Contest we were chatting about whether the competition could also affect a country’s national wellbeing. We looked into it and were surprised to see there may be a link.”

The researchers analysed data from over 160,000 people from 33 European countries. All the people completed a questionnaire as a part of a survey called the Eurobarometer, which is conducted several times each year by the European Commission. Among other things, the survey asks people how satisfied they feel with their life.

The team, who analysed data collected around the time of the Eurovision Song Contest (May and June) between 2009-2015, found that people reported being more satisfied with their life if their country had done well in the Eurovision Song Contest that year.

The researchers then calculated an increase of 10 places on the final scoreboard – e.g. if a country finished 2nd instead of 12th – was associated with a four per cent higher chance of being satisfied with life. However, winning the competition was not associated with an additional increase in life satisfaction.

The scientists then compared data from countries who participated but did badly, to countries who didn’t take part at all. They found that taking part but finishing near the bottom of the table was associated with a 13 percent higher chance of life satisfaction compared to not taking part in the competition.

The team stress the research only shows there is an association – rather than directly showing the contest is responsible for raising life satisfaction. However, Dr Filippidis said the work highlights the possible impact of big events on a nation’s psyche.

“Previous work, by other teams around the world, has shown that national events may affect mood and even productivity – for instance research suggests an increase in productivity in the winning city of the US Super Bowl.”

He added that doing well in Eurovision or even just being part of it gives people something positive to discuss – rather than more negative events in the news.

“It increases the amount of good feeling around, even among people who are not particularly interested in the competition. I remember when Greece won in 2005 – in the weeks that followed people seemed to be in a better mood.”

He added: “Our research shows that science can be used to test unexpected questions, but more importantly we hope it will encourage people to consider how our wellbeing, and consequently our health, can be influenced by a range of factors in the public sphere.”

But he admits he wouldn’t call himself a fan of the competition.

“I’ve been known to occasionally watch it in previous years. It’s certainly entertaining, but I don’t take it too seriously.”

Israel’s attack on Iranian targets in Syria has raised fears of a major conflict between the two powers — with some alarmist, if predictable, headlines warning it could mark “the start of World War III.”

But while the move — in response to an alleged Iranian attack — certainly marks an escalation, commentators have played down the likelihood of all-out war. One said this would be “suicide” for Tehran, despite all its tough talk.

Israel is thought to have carried out at least three separate attacks against Iranian positions in Syria in recent weeks. But the latest is said to be the biggest ever — with Israel apparently emboldened by US President Donald Trump’s move to withdraw from the nuclear deal between Tehran and Western powers.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Iran had “crossed a red line” by targeting Israel’s forces in the occupied Golan Heights, and that the resulting bombardment, which a monitor said killed 23 fighters, “was a consequence.”

Yet amid this increasingly dangerous exchange, commentators said the Iranian regime has no interest in a major conflict — despite previous threats that it could “destroy” Israel.

Dr. Majid Rafizadeh, a Harvard-educated Iranian-American political scientist, said neither Israel nor the Iranian regime wants to initiate a direct armed conflict.

“Tehran prefers asymmetrical warfare and deploying third parties in foreign territories to attack Israel,” he said.

“This has been the modus operandi … for almost four decades. In addition, Iranian leaders are aware that they have inferior military capabilities (compared with) Israel and its ally the US.

“Trump’s withdrawal from the nuclear deal has sent a message that Washington will stand with Israel against Iran’s military adventurism and expansionist policies. During the Obama administration, the US sided mainly with Iran. Finally, Russia’s geopolitical tilt toward Assad and Iran means Moscow can hardly play an objective role as a mediator.”

Dr. Hamdan Al-Shehri, a Riyadh-based Saudi political analyst and international-relations scholar, said the alleged Iranian attack on Israeli forces was directly related to Trump’s withdrawal from the nuclear deal.

While Israel might have been emboldened by the US move, Tehran feels “frustrated” by it, he added.

Al-Shehri told Arab News: “There have been many Israeli attacks on Iranian positions in Syria in the past, but Iran never reacted. So why now? The answer is simple. Iran is frustrated … Iran wants to convey the message that it is angry because of Trump’s decision to pull out of the nuclear deal.”

But he said the attack was merely a “limited action,” which did not cross into recognized Israeli territory.

“Iran has no plan to clash with the West or Israel. Their nefarious project is aimed only at the Arab and Gulf countries,” added Al-Shehri.

He said there was no possibility of the incident turning into a bigger conflagration, with Iran and the Tehran-backed Hezbollah knowing “their limits.”

“They know that if they embark on any misadventure, they will be finished,” said Al-Shehri.

“Even Russia cannot protect them beyond a certain point. Iran and its militias will not commit suicide and lose all they have gained in Syria through subterfuge.

“Iran’s actions are only to incite emotions (in the Muslim world). Iran is not interested in taking on Israel. They deceived many Arabs and Muslims. And sadly, many people are still deceived by the Iranians, even after what they have done in Yemen and Syria; despite all their atrocities and killings.”

Yahya Al-Aridi, a Syrian opposition spokesman, told Arab News that Iran lives off its hostility toward Israel and the US. “Iran’s mullahs escape from problems inside Iran and cover that up with wars and proxy wars outside their borders,” he said.

By Wael Mahdi*

It seems clear that all producers will benefit from rising prices following the decision of US president Donald Trump this week to impose sanctions on Iranian oil exports within 180 days. Conversely, it would be reasonable to expect that consuming nations will suffer from high oil prices.

But in reality things could be different depending on the development of events. Not all oil producers will benefit in the same way and not all consumers will be affected in the same way. Similarly, not all international oil companies will benefit or lose in the same way.

So who are the real winners from the renewed sanctions on Iranian oil and who are the losers? And why are the sanctions this time different from the last round of sanctions that were imposed in the summer of 2012?

Starting with the second question, the dynamics in the market differ greatly from the previous situation. In 2012, demand was not very strong and there was no excess supply in the market to replace Iranian crude.

Iran mainly produces medium and heavy-density crude oil with a high sulfur content, otherwise known as sour crude. Not all producers can supply this type of crude, and most of the medium and heavy excess capacity is in the Gulf region, in countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

The growth in world oil demand in 2012 was about 800,000 barrels per day (bpd), largely unchanged on the previous year, as US oil demand moved from deep contraction to minor growth, according to OPEC estimates at the time.

The supply picture was different, with output from outside the group not growing greatly, despite oil prices trading at above $100 that year. Non-OPEC’s supply growth was projected at 500,000 bpd in 2012 with gains from US and Canada, according to the organization’s estimates. OPEC at that time had a production ceiling of 30 million bpd.

The supply and demand situation in 2012 was reflected in pricing dynamics. Due to the lack of enough medium and heavy spare capacity, the gap in prices between Dubai crude oil, which represents Gulf heavy sour grades, and Brent oil, which represents medium-sweet grades, narrowed to record lows in that year following the embargo on Iranian shipments. This was because the value of medium and heavy grades went up due to scarcity.

The price spread between Brent and WTI widened greatly, as the US was not exporting crude oil and most shipments to Asia came from Brent-linked crude grades or Brent itself. By the end of 2012, the Brent-WTI spread reached $24.

Today, the dynamics of the market are totally different. Fundamentals are healthy and there is abundant crude in the market — mainly sweet and light oil. This time around, it is not hard to replace an Iranian shipment, even from within OPEC, as many countries — including Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE — have invested in adding capacity.

According to OPEC’s latest monthly report, oil demand in 2018 might grow by 1.63 million bpd, twice the amount in 2012. Growth in supply from outside OPEC this year is around 1.71 million bpd, more than three times that in 2012.

Meanwhile the Dubai-Brent spread, which now stands at $4 per barrel, is expected to narrow later in the year and early in 2019, as the value of Dubai might rise. As for the Brent-WTI spread, the former is trading now at a premium of $6 to WTI.

The only significant difference is that OPEC and some non-OPEC producers have an agreement to cut production as oil prices now trade at little more than half their levels in 2012. If the sanctions on Iranian crude result in the end of that agreement, there will be a flood of medium and heavy grades in the market and any sanctions on Iranian crude will not affect the balance of the market.

Saudi Arabia alone can increase production by another 500,000 to 1 million bpd in a short period. But this is unlikely, given the Kingdom’s close coordinations since last year with Russia and others to balance the market; therefore the responsibility for increasing supply is likely to be shared by a wide group of producers.

It is hard to tell whether the new sanctions will spell the end of the OPEC plus agreement. Oil prices are not yet at the level where producers in the agreement want them to be, as they are not yet high enough to bring back lost investments in the industry. So the deal might continue but with a new distribution of the quotas of producers.

Another important difference with the situation in 2012 is that the US now has enough capacity to replace Iranian condensates to Asia due to the increased production of shale oil and gas from areas such as the Permian and Eagle Ford. Back in 2012, it was hard to replace Iranian condensates — a form of a very light oil.

With all of this in mind, who will be the winners and losers from the new sanctions on Iran? US oil companies are in a better position to benefit more than OPEC countries, while refiners in Asia and Europe will suffer when they look for new sources of supply. This is for two reasons.

First, such refiners will need to get some oil that is priced based on Brent. Second, some refiners will lose the discounts and the long billing cycles that Iran usually offers to its customers to compete with other Gulf producers.

Another source of concern for refiners is the refining margin. The shift in use of other type of crudes that are not configured by the refineries will change the economics, and may shrink the profits made from refining each barrel. For the US refiners, there is not much to fear. But for EU and Asian refiners the margins will be a big concern next year.

OPEC will no doubt think about these issues in its next ministerial meeting in June but there are many challenges. First, distributing Iranian market share is not going to be easy, and selling crude at reasonable discounts and pricing to Iran’s customers is a delicate marketing issue.

Second, whenever there is a void in the market, everyone will try to sell more crude. This may result in cheating by some members of the agreement.

What is almost certain is that OPEC and non-OPEC allies are interested in keeping the agreement because it results in higher oil prices. And as oil prices are expected to increase next year, although not greatly, producers will need to balance the market and make sure they do not jeopardize the balance of the market.

But will the sanctions work this time? This really depends on the role that the EU plays. Last time it was not the embargo that hurt Iranian oil exports but the withdrawal of EU insurers from insuring Iranian tankers that made customers unwilling to buy Iranian oil.

• Wael Mahdi is an energy reporter specializing on OPEC and a co-author of “OPEC in a Shale Oil World: Where to Next?” Twitter @waelmahdi

Despite his heavy-handed approach to any and all demonstrations that he and his regime have not approved in advance, Alyaksandr Lukashenka did not order the dispersal of 1500 Belarusians who marched through the center of Minsk with pro-Moscow banners and shouting pro-Moscow slogans.

Instead, the Belarusian leader let it go forward, an indication that he is afraid to offend Moscow and that he has lost control over the mass consciousness of Belarusians” to what is in fact “a pro-Russian ‘fifth column’ on the streets of Minsk,” according to Valery Karbalevich of Radio Liberty’s Belarusian Service (svaboda.org/a/29217727.html).

The marchers, the journalist says, were “well organized,” had lots of prepared things like George ribbons, pictures of Lenin and Stalin, and the like. “Young people wore t-shirts with lettering declaring ‘Army of Russia,’ ‘Donets Peoples Republic,’ ‘Polite People,’ and the Russian court of arms.”

All of those taking part clearly understood that what they were doing was designed to put the Lukashenka regime in a difficult position, Kabalevich says, especially since among those marching were people closely tied to his own government but clearly in this case at least completely at odds with it.

Russian media hyped the event, but “the paradox is that the absolute majority of poeoople who marched with portraits were certain that they were taking part in an action of ‘the Immortal Regiment’ because they live in a Russian information space and look at the mirror through the distorted mirror of the federal channels of the Russian Federation.”

They thus felt themselves unconsciously to be “part of ‘the Russian world’ and this is the most dangerous thing of all.” The Belarusian authorities initially banned the march but then a day before it was to occur put out the word that no action would be taken against it, Karbalevich says. The only restriction they imposed was to require people pass through metal detectors.

Given that Lukashenka has publicly stated that he will put down any demonstration he hasn’t approved of it advance, one is compelled to ask “why?” Many of the answers to this question are disturbing.

First of all, Lukashenka didn’t want to spoil the holiday; second, he and his regime probably didn’t expect that the march would be so openly pro-Russian; and third, there were some of his own political allies present. But it is the fourth reason that is the most important, the Radio Liberty correspondent says.

It is one thing to crush Belarusian nationalists; it is quite another to take action against a pro-Russian group, something that would inevitably create “a definite scandal in relations with Russia.” But it would also create problems for Lukashenka with his own people “who also see the world through the prism of Russian television, consider that ‘Crimea is ours’ and that Russia is the chief support of good in the world, and support the idea of imperial revanchism.”

Some outlets even suggest that “Putin in Belarus is much more respected and popular than Lukashenka,” even among Lukashenka’s own voters. But however that may be, “the pro-Russian demarche of May 9 represents a serious challenge for Lukashenka’s regime” because “as long as the authorities don’t control Belarusian mass consciousness,” there is a problem.

Up to now, many had dismissed the existence of such a pro-Russian group within Belarus as “only a fact of sociology.” But this demonstration “showed that the problem has become a political phenomenon and is being transformed into political action. We clearly saw in the center of the capital a pro-Russian ‘fifth column.’”

And now “something must be done about it.”

Forty-eight thousand year-old crayons and shell beads were among a treasure trove of items unearthed by archaeologists at a cave in Kenya.

Archaeologists have discovered more than 30,000 items at the site which is shedding new light on the crucial time period when Homo sapiens first started showing signs of modern behaviour.

The research was led by archaeologist Dr Ceri Shipton of The Australian National University (ANU) School of Culture, History and Language, who said the Panga ya Saidi cave sequence dates back 78,000 years and is the only known site in East Africa with an unbroken archaeological record of human inhabitation.

“It is the most beautiful site I have ever worked on. As soon as I saw it I knew it was special,” Dr Shipton said.

“It has a continuous record with people there right up until 500 years ago.

“The site has amazing levels of preservation with so many of the artefacts in mint condition.”

Dr Shipton said the site, on the Kenyan south coast just north of Mombasa, was providing new insights into the Later Stone Age – a period of time beginning about 67,000 years ago associated with the rise of modern human behaviour and culture in Africa.

“You start to see things like decorated bones, beads made from marine shell or ostrich eggs, miniaturized stone tools, and bones carved into things like arrow points. This is the oldest date we have for when this behaviour is first observed,” he said.

“Previous sites relating to this early period of modern human behaviour have all been in South Africa and the East African Rift Valley, this is the first site on the coast of East Africa and the first with such a continuous record.”

Dr Shipton said it was highly unusual to find a site where early Homo sapiens were living in a tropical forest.

“Early humans liked to be on open grassland where there is a lot of large animals for hunting,” Dr Shipton said.

“These people were living in tropical forest hunting smaller animals like monkeys and small deer, animals you may need more sophisticated technology to catch.”

“What is striking about this record is the innovations you see in technology and material culture, and the ability to exploit both forest and savannah environments. It is this kind of behavioural flexibility that allowed our species to populate the rest of the world outside of Africa.”

Professor Andy Herries from La Trobe University Archaeology undertook archaeomagnetic analysis of the cave sediments which showed that the transition in stone tool technology took place during a particularly cold and dry glacial period.

“the site documents the earliest evidence of this style of microlithic Later Stone Age technology and shows how early modern humans were able to adapt to a range of new environments at this time,” Professor Herries said.

“It is a small precursor to our eventual habitation of every corner and environment on the planet.”

Of more than 30,000 items found at the site, some of the most remarkable include 48,000 year old red ochre crayons and engraved bones. Dr Shipton was struck by the high-level preservation of the artefacts.

“The stone tools are still sharp. The beads and engraved bones have survived intact which is really rare,” he said.

“On the crayons we can still see the grooves where they have been used. They’re in the same condition now as when people discarded them.”

The study was published on Wednesday in the Nature Communications journal. The project was led by the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History.

Religious “nones,” people who do not officially associate themselves with a specific religion, are on the rise in the United States. While there are many contributing factors to this phenomenon, new research suggests one reason is the merging of politics and conservative Christian beliefs.

A study published in April in the journal Political Research Quarterly examined states that enacted policies against same-sex marriage, and found a correlation between these activities and a rising number of people who do not affiliate with a specific religion.

The study, which was co-written by University at Buffalo political scientist Jacob Neiheisel, includes the following findings:

• The movement to set state constitutions against same-sex marriage, which began in 2004, made the religious right more visible to the public, especially in states considering LGBT marriage bans.
• By 2010, same-sex marriage bans were in place in 29 states. These states were more likely to be evangelical and had smaller percentages of nones compared to the other states.
• From 2006-10, the gap between the nones in marriage ban states and those in states with no marriage ban had been cut in half, decreasing from 3.1 percent to 1.4 percent over that period. In other words, a greater percentage of people left the church in states where the religious right is most active.

“Regardless of which measure of religious right activity in the states that we used, in states that saw contentious fights over same-sex marriage, the political presence of right-leaning religious groups tracks with the rate of religious nones. So we like to say that salient controversy is the key link that’s connecting politics and religion here,” said Neiheisel, PhD, an assistant professor in the Department of Political Science in UB’s College of Arts and Sciences.

He added: “You don’t see people sorting along political lines or leaving churches as a result of the activity of a combination of religious and political organizations, until you start to see changes in the policy arena.”

The study’s corresponding author is Paul Djupe, an associate professor at Denison University. Kimberly Conger, an assistant professor at University of Cincinnati, is a co-author.

The research follows another paper co-written by Neiheisel, which collected data from individuals over time in congregations. It showed that even over short periods of time, sizable portions were leaving their churches and that a contributing cause was political disagreement. In one three-month span, 14 percent left their church; that rate grew when they examined longer periods of time.

As Neiheisel explained: “Both studies suggest a great deal of churn among religious organizations driven by political disagreement. While everyday disagreement drives people out across the political spectrum, the public salience of the Christian right specifically helped to drive up the rate of nones.”

Study data was acquired from a mixture of sources, including Conger’s long-running survey of experts about conservative Christian presence at the state-level, as well as her work on counts of conservative Christian interest groups at the state-level. Key outcome variables are from religious census data, collected by the Glenmary Research Center, as well as survey data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES).

By Hadi Azmi and Hareez Lee

Mahathir Mohamad took the oath of office Thursday night as Malaysia’s seventh prime minister, after his induction ceremony was postponed twice in 12 hours, and vowed that his new government would uphold the nation’s laws and abolish oppressive ones.

Mahatir, 92, was sworn in as the new PM at the royal palace in Kuala Lumpur in front of Malaysia’s king, a day after leading the opposition Pakatan Harapan (PH) coalition in a stunning win in the country’s 14th General Election.

“We promise to set up a good government based on the constitution and law of this country, a government where the constitution is upheld and the law will guide us,” Prime Minister Mahathir told a news conference after he was re-inducted as PM for the first time in 15 years.

Dressed for the ceremony in a black and gold traditional Malay outfit, Mahathir became the oldest person in the world to serve as a head of government after he was sworn in around 10 p.m. (local time), in a nationally televised event that had Malaysians glued to their TV sets. He will turn 93 in July.

Top government officials and leaders of Pakatan were on hand to witness the much-anticipated ceremony as the octogenarian took the oath of office and oath to guard the nation’s secrets before Sultan Muhammad V, Malaysia’s 15th king.

“We seek to abolish suppressive and unfair laws – for example, the anti-fake news law and the National Security Council [law], which is set up to frighten people,” he told the post-ceremony news conference, referring to some laws that had been passed by the outgoing government, led by his former protégé, Najib Razak.

During his previous long tenure as prime minister, from 1981 to 2003, Mahathir was known as one of Southeast Asia’s strongmen. In 1987, he ordered the arrests and detention of more than 100 people, including opposition leaders and activists, under the notorious Internal Security Act (ISA).

After taking office, Najib abolished the act but his government later implemented the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which, critics said, was similar to the draconian ISA.

Mahathir had previously said that, if he became prime minister again, he would hand over the reins of government eventually to Anwar Ibrahim, his former political foe-turned-ally in Pakatan, who is due to be released from prison next month after serving time on a sodomy conviction.

On Thursday night, a reporter asked the new prime minister how long he intended to stay in office this time around.

“Maximum time as PM? I think I have some experience and the government needs my experience. And I’ll stay for as long as my experience is needed, but not too long,” Mahathir responded.

Controversy over delays to oath-taking

On Thursday, there was some drama leading up to Mahathir’s latest inauguration because of at least two delays to the ceremony that led some to question whether and when he might be sworn in.

“The delay was unavoidable due to the unnecessary procedures but in the end I was sworn-in today,” Mahathir said during the news conference that followed the ceremony.

On Wednesday, Mahathir led a historic upset against the Barisan Nasional bloc, which he used to head and which was ousted as Malaysia’s governing bloc for the first time in Malaysia’s 61-year history. The Pakatan bloc won at least 113 parliamentary seats, enough needed to control a simple majority and form a new government.

Thursday’s ceremony had been postponed twice in the same day, once at 9:30 a.m. and later at 5 p.m.

After the ceremony, he told reporters that the formation of the new government depended on the king’s signature but the monarch, Mahathir said, had insisted that an official count from the Election Commission had to come first before proceeding with the ceremony – and he wanted the results in writing.

The EC was slow in sending the written results, and they did not reach the palace until 3 p.m. Thursday, Mahathir said.

According to comments made by Mahathir at a press conference following the first postponement in the morning, there appeared to be some confusion over whether Pakatan had won a parliamentary majority because the bloc’s four parties had contested the election under the logo of the People’s Justice Party, one of the alliance’s member parties.

He said PH had “already won a clear majority and therefore we are entitled to form a government.”

“The constitution says that the PM should have the support of the majority of the members of Parliament. It does not say it should have the support of any party. As long as it has the support of the majority of members of Parliament, he is entitled to become the PM. The majority has the right to name him and to require him to be duly appointed according to the constitution,” Mahathir told reporters.

“However, there have been some delays over a lack of understanding of the constitution but we’d like to make it clear that there is an urgency here. We need to form the government now, today because there is now currently no government of Malaysia,” he added.

Separately, the royal palace issued a statement “strongly refuting” any allegation that the king “had delayed the appointment of Mahathir as Prime Minister.”

The king had met with four of the leaders of Pakatan Harapan at 5 p.m. to interview them and listen to their views, before deciding to invite Mahathir to form the next Federal Government, the palace said.

“His Majesty then consented to swear Tun Dr. Mahathir in as Prime Minister at 9:30 p.m. today,” the statement said.

“His majesty looks forward to working with Tun Dr. Mahathir and his administration for the betterment of our nation and all its people.”

Najib concedes defeat

On Thursday morning, Najib gave a somber news conference where he said, “I accept and my friends all accept the verdict of the people, and Barisan Nasional is committed to respect the principle of parliamentary democracy.”

Najib also said his government had elevated the quality of life for the Malaysian people. He was proud of its record but there were things that were “not perfect in the time when we were in power,” conceded Najib, who served two terms, starting in 2009.

Going into the election, Najib had been shadowed for the past three years by corruption allegations tied to 1MDB, a state investment fund that he started. He denied allegations of wrongdoing, but Mahathir made the 1MDB affair a plank in Pakatan’s electoral platform.

At Thursday night’s press conference, Mahathir told reporters that his government would seek to get back billions of dollars that had allegedly been stolen from the fund and led to money-laundering investigations around the globe.

‘I feel like crying’

Supporters of the victorious Pakatan coalition, meanwhile, were jubilant as the old statesmen prepared to return to office.

“Let’s not talk about them [the past government]. I am here tonight to celebrate with other Malaysians,” said 34-year-old Ryan Lim, a salesman who was celebrating outside the National Palace, where Mahathir was sworn in.

Shashipriya Nadaraja, a 38-year-old school teacher, said she had been waiting for long time for a change in her country’s government.

“I am extremely happy. I am speechless and I feel like crying because the overwhelming feeling of victory. This is the real independence,” she told BenarNews.

But, she added, “I really hope that they can fulfill their promises. I also hope that the new government will not let us down.”

By Radosa Milutinovic

Testifying at the Hague trial of former Serbian State Security chiefs Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic, a Serbian ex-policeman admitted personally setting houses on fire in a Bosniak village in 1993.

Testifying as a protected prosecution witness, the former Serbian policeman told Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic’s trial at the Mechanism for International Tribunals in The Hague on Thursday that he was involved in a “clean-up” operation in villages near the small town of Skelani in eastern Bosnia in March 1993, when houses were torched.

“I burned one or two houses at most, in the Ljeskovik village area,” said the protected witness, codenamed RFJ-083 to conceal his identity.

He said that participated as a member of Serbian Interior Ministry special police units, but that the operation was led by the Serbian State Security Service’s Red Berets unit, “managed” by defendant Simatovic.

Stanisic, the former chief of the Serbian State Security Service, and his former assistant Simatovic are on trial for persecution, murders and deportations during the wars in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina.

According to the charges, the Red Berets were under the control of the Serbian State Security Service.

The indictment alleges that Stanisic and Simatovic committed their crimes as part of a joint criminal enterprise aimed at forcibly and permanently removing Croats and Bosniaks from large parts of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, which would then be incorporated into a unified Serb state.

During cross-examination, Simatovic’s defence lawyer Vladimir Petrovic asked the witness who gave the order to set the houses on fire.

“It happened spontaneously, everyone was doing it. I don’t know who ordered it, but it was done,” RFJ-083 said.

The witness said that, while following the Red Berets, his special police unit participated in the burning of the villages of Ljeskovik, Osmace and Karacici, near Skelani.

While they were in Bosnia, the Serbian special policemen followed the Red Berets’ instructions and orders, he testified.

However he confirmed that the Bosniaks who lived in the villages had already left before the Red Berets arrived.

RFJ-083 said that, during his 12-day stay in Bosnia, he neither saw the enemy or the Bosniak population, nor fired a single bullet, because he and his colleagues offered “background support” to the Red Berets and did not participate in their operations.

Simatovic’s lawyer argued that the Red Berets unit was part of the Bosnian Serb Interior Ministry, not under the control of the Serbian State Security Service at the time.

He presented to the court an order from Bosnian Serb Interior Minister Mico Stanisic which appointed Radojica Bozovic commander of the Red Berets.

The witness, who said that Red Berets members had told him their commander was “a man named Bozovic”, accepted that, according to the document, Bozovic received orders from the Bosnian Serb Interior Ministry.

Stanisic and Simatovic both pleaded not guilty in December 2015 after the appeals chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia overturned their acquittal in their first trial.

The appeals chamber ruled that there were serious legal and factual errors when Stanisic and Simatovic were initially acquitted of war crimes in 2013, and ordered the case to be retried and all the evidence and witnesses reheard in full by new judges.

The trial continues on Tuesday.

(Civil.Ge) — The political row over President Giorgi Margvelashvili’s pardoning practices continues, nearly a month after mounting criticism forced the President to suspend pardoning of prisoners convicted for violent crimes.

The recent episode follows Parliament Speaker Irakli Kobakhidze’s statement on May 2, when he accused the President of “abusing” his power to pardon inmates, and stressed its frequent use by Margvelashvili could “theoretically” be related to his “irresponsibility, corruption, or deliberate obstruction of the law enforcement system.”

The Presidential administration was quick to respond to the accusations, saying it would be “absolutely logical,” if the Prosecutor’s office opened a probe into Kobakhidze’s claims.

“These statements are very dangerous, and if they are correct, this can be even more dangerous for the country and its [international] image,” the President’s Political Secretary Pikria Chikhradze noted.

“The Speaker has to immediately report to the Prosecutor’s Office and inform them of what he knows about the matter, and relevant agencies need to launch procedures for establishing truth,” she added.

The two continued to exchange accusations this week as well.

In an interview with Imedi TV on May 8, Margvelashvili stressed the Parliament Speaker’s allegations of corruption and deliberate obstruction of law enforcement agencies should have prompted criminal prosecution and impeachment, respectively, but “the people [who accused me] decided not to refer to the Prosecutor’s Office or launch the impeachment procedures.”

The Parliament Speaker responded to the President in an interview with Rustavi 2 TV later on Tuesday, slamming his remarks as “speculation,” and as “an attempt to divert attention.”

Kobakhidze added that his remarks were “political accusations,” and that there was “no ground for pursuing criminal prosecution.” “Instances of corruption need to be confirmed by factual evidence, and I only spoke of theoretical assumptions.”

Critical remarks against the President emerged last month, shortly after the Interior Ministry confirmed that Vepkhia Bakradze, the suspect in the murder of a 25-year-old woman in Tbilisi on April 13, was released upon Margvelashvili’s pardon a year ago, prompting him to temporarily suspend pardoning of prisoners convicted for violent crimes.

Azerbaijan is ready to continue substantive negotiations on the settlement of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict with the mediation of OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs, said Hikmat Hajiyev, a spokesman for Azerbaijan’s foreign ministry.

Hajiyev said Baku hopes that “the new political leadership of Armenia will not repeat the mistakes of its predecessors.”

Armenia has a new prime minister elected by the National Assembly on Tuesday, May 8.

“I would like to reiterate that Azerbaijan stands ready to continue the substantive negotiations on the basis of existing agenda with the mediation of OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs for the soonest resolution of conflict,” Hajiyev said, according to APA.

Hot on the heels of the Benjamin Netanyahu “nuclear archive” show supposedly revealing Iranian perfidy, US President Donald Trump added succour to the Israeli cause by promising to withdraw from the Iran Nuclear deal, more lengthily known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

The JCPOA originally comprised various undertakings and actions on the part of the Obama administration: the rescinding of various executive orders imposing nuclear sanctions on Tehran (Executive Orders 13574, 13590, 13622 and 13645) and specific sections of Executive Order 13628.  To this laundry list were added persons and entities deemed Specially Designated Nationals and Foreign Sanction Evaders who were specifically de-listed.

Such measures caused discomfort to Congress, not least because of the JCPOA’s designation as a non-legally binding political agreement.  Doing so side-stepped the need for Congressional approval, though a rebuff came in the form of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, requiring the president to submit any nuclear agreement with Tehran to review by the legislators.  An oversight mechanism was thereby introduced.

Trump remained true to his vulgar form, calling the agreement“a horrible, one-sided deal that should have never, ever been made”.  Iran deserved special mention as being “the leading sponsor of state terror. It exports dangerous missiles, fuels conflicts across the Middle East, and supports terrorist proxies such as Hezbollah, Hamas, the Taliban, and al Qaeda.”

He also spoke in tones suggesting an alternate, disassociated reality.  Iran had been permitted “to continue enriching uranium and, over time, reach the brink of a nuclear breakout.”  Nor did the deal prove expansive enough, avoiding “other malign behaviour, including its sinister activities in Syria, Yemen, and other places around the world.”

The good offices of the US Treasury, along with other agencies, have been mobilised by Trump’s National Security Presidential Memorandum, with a promise that sanctions will be re-imposed on those industries exempted in the 2015 deal, specifically aircraft exports, precious metals, the purchase of US banknotes and the oil sector.

As the US Department of Treasury explained, “As soon as administratively feasible, the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) expects to revoke, or amend, as appropriate, general and specific licenses issued in connection with the JCPOA.”  Applicable sanctions will come into effect at the end of 90-day and 180-day wind down periods.

At times, the language from the department is colourfully off in its child-like morality.  “The US government will continue to make aggressive use of its authorities to target Iran’s malign behaviour.”  The president’s distinct vernacular is proving catching, and the bureaucrats are succumbing.

The Iran obsession has taken hold in the White House, and the hard talkers have evidently taken up residence beside Trump’s ear.  National Security Adviser John Bolton has been stumping the view that European companies doing business with Iran ought to cease within six months or face US sanctions.

The president, explained Bolton in a press briefing, had made “a firm statement of American resolve to prevent not only Iran from getting nuclear weapons, but a ballistic missile delivery capability.  It limits its continuing support of terrorism and its causing instability and turmoil in the Middle East.”

Through his briefing, Bolton’s answers betrayed the carceral mentality that characterises his approach to international diplomacy, or whatever passes for it. Never give the other side an inch.  Dictate stances and refuse to abide by your own obligations. The “fundamentally flawed” agreement, he asserted, “does not prevent Iran from developing deliverable nuclear weapons. It allows Iran to continue technologies like uranium enrichment, reprocessing of plutonium.” The underlying sentiment here is that Iran should have nothing to do with anything remotely resembling the atom.

Washington’s allies had been attempting to reel Trump back with respective, and evidently ineffectual visits by German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron. Macron’s warning to members of the US congress was fitted as part of a broader program of restraint: be aware of withdrawing from collectively hammered out agreements on security.

As with the climate change regime, those states left with the shambles of a clumsy US exit will stay the course.  Federica Mogherini of the EU expressed the need to “preserve” the arrangements.  A joint statementfrom the UK, Germany and France emphasised “our continuing commitment to the JCPOA.”  The leaders noted the assessment by the International Atomic Energy Agency that Tehran “continues to abide by the restrictions set out by the JCPOA, in line with its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.  The world is a safer place as a result.”

This point of compliance has sailed over the heads of Trump’s circle of ravenous hawks, suggesting that such abidance isthe problem.  The European angle on this has always been accommodating to the verification results of the IAEA.  As an official in the German Federal Foreign Office noted last year, “We have no indication of Iran violating its JCPOA commitments.”

In Tehran, a proposal involving restoring enrichment capabilities clipped by the JCPOA is doing the rounds. “I have ordered the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran,” explainedIran’s President Hassan Rouhani, “to be ready for action if needed so that if necessary we can resume our enrichment on an industrial level without any limitations.”  In a note of mild reassurance, Rouhani claimed that the agreement would still remain in place provided its “goals in cooperation with other members of the deal” could be achieved.

Hard line reactionary types the world over will be excited by Trump’s latest take on Iran.  The cards for war are being readied.  The obscurantist regime in Riyadh cheered with welcome that an arch rival had been railroaded.  Likewise that other fear monger, Israel.  Their desire has an obscene angle to it: to discourage Iran from non-proliferation, thereby setting up the premise for an attack that would confirm their fears. Doing so will, in these demonic calculations, finally settle long, dog-eared scores.

By William McHenry

Russian election meddling in the United States and Europe has captured headlines across both continents. As policymakers on both sides of the Atlantic develop their own responses, they have overlooked a key geopolitical theater, the Balkans. As part of Russia’s continuous efforts to undermine NATO and the EU, it has committed considerable resources toward gaining influence in the region. Not only has Moscow sought to halt the expansion of NATO and the EU, but it has also attempted to solidify its influence in the region by supporting pro-Russian political parties and leaders. To date, Moscow’s regional influence campaign has been as bold as it has been effective. Accordingly, policymakers on both sides of the Atlantic need to confront Russia’s meddling in the region and act in this neglected theater.

Since 9/11, both the United States and Western Europe, which played key roles intervening in the Yugoslav civil wars of the 1990s, have been understandably distracted by violent extremism in the Middle East and Central Asia. This has shifted attention and resources away from resolving the many protracted ethnic, religious, and political conflicts which plague the southeastern periphery of Europe. This strategic inattention has allowed Moscow to be remarkably successful in its efforts to stall European integration through a mixture of tradecraft, economic coercion, disinformation campaigns, arms sales, and high-level political posturing.

An extensive report written by leading Russian foreign policy expert Mark Galeotti outlines how Russia has targeted Southeastern Europe to exacerbate existing tensions and gain bargaining chips vis-à-vis the EU and NATO. He argues that Putin’s re-election coupled with the leadership dynamics of Russia’s national security establishment are pushing Russia’s aggressive foreign policy towards the Balkans. Most importantly, “in Russian eyes, the EU’s approach towards the Western Balkans (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo Macedonia, Montenegro, and Serbia) is neither serious nor systematic and so offers Moscow opportunities to create leverage.”

With the exception of Montenegro’s 2017 accession to NATO, the prospect of further political integration with NATO and the EU is bleak. In Serbia, Kosovo’s independence remains unresolved, and Macedonia remains locked in a bitter political dispute with Greece. Additionally, Bosnia and Herzegovina is still governed by deadlock—a product of the still unreformed constitution from the Dayton Peace Accords. In all these cases, endemic political instability has been the greatest factor that has prevented meaningful progress on the institutional reforms necessary for these countries to join NATO and/or the EU. These issues, though not caused by Russia, have weakened these countries’ institutions to the extent that they are more susceptible to the Kremlin’s influence.

The Guardian reports that there has been a Russian led disinformation campaign in Macedonia since at least 2008. The article references documents captured by Macedonian intelligence that outline Russia’s goals and strategy. More specifically, Russia exploited Macedonia’s ethnic divisions in its media with the goal of preventing NATO and EU expansion and reducing the political influence of these institutions.

Although Serbia cooperates with NATO on humanitarian issues, it has recently agreed to a landmark arms deal with Russia. Today these bilateral security ties have been augmented by the revival of pan-Slavism in the region fostered by Russia. In fact, a majority of the Serbian public supports military cooperation with Russia. As a result, the Serbian political climate has become less friendly towards the prospect of integration with the EU.

Russia has also increased non-kinetic attacks on Montenegro since its NATO accession by exerting economic pressure and exploiting political tensions. More importantly, it likely supported an unsuccessful coup attempt against the Montenegrin government to prevent NATO accession, as Moscow had invested considerable resources in the country with the hopes of gaining a naval base in the region.

There is little doubt that the EU and the United States have lost credibility in the region as partners. Much of this is due to internal crises such as Brexit and the spread of anti-institutionalist populism, but Washington and Brussels also deserve blame for neglecting a region they initially committed so much to after the end of the Cold War. Nonetheless, there are signs of hope as Macedonia and Greece may resolve their political dispute, removing one of the significant roadblocks to European integration in the region, and policymakers in Washington and Brussels are finally coming to terms with Russia’s growing influence. However, it is important to note that Washington/Brussels and Moscow are not competing in a geopolitical vacuum in the Balkans. Both Turkey and Saudi Arabia have made significant soft power investments in the region to increase their influence as well.

In the Balkans, the Kremlin’s use of political subversion furthers its primary foreign policy goal of preventing the expansion of NATO and the EU into its perceived sphere of influence. Though these activities by Russia in the Balkans have been overshadowed by the Syrian civil war, President Trump, the EU, and NATO would be wise to turn their attention back to the region.

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

Document by Spanish economists on the reform of the European Monetary Union, published in May 2018. It offers some recommendations towards a stronger architecture for the euro through deeper fiscal, financial and economic integration. It also advocates a greater degree of political union to provide democratic legitimacy and accountability.

Diagnosis

The euro was expected to make Europe stronger and more integrated. So far, it has not succeeded in this endeavour. The EMU’s original design underplayed the importance of banking, fiscal and political union and failed to provide the right incentives to promote the structural reforms needed to maintain Europe’s high standard of living in an ever more globalised and competitive world.

The recent crisis was a wake-up call. It exposed serious shortcomings in the design of the euro and led to substantial reforms, including the creation of the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), the launch of a Banking Union with a single rulebook, a Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) and a Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM), and the strengthening of the economic governance framework.

However, it was not until the ECB’s President affirmed that he was ready to do ‘whatever it takes to save the euro’ that the financial crisis receded. Yet the single currency’s present architecture cannot ensure its long-term survival. Much more needs to be done.

There needs to be further fiscal coordination and discipline and a joint facility for macro stabilisation within the currency area, an unconditional lender of last resort and an effective mechanism to break the link between banks and sovereigns, ensuring financial stability, more effective macroeconomic surveillance and coordination, and greater legitimacy in the overall governance structures.

Euro area countries learnt the hard way that joining EMU meant they were issuing debt in a currency they could not control. Without an independent monetary and exchange rate policy, or sufficient factor flexibility, the internal devaluation needed to adjust to falling competitiveness prompted a deep recession and persistently high unemployment in a number of countries. In hindsight, the euro area experience also shows that countries joining the currency union have insufficient incentives to implement the structural reforms needed to make their economies more flexible and convergent, and that external pressure only works in exceptional circumstances.

Despite significant progress in fiscal and macroeconomic governance, countries still have incentives to circumvent the tighter rules. There is still a widespread view in Europe that the main problems lie with the countries’ unwillingness or inability to implement the rules properly. Nevertheless, experience shows that even strict adherence to fiscal rules (which is clearly necessary) is insufficient to guarantee a well-functioning and stable monetary union.

Although there have been substantial reforms, a number of obstacles remain. Political agreement is needed on a common fiscal backstop for the banking union, on a fiscal stabilisation function and on how to share the costs of dealing with failing banks and protecting depositors. Furthermore, the many bodies responsible for different aspects of financial policy need to coordinate better, and a proper lender of last resort for the euro area is still required.

While it is important to acknowledge the unprecedented rescue packages guaranteed by creditor states, the strategy of placing most of the burden of macroeconomic adjustment in EMU on deficit countries can, in the long-run, prove to be politically unsustainable and undermine the citizens’ confidence in the single currency. Moreover, current fiscal rules are too complex and fail to provide the right incentives to ensure their compliance. Therefore, we need a revision of the macroeconomic governance framework.

Structural reforms and macroeconomic coordination have also been strengthened, but there is an underlying tension between national and European interests. Growth-oriented structural reforms are essential to make EMU function more effectively, but most of the responsibility for designing and implementing the reforms lies with individual countries. We need a new system that provides the right incentives to deepen reforms, along with better coordination.

Taken together, the economic governance reforms are moving in the right direction, but they do not go far enough to make EMU work effectively. Without deeper fiscal, financial and economic integration, and the institutions to deliver them, the euro will remain unstable and vulnerable to further shocks, especially in the financial sector, where the ‘too big to fail’ problem and the re-nationalisation of credit have only intensified.

In order to deliver this deeper integration in a democratically legitimate and sustainable way, some degree of greater political integration will be required. There is no way around this.

We need to be realistic. Even in the case of sufficient economic convergence, some kind of fiscal transfer scheme would be indispensable to offset asymmetric shocks. However, there also needs to be a deeper fiscal union with strong and credible surveillance over countries’ budgets in order to avoid moral hazard, and centralised debt instruments to fund a common budget capable of promoting pan-European projects to increase growth potential, ensure sufficient pan-European investment, reduce inequality and facilitate debt sustainability.

There is no trade-off between fiscal and market discipline on the one hand and solidarity mechanisms on the other. Rather, there is a virtuous circle: rules that ensure discipline would lead to a better acceptance of mutualisation of risks, and an increased solidarity would enhance the capacity to comply with the rules.

This can probably only be addressed by moving towards some form of greater political union involving enhanced powers for a more legitimate and reformed Commission and European Parliament. This poses yet greater obstacles, since it requires convincing Europe’s citizens and reforming the European Union treaties accordingly.

It is essential that all EMU countries agree that these are indispensable long-term goals, and then build a strategy to achieve them gradually. A shared and clear vision on the euro’s end-goals would make the long journey towards deeper economic and political integration easier and help re-establish trust between the member states.

In this respect, we support the core of the European Commission’s white paper ‘Doing Much More Together’ scenario. Moreover, we are convinced that with these changes all EU countries will join the euro at some point in the future.

Recommendations

1. The experience of the crisis shows that, in order for EMU to function effectively, there needs to be greater political, fiscal, financial and economic union within the euro area to match the current degree of monetary integration. In addition, Eurozone economies need to accelerate their structural transformation to be prepared for the challenges posed by the digital economy.
2. The euro area needs a central fiscal authority with its own sources of revenue and the ability to issue joint debt. This authority (headed by a person proposed by the Eurogroup to become the Commissioner for the Euro and specifically ratified by a newly created Committee for EMU affairs in the European Parliament) should be responsible for enforcing fiscal rules, which should be both simpler and more credible. It would, in addition set the overall fiscal stance for the euro area as a whole, with a view to ensuring an adequate stimulus in recessions and consolidation in expansionary periods.
3. The current ESM and its staff should fall into EU law and become the staff of the existing Fiscal European Stability Board (FSB) that monitors national fiscal and macroeconomic policies. The FSB would therefore be in charge of the technical analysis of fiscal stability while the fiscal authority would take the ultimate political decisions on these matters under the following incentive structure: countries that abide by the rules receive counter-cyclical fiscal support in downturns; countries that break the rules do not.
4. The banking union is still incomplete, and so is the capital markets union. There needs to be further progress on a common deposit guarantee mechanism and further convergence in bankruptcy laws, while the entire structure of the banking union needs to have a sufficiently credible fiscal backstop, ultimately provided by the central fiscal authority mentioned above. Moreover, as long as there is no large Eurozone treasury and no Eurobonds, all euro zone sovereign bonds should continue to be considered risk-free assets, implicitly backed by the ECB. Proposals that question their risk-free nature carry the risk of instability in the bond markets, worsening the current financial fragmentation and threatening to create another episode of market turmoil.
5. Positive incentives need to be put in place for countries to undertake unpopular structural reforms on an ongoing basis so that their economies are flexible, innovative and socially-inclusive enough to live within a single monetary area. The central fiscal authority could provide finance for pan-European public goods, such as security, border protection, digital transformation and country-specific reforms that are essential for the area as a whole. The work of the European Semester and its country-specific recommendations could be useful, but they need to be enforceable. In order to provide the adequate incentives and avoid the problem of moral hazard, only countries that commit to reforms should be able to receive financial support from the centre. This mechanism would facilitate politically difficult structural reforms and reduce the risk of deflation.
6. The ECB needs to be able to act as the lender of last resort for member states in exceptional circumstances, as it does for the banking sector. Building on its current Public Sector Purchase Programme (PSPP), the ECB needs to be the ultimate provider of unconditional liquidity, through the sovereign debt markets, for circumstantially illiquid countries that might suffer market panics or speculative attacks. In the event of the official insolvency of a member state, the central fiscal authority would take control of the public finances and negotiate a memorandum of understanding with the country under stress. The fiscal authority would then, drawing on the independent technical work of the FSB, be in charge of monitoring and implementing the adjustment programme under the supervision of the Committee on Euro Affairs of the EP.
7. Undoubtedly, some of these reforms will require new institutions, in addition to changes to the mandates of existing ones. Reaching an agreement on the creation of a central fiscal authority and its financing and a greater involvement of the Euro committee of the European Parliament in electing the head of such an authority, controlling the eurozone budget and monitoring fiscal policy and structural reforms at the national level, will be particularly challenging. We are aware that it would require treaty changes.
8. This unavoidable level of deeper integration will require a greater degree of political union to provide democratic legitimacy and accountability. Our proposals imply a significant transfer of sovereignty from member states to European institutions. However, we believe they are necessary for the euro’s long-term sustainability. Ultimately, the eurozone needs to create its own sovereignty, for only a European sovereign can make EMU last for centuries.
9. Treaty change is in the final analysis the best path to greater integration. We are aware that the last ratification process left many countries reluctant to follow that path. Nonetheless, the changes are needed to make EMU work effectively, to realise its potential and to avoid future crises that could threaten its existence. Hence, as an intermediate step the enhanced cooperation procedure might need to be activated. States that want to integrate further should not be pulled back by those that do not. However, the door should always remain open for those who want to join later on.
10. To sum up, in the short term some further integration can proceed without treaty change, such as broadening the powers of the Eurogroup President, developing a common insurance deposit scheme and making the ESM the fiscal backstop for the banking union and enabling it to perform a macroeconomic stabilisation function. However, this would not be enough to make EMU sustainable in the long term. To achieve the more radical –but necessary– integration reforms, possible enhanced cooperation as an intermediate step and, ultimately, a new treaty will be required. A major priority for a new treaty would be to pool more sovereignty at the European level by creating a single fiscal authority for the euro area democratically controlled by a more legitimate and reformed European Parliament.

Epilogue

EMU reform cannot wait until all countries have carried out all their domestic reforms. Both risk sharing and risk reduction need to proceed simultaneously. In fact, Eurozone countries share the risk already, as the risk is systemic, but they do not yet share the costs. Some of the structural problems mentioned above are systemic issues that affect the entire euro area. Therefore, they can only be tackled with common public instruments at the European level, whose mere existence will reduce the risk.

Such reforms require the support of the people. Euro area citizens need to be given a real choice between continued fragmentation (which leaves the euro exposed to structural weaknesses and recurrent crises) and greater integration (which pools more sovereignty at the same time as it strengthens EMU governance). In a world subject to ceaseless technological transformation and revived geopolitical tensions, with increased great-power rivalry, kicking the proverbial can further down the road is no longer an option.

Authors:
Joaquín Almunia, Álvaro Anchuelo, Josep Borrell, Guillermo de la Dehesa, Rafael Doménech, José Fernández Albertos, Fernando Fernández, Daniel Fuentes, Gonzalo García Andrés, Alicia García-Herrero, Manuel Alejandro Hidalgo, José Moisés Martín Carretero, Miguel Otero-Iglesias, Emilio Ontiveros, Ana Palacio, Josep Piqué, Manuel de la Rocha, Belén Romana, Federico Steinberg, Raymond Torres & Juan Tugores¹

By Jutta Wolf

Land degradation has reached staggering proportions. If the current pace continues unabated, a gargantuan amount of $43,000,000,000,000 ($43 trillion) will be lost to the world economy by the year 2050, warns the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD).

But the anticipated colossal loss can be avoided by spending $4.6 trillion on addressing a combination of human-induced processes adversely affecting the biophysical environment and huge stretches of fertile lands.

169 countries around the world are suffering from land degradation and drought or only drought. Of these, 116 countries are committed to achieving Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) under the UNCCD LDN Target-Setting Programme that supports countries in reaching target 15.3 of the Sustainable Development Goals.

Target 15.3, on Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN), encourages countries to halt land degradation in order to ensure the quantity of productive land remains stable. The target is now also recognized as vital for accelerating other SDGs, such as: Goal 1 (No poverty), Goal 2 (Zero hunger), Goal 5 (Promote gender equality), Goal 6 (Clean water and sanitation), Goal 8 (Decent work and economic growth), and Goal 13 (Climate action).

“Healthy land is the primary asset that supports livelihoods around the globe – from food to jobs and decent incomes. Today, we face a crisis of unseen proportions: 1.5 billion people – mainly in the world’s most impoverished countries – are trapped on degrading agricultural land,” says Juan Carlos Mendoza, Managing Director of the UNCCD Global Mechanism.

This reality is fuelling extreme poverty, particularly in areas such as the Sahel and South Asia, where extreme and erratic weather events are on the rise due to the impacts of climate change, Mendoza adds.

To remedy the situation, the UNCCD is preparing LDN country profiles based largely on the analytical work undertaken by the Center for Development Research of the University of Bonn, the Economics of Land Degradation Initiative and the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). The profiles aim to help guide policy decisions on land use management.

The UNCCD has meanwhile assembled profiles of 21 countries into comprehensive and easy-to-use Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) Country Profiles, which are available online. The LDN Country Profiles reveal that average losses for these 21 countries are equivalent to 9 percent of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

The percentage is even higher for some of the planet’s worst affected countries, such as the Central African Republic, where the total losses are estimated at a stunning 40 percent. Asia and Africa bear the highest costs, estimated at $84 billion and $65 billion per year respectively.

The 21 countries whose profiles have been released on May 9 are also engaged in the LDN target setting process, formulating targets and associated measures to avoid, reduce and reverse land degradation.

For example, the Central African Republic has committed to restoring more than 1 million hectares of degraded land – equal to 15 percent of its territory –which will limit its potential losses and economic burden nationwide.

“The LDN Country Profiles provide policy-makers with easily accessible and scientifically sound information that can help estimate the value of their investments in land restoration and make informed choices on the economic returns they can expect from taking assertive action now,” says Mendoza.

“Moreover, the profiles illustrate the equivalent monetary value of land degradation and its impact on the international community, while providing strong incentives for cooperation among countries,” he adds.

The US wins big with trade, but deficit spending relies on faith in US dollar and low wages for foreign workers.

By Farok J. Contractor*

Acting on his campaign rhetoric that China is “raping our country,” US President Donald Trump announced tariffs on steel, aluminum and other products, threatening a “trade war.” Ten facts about the trade relationship highlight the challenges confronting both nations.

1 The US has a $337 billion deficit with China. This deficit worsens with every year. The deficit is worse for goods alone, since the US enjoys a surplus in services.

2 The US applies a 1.6 percent weighted mean tariff on imported products. This partly explains why the US is by far the world’s biggest importing nation. Most advanced countries have average tariffs below 5 percent, according to the World Bank. Tariffs alone, especially when so low, may not explain fundamental imbalances in trade.

3 The US has run deficits against the rest of the world for decades. That US deficit with the world is $566 billion: In goods, that growing deficit is $796 billion, although in services, the US posts a surplus, also growing, of $230 billion. Chinese-made imports amount to $524 billion out of $2,895 billion imported from all countries, or 18 percent of total US imports.

4 The US runs a surplus with few countries. Most are small nations. The total of the top 15 nations that run deficits with the United States – including the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Guatemala – is just over $148 billion.

5 The US is the world’s leading exporter of services. The US exports more services than it imports from the rest of the world, a $230 billion surplus. The US is a powerhouse of innovation with an entrepreneurial startup culture. So from a comparative-advantage perspective, it makes sense that routine products like appliances and tools are made in low-wage nations while the US focuses on innovation. Moreover, trade statistics do not fully capture the US advantage in services. Apple pays its subcontractor in China, Foxconn, about $10 for product assembly, with parts shipped from multiple nations. Foxconn ships the assembled iPhone to the United States at an invoice value around $220 –$210 for imported parts, $10 for assembly. This is recorded as a US import from China although only $10 of trade value was added there. The iPhone’s $649 retail value minus $220 equaling Apple’s $429 gross margin appears nowhere in trade data. The Chinese value-added $10 component is worth $150 million – 4.5 percent of 15 million iPhones worth $3.3 billion.

6 China has a principal role in the US merchandise deficit. Combining goods and services, China accounts for 59 percent of the US overall trade deficit: $337 billion for China compared with $566 for the world as a whole. Tens of millions of Chinese workers toil for less than $5 per hour on behalf of US consumers, making low-tech products, while a few million Americans in skilled jobs earn $35 or more per hour to develop aircraft and financial packages or produce soybeans and pork.

7 The rest of the world, including China, partially finances the US trade deficit. The Chinese do not need or use dollars in their country. Chinese firms turn them over to local banks in exchange for their own currency, and banks turn them over to their central bank. The central bank reinvests that surplus in US assets, mainly Treasury securities. This helps prop up the US government budget, keeping the US dollar strong and pleasing US consumers with affordable goods and low interest rates for mortgages and credit cards, while maintaining Chinese jobs. The US government, spending more than it takes in from domestic tax revenue, has run a deficit for most of the last 35 years, but still funds expenditures like defense – an accumulated $19 trillion in debt.

8 All policies create winners and losers, but in international trade, “winners” outnumber “losers.”   Trump won the presidency because of victories in a few key states where the earnings of disaffected workers in mature industries, like coal and steel, declined during the past decade because of global competition. Other US workers had flat earnings since the 2008 financial crisis. Inequality has increased. An ethic of hyper-competition has emerged, making it easy for government leaders to overlook the despair felt by bewildered millions and neglect safety nets and job training. Nevertheless, overall, most Americans are better off today than their parents in income, health, education and prospects. Unemployment is at a record low. Retirees and others enjoy record levels of benefits and health care. The average American enjoys the highest after-tax purchasing power in the world.

9 In almost all cases, companies accused of “dumping” are not losing money. Dumping is said to occur when unscrupulous importers sell products below cost and hurt competing local producers. The selling price of an imported item may be low, but almost always is above the variable cost of production and distribution, with additional over-installed capacity used to cover fixed costs in other markets. Most international marketers practice global price discrimination – pricing products at what each country’s market can bear— thus maximizing overall global revenue and profits.

Such dumping forces local producers to reduce prices, occasionally driving them to lay off workers and close their business. The Trump administration accuses Chinese steel and aluminum firms of dumping. China has excess capacity, more than its domestic market demands, aided by cheap loans and land from the Chinese government. The Chinese companies are probably not losing money. But so-called dumping also results in multibillion-dollar benefits to the United States and other countries with low-cost steel and aluminum for cars, machinery, and other products. Economy-wide benefits of international trade are diffused and hard to measure, whereas the losses are concentrated among a handful of companies and voting districts.

10 China is hungry for Western technology and company secrets. Chinese companies seek to benefit from learning rivals’ technology. History demonstrates that company secrets are not kept for long. In the 1780s, firms with Arkwright-designed spinning wheels and other equipment prompted the British government to pass draconian laws punishing anyone exporting textile machinery or designs to the United States, which still used manual methods. Committing designs to memory, hiding them on small scraps of paper, emigrants leaked the technology to America. By 1794, the United States became a strong textiles rival of England. Likewise, China kept secrets in silk production, enjoying a worldwide monopoly until 552 AD, when two monks smuggled silkworms in hollow walking sticks. Chinese tea was another monopoly until the 1860s, when a Scotsman noticed that a plant in India resembled the Chinese bush.

Companies trying to learn secrets is not new. But Chinese receive deliberate help from their government: First, Chinese regulations prevent some foreign firms from investing and doing business in China without taking on a local company as a partner – though China recently has reduced  such restrictions and Western companies, not naïve, shelter their deepest secrets. Second, the Chinese government makes no secret of its nationalist desire to help Chinese companies with cyberespionage, considering that 45 percent of Chinese industry consists of state-owned enterprises. The US may have superior capabilities, but US laws would generally frown upon government covertly helping US firms.

In sum, US trade deficits for the past four decades are a direct correlate of government deficits. The pattern can continue as long as three conditions hold:

• Foreign and domestic Investors continue to have faith in the dollar as safe haven, investing in US Treasury bills and bonds.
• Foreign workers continue toil for wages at less than $5 per hour.
• US employment remains at tolerable levels.

The world has laboriously built an intricate trading system that results in interdependencies. Any adjustments will lead to a new set of winners and losers.

*Farok J. Contractor is a professor in the Management and Global Business Department at Rutgers Business School. He has researched foreign direct investment for three decades and also taught at the Wharton School, Copenhagen Business School, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, Nanyang Technological University, Indian Institute of Foreign Trade and other schools and conducted executive seminars in the US, Europe, Latin America and Asia. For further details, read his blog on Global Business Issues.

Interview Mohammad Shoaib, CEO, Al Meezan Investment

Mohammad Shoaib, CFA is Chief Executive Officer of Al Meezan Investment Management Limited, the largest Shariah compliant asset management company in Pakistan. He has over 28 years’ experience of managing investment portfolio. Al Meezan Investments currently manages equivalent of US$1 billion under 14 mutual / pension funds and discretionary client portfolios. It has a complete range of investment products in the risk return spectrum from very low risk products like Sovereign Fund, Cash Fund to high risk Equity Funds. It is one of the largest asset management companies in Pakistan. The company complies with Asset Manager Code of CFA Institute. It is also GIPS Compliant.

As CEO of Al Meezan, Shoaib manages a diverse team of over 500 members in various departments of the organization including Investments & Research, Product Development, Sales and Marketing, Finance and Operations, Information Technology, Internal audit, Risk Management & Compliance, Human Resources and Administration. The organization employs a large number of graduates and post graduates in various disciplines including Masters in Business Administration, Arts and Sciences, Chartered Accountants, ACCAs and CFA charter holders. He completed his MBA from Institute of Business Administration (IBA), Karachi in 1988 and has taught several courses at IBA as a visiting faculty member. He got his CFA charter in 1999. He was the founder and first President of CFA Association of Pakistan, which was set up by him in 2002. CFAAP is the representative body of CFA charter holders in Pakistan. During his leadership, CFAAP achieved several milestones. One of them was receiving the “Innovation Award” from CFA Institute for the Corporate Excellence Awards Program of CFAAP and “Strategic Planning Award”. Due to his contribution to the mission of CFA Institute, CFA Magazine listed him in 2006 as “MOST INFLUENTIAL” CFA Charter Holder.

Besides his involvement with CFA Institute, he has served or is currently serving in other volunteer capacities including: Nominee director on the Board of Karachi Stock Exchange  appointed by SECP in Pakistan (2002 -2003); Board member of Institute of Capital Markets in Pakistan; Chairman of Mutual Funds Association of Pakistan; Director on the Board of Pakistan Institute of Corporate Governance (2011 – 2014); Member of the Academic Board of Institute of Business Administration, Pakistan; Member of the Central Bank’s Committee on Islamic Capital Markets

Shoaib has participated in various seminars, conferences and workshops across the globe during his 28 year career in managing investments. During the last 15 years of his career, he has focused exclusively on managing Shariah Compliant or Islamic portfolios. He has been a speaker / panelist at various conferences on the subject of Islamic Asset Management in Middle Eastern and Far Eastern countries. He has also been featured in CFA Magazine with reference to his contribution to Islamic asset management, corporate governance and volunteer leadership. Following are excerpts from his exclusive interview.

How do you review the performance of your company over the last five years?

Mohammad Shoaib: Two decades ago, we embarked on a journey to make Shariah Compliant investing a first choice for investors. Behind this initiative was the firm belief that our religion Islam provides us a complete way of life. This belief in the tenets of Shariah and the divine help from the All Mighty has helped us emerge successful even through the most challenging times.

Starting as a small asset management company back in 1995, we are now the largest Shariah Compliant asset management company with asset under management (AUM) amounting to about 100 billion rupees. Just to give perspective of our growth over the past 5 years, our AUM at the close of the fiscal year 2013 were a little over 45 billion rupees and by the beginning of 2017 we had more than doubled our AUMs. This achievement alone speaks volumes of the investment acumen the organization possesses. The current market outlook is very promising and we are hopeful for an even stronger 2018.

Which major milestones have been achieved in these five years?

Shoaib: Our focus is to “innovate and perform” in order to assist our customers accomplish their investment objectives. Al Meezan is committed to provide its customers with the halal competitive returns on their investments and offer the best quality services to our customers.

In addition to excellent performance of various funds in their respective categories, we promise prudent financial advice to the customers, outreach and awareness to masses, use of technology for efficient delivery of our services and above all fulfillment of fiduciary duties towards our clients. The past five years have been pivotal in our progress. Evolution in product portfolios, increased customer outreach and our nationwide footprint are just a few of the many milestones we have achieved.

Like most businesses we started small, but Alhamdolillah in a very short span we have increased our reach across Pakistan through a nationwide network of 20 Al Meezan Branches and over 600 Meezan Bank Branches. Our efforts to deliver the best in class investment solutions to our customers have been recognized by JCR-VIS time and again, with our first management quality rating upgrade to AM2 in 2014 and a further upgrade to AM1 in 2016; the highest management quality rating in Pakistan.

Can Al Meezan be termed the biggest AMC?

Shoaib: We focus on what we do best and that is to serve our customers fulfill their financial goals and help them increase their wealth over time. The leadership status is just a natural outcome of our business philosophy. We are the largest Shariah Compliant AMC and one of the largest AMCs in terms of AMU. We also have the biggest portfolio of discretionary and advisory clients. We are also the category leaders as the largest managers of private sector equity fund – Meezan Islamic Fund and Pension fund – Meezan Tahaffuz Pension Fund currently with assets under management of over 43 billion rupees and 9 billion rupees respectively. We owe this to our patrons and investors who have entrusted us with their wealth.

Which are major assets under management?

Shoaib: We offer a complete suite of investment solutions to help investors meet their financial goals. In addition to traditional equity, fixed income, and money market funds, we also manage a diversified portfolio of customized products including pensions, index tracker, balanced, gold, asset allocation and fund of funds schemes.

We pride ourselves in being the pioneer in launching the industry’s first Sovereign scheme, voluntary pension scheme (VPS), Fund of Funds and Shariah compliant commodity funds, amongst others. With this large variety on offer, Al Meezan is presently managing fifteen funds and several administrative plans under its umbrella to cater to the varying investments needs and unique circumstances of its clientele.

In addition, we provide Discretionary/Advisory portfolio Management Services to a number of local and foreign clients.

Has there been major change in the composition of assets under management?

Shoaib: Al Meezan offers a full breadth of products for its investors to choose from based on their risk and return profile. Our current (as of March 2018) exposure to equities is approximately 70% and 30% to Fixed Income and Money Market.

What is the size of Sukuk held by Almeezan?

Shoaib: The total investments of our fund in various corporate and GoP Sukuks is approximately 8.5 billion rupees.

Is there an increase/decrease in investment in Sukuk?

Shoaib: Sukuk holding patterns have been different based on the type of Sukkuk. Given the pricing of Ijarah Sukuks has been very volatile in the recent past, Al Meezan Ijarah Sukuk holdings are therefore maintained on the lower side at approximately 3-4 billion rupees. However, corporate Sukuk holdings have increased as investors who exited sovereign funds moved to other avenues like MIIF and MBF whose fund sizes increased, thereby resulting in higher liquidity for deployment in corporate Sukuk. In 2012-13 our funds had exposure in corporate Sukuk worth 1.0-1.5 billion rupees that currently ranges 5.0-6.0 rupees billion.

The Independent Election Commission (IEC) of Afghanistan has announced to hold Afghanistan’s parliamentary and district councils elections on October 20, 2018, after failing to actualize similar announcements on two previously announced dates. Incidentally, the situation on ground in Afghanistan is least favorable and is rather detrimental for holding elections in the country.

Both Taliban and ISIS are opposed to the elections by the US-backed Afghanistan government. Though ISIS does not appear to be holding large parts of territory, it has demonstrated its potential of launching deadly attacks even in Kabul. And as for Taliban, according to the latest survey report published by BBC on January 31, 2018, they threaten 70% of Afghanistan, leaving just about 30% in the control of US-backed Afghanistan government. This BBC report also contains a map, based upon BBC research August 23 – November 21, 2017, showing Taliban’s presence in Afghanistan by districts. It highlights that the Afghanistan government has full control on 30% of districts; Taliban have full control on 4% of the districts; and in the remaining 66% of districts, Taliban’s open presence is as under (1):

• High (attacked at least twice a week) 15% of districts.
• Medium (attacked at least three times a month) 20%.
• Low (attacked once in three months) 31%.

It is a well-known fact that all through the 17 years of its military occupation of Afghanistan, US has failed to ‘implant’ its ‘desired’ elected governmental structure in the country through such elections. The currently emerging news relating to this scheduled ‘electoral attempt’ does not appear promising either.

The Afghanistan Analysts Network (AAN) is an independent non-profit policy research and analysis organization, registered as an association in Germany and Afghanistan, and is funded in large part by Scandinavian countries (2). It has been publishing a series of reports relating to the ‘oft-announced and oft-postponed’ elections in Afghanistan. These reports succinctly highlight the serious problems involved in ‘imposing’ such elections.

The AAN’s Report no. 6 discusses in detail the serious problems relating to these elections scheduled for 20 October this year (3). Some of the aspects mentioned in the repot are:

a. Because of the inability of holding the elections on the two previously announced dates, the current Lower House of The Parliament is already existing extra-constitutionally after 22 June 2015.

b. The snowfall season in Afghanistan is likely to commence towards the end of October. Considering the difficult terrain of the country, if snow falls by 20 October, it will greatly hinder the voter participation in the election. And, according to the ANA report, “Snowfall disenfranchising voters in a politically weak province like Nuristan would be bad enough, but if it occurred in Badakhshan or Hazarajat, with their highly organised and politically and ethnically conscious voters, there could be real trouble”.

c. “However, the challenges are so formidable that other diplomats are questioning how realistic it is to expect an election in October, particularly one that is ‘inclusive’, ie where parts of the electorate are not excluded by weather or war.”

d. Senior Deputy Minister of Interior Murad Ali Murad gave a security assessment of the polling centres; mentioning that out of the 7355 polling centres, 56.6 % were located in the places which enjoy normal state of security, but the remaining 43.4 % were located in the places which were “either in areas under medium or high threat, or completely outside government control”.

In this ANA’s report the particularly noteworthy are the observations: “The Afghan government is the main party responsible for the mess is now finds itself in. Neither camp in the National Unity Government pushed for electoral reform immediately after they took office, as they had promised”; and “Those actors in the international community who have continued to stress that parliamentary and district elections must be held in 2018 in a largely still unreformed framework are also far from being free of blame. Some appear to be worried more about the appearance of a political process progressing ‘normally’ (despite the three years’ delay already in the parliamentary vote) than about qualitatively reliable elections”.

The latest AAN’s Report no. 7 discusses in detail the deficiencies in the polling centres assessment, despite the regulations for ensuring fair enfranchisement to voters (4). This report highlights, “As yet, the IEC’s polling centre assessment exercise remains deficient. If matters are not clarified, this means the integrity of the forthcoming elections is already in doubt”.

Germany’s media outlet DW has also published a report on April 24, 2018, titled ‘A bloody start to Afghan election process’ (5). It highlights that the devastating attacks on the voter registration centres by ISIS / Taliban, who oppose the elections, is a serious blow even to the commencement of the election process – i.e. registration of voters. It is certainly a serious problem, because according to the data recently released by the US’ government, “56 percent of the country’s 407 districts are under Afghan government control, 30 percent are contested and 14 percent are under insurgent control”.

This report also mentions the warning by the experts that the polling process this time could prove to be deadlier as the anti-government insurgents have increased their clout in Afghanistan.

Incidentally, the still more significant aspect brought forth in this DW report is that majority of Afghans lack trust in the election process in their country. In that context the report mentions the remarks of the persons who talked to DW. Just to mention – one of the Kabul resident remarked, “There is no interest in the elections. People will not vote because they do not trust the process”; the other mentioned, “What did other elections give us? There is no trust in this process”.

The background reason for such lack of trust of Afghan people in the election process of their country can better be understood by going through an extract of this DW report. It mentions, “The last presidential elections in Afghanistan were also accompanied by allegations of widespread fraud, vote rigging and major irregularities, so much so that the IEC failed to determine the number of votes each candidate won in the runoff elections for weeks. The Afghan election saga only ended after the then US Secretary of State, John Kerry, visited Kabul and crafted a power-sharing deal between the two rivals for the Afghan presidency, Ashraf Ghani and Abdullah Abdullah. All these incidents have led many Afghans to believe that their votes do not matter, which experts say could be another major reason for low voter registration numbers”.

These emerging reports of ground realities, reported from inside Afghanistan by the credible information sources, certainly do not bode well about the prospects of the scheduled parliamentary and district councils’ elections. However, the reports also indicate that the IEC is bent upon holding these elections on October 20 this year. The outcome is therefore more likely going to be unfortunate – more political chaos, infighting, bloodshed and a US’ ‘crafted’ election result (as that of 2014), resulting in further destability in Afghanistan; and that too, further stretching to the Presidential elections in the country scheduled after some months, in 2019.

About the Author:
*Brigadier (Retd.) Dr. Ahsan ur Rahman Khan is a retired officer of Pakistan Army, a war veteran, a post-retirement PhD relating to Afghanistan from University of Peshawar, lectured in social sciences in the universities of the twin cities of Islamabad and Rawalpindi for about 11 years, and a published free-lance research-analyst.

Source:
Original version of this article was published May 5,  2018 in www.intrinsicoverview.com

References
1.  http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-42863116
2.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan_Analysts_Network
3.  https://www.afghanistan-analysts.org/afghanistan-election-conundrum-6-another-new-date-for-elections/
4.  https://www.afghanistan-analysts.org/the-afghanistan-election-conundrum7-a-deficient-polling-centre-assessment/
5.  http://www.dw.com/en/a-bloody-start-to-afghan-election-process/a-43514210

It seems that the geographical name Middle East is truly inappropriate for the region that has been unstable for over seven decades, experiencing many regional wars: between Arabs and Israelis, between Iraqi Arabs and Americans and Arabs and Iranians and not to forget, of course, Arab civil wars as a follow up to the Arab Spring.

Probably, the region should be renamed the War East instead of the Middle East.

As a matter of fact, for many Arab political analysts the name Middle East in Arabic الشرق الاوسط (sharq al-awsat) has been changed, tongue in cheek, into the humiliating name الشرق الاوسخ (sharq al-awsat) meaning “the dirty east.”

The Middle East is, yet again, gearing up to another war, but this time probably more destructive and more horrible. A war that could last longer than what is planned by the protagonists, on paper, because when ignited nobody will be able to stop it unilaterally.

The risks seem to be very high and the gains, probably, very low.

War Drums Are Rolling Anew

On April 30, 2018, Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu presented to the Israeli people and by extension to the world what he called evidence that Iran is lying, short of the “smoking gun.”

This media exercise well orchestrated to come in the heels of the American campaign to disengage from the nuclear agreement with Iran and to engage in a war with it, probably, afterwards.

This war to be, will be waged by America, Israel and Saudi Arabia allied to Arab Sunnis in the region.

On the double standards of Israel as to what concerns Iran’s nuclear program, The Maghreb Times writes:i

“When Benjamin Netanyahu proved with file folders that Iran lied about its nuclear program, not one person thought Israel was the last country on earth that should have had the nerve to complain about this. After all, how has Israel acted on this very same issue for decades? Iran’s nuclear archive doubtless looks like a neighborhood lending library compared to Israel’s nuclear archive.

But Israel doesn’t sign conventions, it doesn’t allow inspections and it lies. It mocks and winks – 60 years of continuous nuclear lies. In fact, it has never said a single true word about its nuclear program. It’s all for peaceful purposes, just as Iran claims its nuclear program is. The Dimona reactor was built for lifesaving PET/CT scans at Ichilov Hospital’s nuclear medicine department.

Israel is allowed to lie. Israel is a special case. “Israel won’t be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East,” Shimon Peres said. He was proud of making up this claim, which was the fraud of the century. What is Israel’s policy of nuclear ambiguity if not a series of refusals to tell the truth?”

On the same topic Zaid Jilani wrote in AlterNet on February 25, 2015 that “Benjamin Netanyahu Has Been Lying to Americans for 20 Years:”ii

“Next week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will present his case against President Obama’s talks with Iran; he is expected to portray Iran as an untrustworthy actor and Obama’s diplomacy as naive and a distraction from more sanctions or even military action.

This case suffered a major setback this week as a major intelligence leak showed that Israel’s own intelligence service, the Mossad, privately contradicted Netanyahu’s public statements on Iran. The leaked secret cables show that as Netanyahu was presenting at the United Nations in 2012 a narrative that Iran that was just “weeks” away from producing enough enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb, Israel’s own intelligence service found a very different conclusion.”

And this is corroborated by the British paper The Guardian on February 23, 2015 in an article entitled: “Leaked cables show Netanyahu’s Iran bomb claim contradicted by Mossad” written masterfully by Seumas Milne, Ewen MacAskill and Clayton Swisher.iii

In the past, the Obama administration was willing to give Iran a regional leadership role short of becoming a nuclear power but the actual administration has other plans for this country: an Iran without nuclear capabilities and Mullahs; an Iran secular and not willing to export its revolution or religion to the neighboring countries and threaten, thereby, their stability.

The Play Within The Play

In reality, Netanyahu did not come up with anything new, the whole world knows that Iran is working hard to become a nuclear power. This is no secret. It is an old dream that started with the Shah of Iran in the 60s of the last century and continues today, with open support from Russia that wants to build an eastern coalition to counter American hegemony.

Nevertheless, It seems that this coming war is fully scripted by Washington and especially by the Trump administration. The main actors of this play are: Trump himself in the leading role and Mohamed Ben Salman -MBS- and Benyamin Netanyahu in support roles.

Since arriving to the Oval Office, Trump has been demonizing Iran and expressing willingness to pull out from the nuclear agreement and next came on stage MBS who recognized Israel to make the American-Israeli-Saudi alliance legitimate and official. In an interview with the Atlantic newsmagazine,iv he called the Iranian Supreme Leader Khameini: Hitler, very much like what President Bush did before declaring war on Saddam’s Iraq. And last but not least, Netanyahu who, “brought to light” the Iranian hidden game.

Now that every actor has pronounced his faith and acted his part, action will probably ensue after the Holy month of Ramadan. The war operations will be field shouldered by America and Israel and the role of Saudi Arabia will be to finance the effort (produce the play), maybe, fully and what else can Saudi Arabia do, anyway?

This action by Netanyahu and the previous action of MBS recognizing Israel and demonizing Iran is very similar to “the play within the play” in Shakespeare’s Hamlet,v especially when Hamlet instructs the players on proper delivery (Trump coaching Natanyahu and MBS):

Hamlet:
Speak the speech, I pray you, as I pronounc’d it to you,
trippingly on the tongue; but if you mouth it, as many of our
players do, I had as lief the town-crier spoke my lines.
Hamlet Act 3, scene 2, 1–4

And on top of this play of the two actors, Netanyahu had to elicit the proof by presenting the archives exclaiming forcefully: “the play’s the thing”:

Hamlet:
I’ll have grounds
More relative than this—the play’s the thing
Wherein I’ll catch the conscience of the King.
Hamlet Act 2, scene 2, 603–605

How Is The War Going To Unfold?

America and Israel are hoping to conduct an aerial war, short and sweet. Bombard the strategic locations where the nuclear installations are and destroy military targets to cripple the possibilities of Iran to respond adequately in the initial stages of the military operations. America and Israel are not planning to commit ground forces in this war to avoid colossal troop losses. They are banking on crippling the enemy with a massive initial blow that will lead, probably, to a popular uprising in the major cities of Iran that will finish off the regime.

As for Iran it has another plan: a war of attrition that could be costly in human life to America and Israel and an uprising of the Shiites in the Eastern region of Saudi Arabia. For Iran the war will be total. Attacks will come from Syria and Lebanon where Hezbullah will play a major role. Indeed Hezbullah’s missiles will rain on Northern Israel and aim to cause as much casualty as possible.

If America and Israel are planning on a short war, Iran is reserving them an attrition war long and costly which will make the Mideast a real inferno for a long period of time. No navigation in the Persian Sea, no security for a aviation in the airways and no peace on land.

The strengths of Iran are:

1. geographical depth;
2. Shiite sense of sacrifice;
3. religious duty and discipline; and
4. military discipline and combat-readiness.

As for its weaknesses, they are as follows:

1. aerial power weakness;
2. land encirclement; and
3. lack of active alliances.

The Iranians are planning to wreck havoc on the Arab world whom they suspect to be aligned with America and Israel in this war. The Iranians will activate their dormant cells in the Arab world and, probably, also, in the West to punish those who support the war, bearing in mind that if they have to go down the drain they will incur as much damage as possible: après moi le deluge.vi

However, for Suzanne Maloney, Deputy Director of Foreign Policy and Senior Fellow at the Center for Middle East Policy, Energy Security and Climate Initiative in an article entitled: “After dumping the nuclear deal, Trump has no strategy for Iran” in Brookings:vii

“The premediated American dismantling of an agreement that was the product of more than a decade of intense diplomacy and economic pressure marks a staggeringly counterproductive step. That it was undertaken over the vocal objections of Washington’s closest allies and without a clear strategy of mitigating the newly heightened risks of Iranian proliferation and conventional retaliation represents an abdication of American leadership on the international stage that is unparalleled in recent history.”

Expectations

The war might be destructive for Iran but that will not finish off the regime of the Mullahs because in the field they can rely on the Revolutionary Guards and the Basijviii to protect them from any internal uprising. So, the onslaught might diminish their power but will not put an end to the theocracy at the country’s helm.

However, a weak Iran in the Middle East will be good news to Israel and its Arab allies because it will lead to the probable downfall of Hezbuallah in Lebanon, the Alaouites in Syria and the Houthis in Yemen and this will, ultimately, destroy the Shiite Crescent in the Mideast and put an end to the expansion project and dream of the Islamic Republic of Iran, once for all.

Consequently, Israel will come out of this painful war as the only power of the region and even as co-protector of Arab countries alongside America. The demise of Iran will mean the demise of Hamas in Gaza and Abbas will take over the strip and sign, under gentle pressure, a peace agreement with Israel. Saudi Arabia will regain its leadership of the Muslim world but will be totally broke.

All in all, if everyone plays his cards right in this war, Israel will probably pay the biggest price in human casualties, but will undoubtedly win, also, big: destroy Hamas, rein in Abbas and emasculate the Arabs and, in addition, gain peace in the Middle East and a huge market for its products and strong economy in the region.

Make-Believe Scenario

America, Israel and Saudi Arabia are not probably meaning war for fear to destabilize a region that has already so many problems: Palestinian problem, Syrian conflict, Yemeni war, etc. What if these countries are only putting pressure on Iran to make it abandon its nuclear program totally, without firing a single shot?

Probably, these countries are attempting the North Korean scenario, whereby the Americans on bearing tremendous pressure on North Korea made it accept to talk to South Korea first and later on to them, in order to arrange future denuclearization.

Will such pressure bring the Mullahs to their senses and make them abandon their threats towards Israel and destabilization schemes vis-à-vis Saudi Arabia and the Sunni world?

The Mullahs have always been practical and sensible in politics and the chances are they will choose moderation and negotiation to avoid annihilation. If they do so, Trump, thus, would have won a political gamble which will add to his apparent present success in the Korean peninsula. These two political breakthroughs will probably ensure his reelection against the odds and will prove him right vis-à-vis the American people by making America great again.

The war on Iran will, probably, be costly and horrible as all wars are, anyway, but in the end it will be probably worthwhile in the sense that it will bring peace to the region and a new era of cooperation and goodwill much needed by the population of the Mideast.

However, will this war if it ever happens, bring democracy to the Arab world, at long last, or will the Arabs continue to prefer bread over a political system of representation and full accountability. It is difficult to see the outcome because the horizon is very hazy, to tell the truth. All in all, only time can tell, in the end.

You can follow Professor Mohamed Chtatou on Twitter:@Ayurinu

Endnotes:
i. https://themaghrebtimes.com/05/03/netanyahu-claims-iran-lied-about-its-nuclear-program-but-israel-has-been-lying-for-decades/

ii. https://www.alternet.org/world/benjamin-netanyahu-has-been-lying-americans-20-years

iii. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/23/leaked-spy-cables-netanyahu-iran-bomb-mossad

iv. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/04/mohammed-bin-salman-iran-israel/557036/ Saudi Crown Prince: Iran’s Supreme Leader ‘Makes Hitler Look Good’

v. Edwards, Phillip, ed. (1985). Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521293662.

vi. ttp://tradicionclasica.blogspot.com/2006/01/expression-aprs-moi-le-dluge-and-its.html On the subject of this famous saying, Gabriel Laguna from Córdoba, Spain.

The phrase “Après moi, le déluge” (“After me, the deluge”) is attributed to the King of France Louis XV (1710-1774):

According to another interpretation, the phrase may have been coined not by the king himself, but by his most famous lover, Madame de Pompadour (1721-1764):

In any case, the phrase had a certain prophetic quality, if we interpret it post eventum as alluding to the breaking out of the French Revolution (1789-1799), which took place fifteen years after the king’s death and which cost the life of his grandson and successor, Louis XVI.

As a first approach to the saying, note that one is dealing with a nominal phrase, that is, without an explicit verb. The phrase can have two distinct, though related, meanings, according to the verb which we implicitly supply:

a) On the one hand, if we understand After me the deluge will come, the saying seems to imply, as an assertive affirmation: “After my reign, the nation will be plunged into chaos and destruction.”

b) The verb could also be understood as a subjunctive concession: After me, let the deluge come (it can come, but it makes no difference to me). In this second case, the speaker asserts that nothing that happens after his disappearance matters to him.

vii.

viii.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basij Basij

Formation
26 November 1979; 38 years ago (Decreed)
30 April 1980; 38 years ago (Founded)
Founder
Ruhollah Khomeini
Type
Paramilitary volunteer militia
Purpose
Auxiliaries