Emissions of one of the chemicals most responsible for the Antarctic ozone hole are on the rise, despite an international treaty that required an end to its production in 2010, a new NOAA study shows.

Trichlorofluoromethane, or CFC-11, is the second-most abundant ozone-depleting gas in the atmosphere and a member of the family of chemicals most responsible for the giant hole in the ozone layer that forms over Antarctica each September. Once widely used as a foaming agent, production of CFC-11 was phased out by the Montreal Protocol in 2010.

The new study, published today in Nature, documents an unexpected increase in emissions of this gas, likely from new, unreported production.

“We’re raising a flag to the global community to say, ‘This is what’s going on, and it is taking us away from timely recovery from ozone depletion,'” said NOAA scientist Stephen Montzka, lead author of the paper, which has co-authors from CIRES, the UK, and the Netherlands. “Further work is needed to figure out exactly why emissions of CFC-11 are increasing and if something can be done about it soon.”

CFCs were once widely used in the manufacture of aerosol sprays, as blowing agents for foams and packing materials, as solvents, and as refrigerants. Though production of CFCs was phased out by the Montreal Protocol, a large reservoir of CFC-11 exists today primarily contained in foam insulation in buildings, and appliances manufactured before the mid-1990s. A smaller amount of CFC-11 also exists today in chillers.

Because CFC-11 still accounts for one-quarter of all chlorine present in today’s stratosphere, expectations for the ozone hole to heal by mid-century depend on an accelerating decline of CFC-11 in the atmosphere as its emissions diminish– which should happen with no new CFC-11 production.

Despite the increase in CFC-11 emissions, its concentration in the atmosphere continues to decrease, but only about half as fast as the decline observed a few years ago, and at a substantially slower rate than expected. This means that the total concentration of ozone-depleting chemicals, overall, is still decreasing in the atmosphere. However, that decrease is significantly slower than it would be without the new CFC emissions.

Precise measurements of global atmospheric concentrations of CFC-11 made by NOAA and CIRES scientists at 12 remote sites around the globe show that CFC-11 concentrations declined at an accelerating rate prior to 2002 as expected. Then, surprisingly, the rate of decline hardly changed over the decade that followed. Even more unexpected was that the rate of decline slowed by 50 percent after 2012. After considering a number of possible causes, Montzka and his colleagues concluded that CFC emissions must have increased after 2012. This conclusion was confirmed by other changes recorded in NOAA’s measurements during the same period, such as a widening difference between CFC-11 concentrations in the northern and southern hemispheres – evidence that the new source was somewhere north of the equator.

Measurements from Hawaii indicate the sources of the increasing emissions are likely in eastern Asia. More work will be needed to narrow down the locations of these new emissions, Montzka said.

The Montreal Protocol has been effective in reducing ozone-depleting gases in the atmosphere because all countries in the world agreed to legally binding controls on the production of most human-produced gases known to destroy ozone. Under the treaty’s requirements, nations have reported less than 500 tons of new CFC-11 production per year since 2010. CFC-11 concentrations have declined by 15 percent from peak levels measured in 1993 as a result.

That has led scientists to predict that by mid- to late-century, the abundance of ozone-depleting gases would to fall to levels last seen before the Antarctic ozone hole began to appear in the early 1980s.

However, results from the new analysis of NOAA atmospheric measurements show that from 2014 to 2016, emissions of CFC-11 increased by more than 14,000 tons per year to about 65,000 tons per year, or 25 percent above average emissions during 2002 to 2012.

To put that in perspective, production of CFC-11, marketed under the trade name Freon, peaked at about 430,000 tons per year in the 1980s. Emissions of this CFC to the atmosphere reached about 386,000 tons per year at their peak later in the decade.

These findings represent the first time emissions of one of the three most abundant, long-lived CFCs have increased for a sustained period since production controls took effect in the late 1980s.

If the source of these emissions can be identified and mitigated soon, the damage to the ozone layer should be minor. If not remedied soon, however, substantial delays in ozone layer recovery could be expected, Montzka said.

David Fahey, director of NOAA”s Chemical Science Division and co-chair of the United Nations Environment Programme’s Ozone Secretariat ‘s Science Advisory Panel, said ongoing monitoring of the atmosphere will be key to ensuring that the goal of restoring the ozone layer is achieved.

“The analysis of these extremely precise and accurate atmospheric measurements is an excellent example of the vigilance needed to ensure continued compliance with provisions of the Montreal Protocol and protection of the Earth’s ozone layer,” Fahey said.

In “Making Business Personal: Corruption, Anti-corruption, and Elite Networks in Post-Mao China,” published in Current Anthropology, John Osburg argues that the implementation of reforms to promote market competition and accountability in post-Mao China fostered the creation of corrupt business networks during this period.

Osburg examines how economic reforms and anti-corruption campaigns led entrepreneurs to actively use practices of entertainment and bribery to cultivate beneficial relationships with state officials.

During the post-Mao period (1978-present), the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has instituted measures to combat corruption. Drawing upon the work of other scholars, Osburg argues that these efforts are selective in revealing corruption, especially given that the committees responsible for enforcing these campaigns often belong to the same organization as the entities being investigated. In particular, Osburg points to the inspection tours (kaocha) associated with audit culture as an example of a procedure that prompts corrupt behavior.

In order to guard against competition and garner the protection of a powerful official, businesspeople sought to establish guanxi ties–a system of symbiotic connections where individuals trade favors.

Utilizing ethnographic research that he began in the early 2000s, Osburg analyzes the evolution of these elite networks. In his fieldwork, Osburg examined the practices a group of entrepreneurs in Chengdu used as they attempted to forge personal connections and gain favor with powerful government officials. The development of these predominately male networks relied upon ritualized leisure activities known as yingchou to encourage a sense of shared enjoyment and solidarity. Osburg’s research illustrates that these gendered outings with clients and government officials often included drinking, frequenting nightclubs and karaoke clubs, and visiting brothels and saunas.

Drawing upon the accounts of his informants, Osburg argues that these relationships serve a purpose that goes beyond entertainment or a mere business transaction.

“Entertaining is understood by its participants as (not always successful) attempts to engender subjective transformations, to inject forms of value resistant to commodification and commensurability into business relationships, and to transform relationships of cold calculation into particularistic relationships bound by, in the words of my informants, “sentiment” (ganqing). This is achieved through the incommensurable, shared experiences of intimacy, vulnerability, pleasure, and complicity that elite business entertaining enables but does not always achieve,” Osburg writes.

In his analysis, Osburg describes how his informants–regardless of their background–viewed these techniques as a means of establishing guanxi ties that were usually reserved for the elite. However, Osburg’s findings suggest that this has changed over time. The recent anti-corruption campaign in 2013 has led to the decline of older guanxi cultivation techniques and venues. This, in turn, has benefitted members of the elite who can still rely on their family background and their established networks to advance their interests, while ordinary businesspeople, who can no longer use corrupt practices to win state patronage and protection, are left on the sidelines.

By Jim Hightower*

Generals plan wars, but battlefield commanders do the bloody work.

So, meet Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson — a quiet but bloodstained commandant in General Trump’s relentless war against poverty-stricken Americans.

Carson is loyally serving the extreme right wing’s ideological crusade to destroy the very idea of housing subsidies for poor families. He’s taken a budget ax to the program that enforces our society’s fair housing laws, and he even stripped the words “free from discrimination” out of HUD’s mission statement.

Such sneak attacks, however, were deemed too subtle by Trump’s political base of hardcore haters of poverty programs, so the commander-in-chief demanded a frontal assault on the poorest of the poor.

Carson delivered dutifully, proposing legislation to triple the monthly rent that the most impoverished of public housing families would pay — including increased rents for the elderly and disabled. To add cruelty to this nastiness, Carson also called for eliminating child-care and medical deductions that public housing families can subtract from their rent payments.

He tried to pass off this cold-blooded ambush of real people as merely a bureaucratic “streamlining,” calling it necessary to cut the federal deficit. That’s a despicable ruse, for the deficit was deliberately and grossly inflated just a few months ago — not by poor people, but by the trillion-dollar tax giveaway passed by Trump and the Republican Congress for the very richest people in America.

And let’s not forget that Carson himself was willing to bloat the deficit when he recently tried to spend taxpayer money on a $31,000 dining set for his office suite! Fortunately, this plutocratic purchase was exposed and canceled — but was he embarrassed? Nah.

So, Trump, Carson, and GOP congress critters have also added hypocrisy to the nastiness and cruelty of their ongoing war against the poor.

*OtherWords columnist Jim Hightower is a radio commentator, writer, public speaker, and editor of the populist newsletter, The Hightower Lowdown. Distributed by OtherWords.org

President Obama and now Trump have put America to shame for failing to live up to its moral responsibility as the global leader, by abandoning the Syrian people to a despot and his brutal allies, Russia and Iran.

By Dr. Alon Ben-Meir*

President Trump’s characterization of the US attack on specific Syrian chemical storage and research facilities as “mission accomplished” is technically accurate, as the intended targets were in fact destroyed. But declaring mission accomplished in the context of the continuing unfolding tragedy being inflicted on the Syrian people is cynical and disheartening at best. Such an isolated attack does not in any way exempt the US from its moral responsibility to bring an end to a war in which the Syrian people have fallen victim to foreign powers and a deeply corrupt regime. The death and destruction sweeping Syria is incomparable to any other violent conflict since World War II, and America cannot afford to remain silent in the face of these unprecedented atrocities.

The lessons from the disastrous war of choice in Iraq and the prolongation of the war in Afghanistan should not paralyze the US, as was the case under the Obama administration. The US can no longer turn its back on the Syrian people. It must carefully consider the repercussions that America’s allies in the region will sustain should Syria be left completely to the whims of Russia, Iran, and Turkey, who met twice in Ankara and are working in unison against the US and its allies’ strategic interests in the region.

Given the regional turmoil, the US’ role is more critical now than it has ever been since the 1970s. Although Russia plays a pivotal role in Syria and its full cooperation is critical in the search for a solution, the US cannot cede Syria completely to Putin’s caprices.

The US must now develop a multi-pronged policy that would allow it to assume a more decisive role in the search for a solution to Syria’s civil war. Each component of the new policy stands alone, but together they form a comprehensive strategy that must be implemented, however problematic its individual components might be and regardless of how doubtful it is that Trump will in fact act. The risk of doing nothing could plunge the Middle East into a war that will inevitably drag the US into a fight not of its own choosing, and under the least favorable circumstances.

First, instead of withdrawing US troops from Syria, Trump must triple the number of US military personnel to achieve three distinct objectives: 1) send a clear message to Russia, Iran, Turkey, and Assad that the US is here to stay and intends to play a significant role in the search for a solution; 2) warn Assad that any further mass attacks on civilians by either conventional or chemical weapons will invite swift American retaliation against many of his military assets, including air fields, hangars, weapons depots, and air defense systems, at a time and place of its own choosing; and 3) prevent the resurgence of ISIS and restore the US’ credibility so that no party will be mistaken about the US’ seriousness.

Second, the US must warn Iran not to seek the establishment of any military bases in Syria, and enlist Russia to exert pressure on Tehran to that effect to prevent an Israeli-Iranian conflagration, which can only undermine Russia’s influence in Syria. Putin more than likely will be supportive, as he does not want to share all the spoils from the civil war in Syria with Iran and Turkey. That said, the US must warn Russia that mass murder by the Syrian government will not be tolerated and that inaction by Russia to rein in Assad will compel the US and its allies to punish Assad, which Russia wants to avoid. Moreover, the US should also make it clear to Russia that should it decide to supply Assad with the S-300 air defense system, as Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov suggested, it will only aggravate the situation, as Israel will not hesitate to attack such a system if it feels threatened by it.

Third, irrespective of the growing strains in relations with Turkey, the US must insist that Turkey’s President Erdogan cease any attacks against the Syrian Kurds and withdraw his forces from Syria. The US must stop Turkey from overrunning the Kurds in Syria, and warn Erdogan that fighting the YPG (the military arm of the Syrian Kurds) under the pretext of fighting the PKK will not be tolerated any longer. The Syrian Kurds have been a most loyal and reliable fighting force against ISIS, and the US has a moral obligation to protect them from Erdogan—a ruthless dictator who seeks to maintain a permanent presence in Syria. This is a part of his larger political Islamization agenda to spread Turkey’s influence throughout the region.

Fourth, the US should prevent Assad from regaining full control in Syria unless a transitional government representing all major sects in the country is established, which should be in place for at least five years. Such a government will have to initially be led by Assad, because Russia and Iran need Assad to maintain their “legitimate” presence in the country and he needs them to stay in power, two things about which the US can do little. That said, however, a new leader (who could still be an Alawite) should be elected, as long as the majority Sunni population and the Kurds are adequately represented.

Fifth, the US should now revisit the idea of establishing a no-fly zone east of the Euphrates, and another along the Syrian-Jordanian border. Such protected areas would allow many Syrian refugees to return safely. A no-fly zone enforced by the US and its allies will prevent Assad from attacking areas still held by the rebels and help wind down the daily bloodshed. The point here is that as long as Assad’s position is not threatened, he will opt to cooperate, which would also reduce Russian resistance to the establishment of a no-fly zone. It should be noted that Russia is now experiencing war fatigue and may welcome US involvement, which could also improve bilateral relations with Washington, a situation both Putin and Trump seek.

Sixth, Trump must not under any circumstances decertify the Iran deal, and instead should seek to renegotiate (with our allies Britain, France, and Germany) some of the provisions related particularly to the sunset clause and present it to Russia and China to gain their support. Otherwise, the decertification of the Iran deal, coupled with the withdrawal of American troops currently in Syria, will be a recipe for a disaster. Such moves will allow Iran to resume its nuclear weapon program, dig in its heels in Syria, and put pressure on other states in the area to pursue their own nuclear weapons program. This certainly runs contrary to American and particularly Israeli national security interests. Trump must listen to France’s President Macron to improve the current deal, and not to the fearmonger Netanyahu, who is too self-absorbed to grasp the dire regional implications of decertifying the deal.

Moreover, the decertification of the Iran deal only a few weeks before the planned summit between Trump and North Korea’s Chairman Kim Jong Un will severely undermine the US’ credibility. It would send a clear message to the North Korean leader that the US cannot be trusted and may well torpedo any prospective deal between the two sides.

Seventh, for the US to become an active and forceful player in Syria, it must show some compassion toward the Syrian refugees. Even though it is difficult for Trump to comprehend that Muslims are not inherently violent, if not outright terrorists, the US cannot relinquish its moral obligation and behave like a pariah state. Trump must admit to the US a sizeable number of Syrian refugees and restore America’s traditional humanitarian stance to provide assistance wherever and whenever it is needed.

In the wake of the horror of World War II, the phrase “Never Again” was coined to suggest that the international community will never allow any country anywhere and at any time to commit human atrocities with impunity.

President Obama and now Trump have put America to shame for failing to live up to its moral responsibility as the global leader, by abandoning the Syrian people to a despot and his brutal allies, Russia and Iran.

*Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He teaches courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of TransConflict.

By Malik Ibrahim

Over the past several weeks, US pilots operating out of the American military installation of Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti, key to the War on Terror, have had to deal with an unusual— if not entirely unexpected—threat: military-grade lasers allegedly coming from the new Chinese base next door. As far as US military officials are concerned, these lasers represent a serious danger to pilots and their aircraft. The Pentagon went so far as to file a formal complaint to China about it.

Beijing’s response? “The Chinese side consistently strictly abides by international law and laws of the local country, and is committed to protecting regional security and stability.”

The US military will be treated to various versions of that response in the months and years to come. Competing Chinese and American interests in the highly strategic confines of Djibouti are bound to spill over into provocations and accusations, and the laser incident is probably just a taste of the conflicts yet to come. American officials have become increasingly vocal over fears of Chinese influence in Djibouti and neighboring Ethiopia.

Those warnings have thus far fallen on deaf ears in the Horn of Africa, thanks in no small part to haphazard diplomatic outreach over the past few months. The region welcomed its second senior US diplomat in as many months at the end of April, as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Donald Yamamoto toured Eritrea, Djibouti, and Ethiopia. His visit came after a similar tour by former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson in March ended with Tillerson’s unceremonious dismissal.

Tillerson warned Ethiopia (and Africa in general) of the dangers of dealing with the Chinese for African sovereignty and democracy, but that warning was almost immediately overshadowed by his firing. Besides firing Tillerson, President Donald Trump has further complicated America’s uphill battle to maintain its influence in Africa with offensive comments, moves to cut aid to the continent by 35%, and the administration’s failure to appoint ambassadors to key African nations.

Even with those missteps, it is not too late for the U.S. to re-engage its African partners and reverse the trend of waning US credibility and influence. The alternative is to leave China unopposed in consolidating its own interests on the continent. While America stumbles, Beijing is already laying the groundwork for commercial and diplomatic dominance in Africa.

Djibouti and Ethiopia are both excellent examples of the stakes involved in this competition. Djibouti’s Camp Lemonnier is America’s only permanent military base in Africa, home to around 4,000 troops and critical to counterterrorism operations in Somalia and Yemen. Djibouti also sits astride the Bab el-Mandeb maritime thoroughfare, through which between 12.5% and 20% of international trade passes through every year. That strategic value explains why Djibouti is also home to outposts from France, Italy, Japan, and of course China.

Ethiopia, meanwhile, has been the fastest growing African economy over the last decade, with the kind of per capita growth and poverty reduction rates that turn the world’s poorest countries into sought-after consumer markets. Since 2000, Ethiopia’s GDP per capita has grown 277% and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) projects it will continue at a rate of 6.2% through 2022. On the same token, the poverty rate has fallen 31%. This rapid growth rate has made Ethiopia a key export market for Chinese goods. Of the $17.6 billion worth of goods Ethiopia imported in 2015, $5.73 billion came from China as opposed to just $934 million from the US.

Recent developments in both countries reveal how China, which has lent over $94 billion to African governments since 2000, has gained the upper hand. Djibouti stunned its outside partners and the global shipping industry by seizing the Doraleh Container Terminal (DCT) from the Dubai-based company DP World this past February. Djibouti’s kleptocratic government, dominated by its strongman president Ismail Omar Guelleh, has long claimed that DP World bribed Abdourahman Boreh, former Guelleh ally and now prominent dissident, to modify its contractual terms for operating the port. For good measure, the Guelleh regime also brought terrorism charges against the exiled Boreh and sentenced him in absentia.

Neither the corruption allegations nor the terrorism conviction held up against an arbitration decision reached in London last year, but Djibouti thumbed its nose at the arbiters by seizing the port anyway. The move has given rise to suspicions that the Chinese may seek to monopolize trade at the port. Chinese interests have already secured another key element of Djibouti’s shipping and container infrastructure: the new Doraleh Multipurpose Port, built and operated by China Merchant Holdings and located adjacent to China’s new military base.

These two ports in Djibouti are integral to a broader regional infrastructure drive being financed by China. The $4 billion in financing needed to complete Africa’s first electric railway (spanning 470 miles between Addis Ababa in Ethiopia and Djibouti) was provided almost entirely by Chinese banks, and the actual construction work was undertaken by Chinese firms. It’s estimated Djibouti alone owes the Chinese more than $1.2 billion, fueling talk of a “debt trap” that will leave governments beholden to China indefinitely. China, of course, claims its motives are entirely altruistic.

Both Djibouti and Ethiopia have one other reason for privileging their relationships with Beijing: the Chinese government has no interest in commenting on their terrible human rights records and fierce repression of internal dissent. Despite accusations of realpolitik, the U.S. is nonetheless a vocal advocate of democratic government and the ethical treatment of citizens by the state. China’s policies of non-interference mean its gaze extends no further than business interests and infrastructural development.

That is why the shifting fortunes of American and Chinese interests in Africa matters for more than just geopolitics. Despite its flaws, the civil society actors and human rights activists who are indispensable for the social and political development of the continent have an ally in the United States. The same cannot be said of China.

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

Domino’s Pizza has a Chief Digital Officer (CDO). A busy one. Domino’s says its emphasis on digital innovation has helped it reach an estimated $5.6 billion in global digital sales. That includes more than half of its total U.S. sales, which now come from one of 15 digital ways to order — via tweets, texts, smart TVs, wearable devices and more. The company is currently testing pizza delivery using self-driving vehicles.

Leading digital transformation is an increasingly important job, even — or maybe, especially — in industries not traditionally associated with technology. Little wonder, then, that the CDO club is growing: 19 percent of the world’s 2,500 largest public companies have appointed a CDO, according to PricewaterhouseCoopers. PwC also found that most of those CDOs (60 percent) were hired in the past two years alone.

So what do all these newly minted CDOs do? And how do they distinguish themselves from the IT professionals down the hall? New research by IESE’s Sanja Tumbas, along with Nicholas Berente and Jan vom Brocke, analyzes this emerging role. Based on interviews with CDOs in 35 organizations in various industries, Tumbas et al. describe how CDOs generate new revenue streams, experiment and establish a direct digitally supported relationship with the customer. These executives are carving out space in their organizations using three main approaches: (1) grafting digital initiatives to existing business units, (2) bridging or linking distinct functional units and (3) decoupling and insulating digital initiatives from traditional units to achieve something new.

The research suggests that CDOs’ success is rooted in their ability to navigate corporate bureaucracy. They strive to unite disparate business and technology functions. When successful, a CDO is a transformer-in-chief, articulating, developing and leading innovation via digital technologies.

Transformer-in-Chief

The study distinguishes a CDO from a Chief Information Officer, Chief Technology Officer, or anyone in the IT department. The difference is not just semantics. While a CIO may focus on building transformational platforms within their organizations, a CDO must look beyond the boundaries of their industry to bring innovation back to the firm.

Organizations in virtually every sector are interested in digital innovations to apply to their processes, products and marketing. But businesses that were not born digital are often held back by slow-moving organizational processes, as a growing body of research shows. A CDO tries to change this by working across various departments, including marketing, human resources, and IT.

Yet because new technologies have historically fallen under the jurisdiction of the CIO, working on digital transformation often causes internal tensions. CDOs entering an organization may define their job in contrast to the CIO, often with initial power struggles.

CDOs Build Consensus

For an organization, CDOs are meant to be change-leaders. They see themselves playing a central role in building bridges and building consensus. Digital transformation requires close collaboration across an entire organization. As one CDO said in the study: “You always need a translator… IT guys speak a certain language and marketing guys speak a certain language. When you put them in the same room, they really don’t understand each other.”

However, as an emerging role, the new CDOs find they must work to gain legitimacy. Decoupling or buffering their pet digital initiatives from other existing units can be an effective strategy to highlight their work, according to interviewees. Yet this approach can brand CDOs as “lone warriors,” an identity which is difficult to sustain over the longer term, as digital capabilities must be infused throughout the organization.

CDOs are finding it useful to leverage the legitimacy of established organizational practices. But they must also create a new domain to free themselves from innovation-hindering departmental tensions. With three main approaches, and many variations, the pioneer CDOs are carving a new path for organizational innovation.

Is your company looking for someone to drive digital transformation? Are you considering hiring or promoting someone to join the ranks of these institutional entrepreneurs?

Methodology, Very Briefly

The researchers collected data during June to October 2015 and from October to November 2016. They interviewed 35 CDOs from a variety of industries. Interviews centered on three open-ended questions: (1) Why did the organization create the CDO role? (2) What are the activities of the CDO office? (3) What are the outcomes associated with the CDO role? These initially formulated research questions were tentative and allowed for the emergence of additional relevant topics.

It has the makings of another Intifada: appalling timing in terms of commemoration (the founding of the state of Israel; the opening of the US embassy in Jerusalem in all-Trumpistan affair); popular protest with all its untidy trimmings; then a massacre clinically inflicted by forces with superior fire power.

On Monday, the use of force by Israeli forces supposedly designed to quell riots and prevent an incursion by Palestinians from Gaza initially resulted in 58 deaths. The numbers duly grew, and it did not take long for a packaged, ribboned narrative to appear.

For one thing, who were the dead? Hamas official Salah Al-Bardawil offered a morsel to the Israeli forces by telling the Palestinian Baladna news outlet that of the 62 who perished over Monday and Tuesday, “fifty of the martyrs were Hamas and 12 from the people.” This made the moral computation for the Times of Israel simple: the bulk of deaths were “known members of terror groups”.

The Israel Defence Forces, in an attempt at wholesale unmasking, were quick to release selected footage of the interview with Al-Bardawil turning his words against him and emptying them of moral suasion: “Hamas official, Dr. Salah Al-Bardawil,” came one tweet “is clear about terrorist involvement in the riots.”

Since then, the IDF has been busy constructing an oasis of certitude with one central point: Hamas did it, and the deaths were less from Israel’s weapons than Hamas’ remorseless calculation, much of it centred on attempts to breach the fence in the northern Gaza strip. “Hamas,” went another statement, “is solely responsible for the events transpiring in and out of Gaza, and is accountable for all terrorist activity emanating from Gaza targeting Israeli civilians and Israeli sovereignty.”

Defence Minister Avigdor Lieberman was even more colourful in his description of these barbarians at the border. The leaders of Hamas were “a bunch of cannibals who also treat their own children as ammunition”.

The Israeli position, stated by Danny Danon as UN envoy, is to refocus attention on Hamas as wicked instigator and hostage taker. Israel thereby becomes legitimate defender, a force of security facing agents of a barbarian project led by Lieberman’s cannibals. “They incite people to violence, place as many civilians as possible in the line of fire to maximise civilian casualties, then they blame Israel and come to the UN to complain. It is a deadly game they play at the expense of innocent children.”

Positions are stated as absolutes, with compromise being seen as an enemy of promise. Terminology here is everything: a “right of return” is turned on its head as redemptive cause and a righting of wrongs that could only mean the destruction of the Jewish state. Danon, again, emphasises these extremes with ideological certitude: “When [Hamas] say day of rage they mean day of terrorism; right of return means the destruction of Israel; peaceful protest means incitement and violence.”

Violence, restraint, calm – all variables of relative worth where cruelty and brutality reign, and where humanitarian shocks sanctioned by Israel and Egypt function with ritual consistency. Gaza is a picture of enforced debility; options to behave decently are not to be found. But this is not a context that finds its way into assessments of IDF conduct. To the US ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, Israel was a paragon of propriety, its operations on Monday and Tuesday compelling. “No country in this chamber could act with more restraint than Israel has.”

Those outside the traditional US-Israel compass resort to the desk clerk’s alternative, a clip-board response with pen at the ready. Establish, goes this line of thinking, a committee, an investigation, an inquiry with findings that are bound to be shelved and ignored, redundancies even before the first question is asked.

UK ambassador to the UN Karen Pierce took issue with the ammunition being used. “The volume of live fire used in Gaza [on Monday] and the consequent number of deaths is distressing and cannot be ignored by the council”.

Activists are considering how to bolster the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign, though the recent massacre is bound to provide ample grist. The Palestinian Liberation Organisation’s Mustafa Barghouti used Monday’s violence to tell the BBC’s Newshour that BDS and popular nonviolent resistance are by far “the best two instruments to force Israel to change its policies.”

On one level this is unsurprising: Palestinian leaders, wrangling, divided and weak, have had to rely on other high profile movements to do their work. BDS has certainly developed enough momentum to draw calls from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to deem the movement anti-Semitic. “The boycotters,” he claimed in justification to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in 2014, “should be boycotted.”

Central to the denunciation of Palestinian protest, and specifically Hamas in its violent visage, is the notion that such behaviour is not only futile but indecent. Stay at home, simper and whimper; forget the realm of the political, the value of the activist enraged by historical wrongs. That the catastrophe – the annual nightmare or revisitation known as the Nakba – be a point of reminder drives Israel’s forces to further insist upon acceptance and subjugation.

To dare counter such forces of suffocation is to not abide by a fictional code of etiquette that never took root in those blood soaked soils. As long as this is sold to powerful sponsors, Israel will remain condemned in some circles but praised in others as survivor and defender. The Palestinians will simply be the remaindered peoples of a cause sliding into amnesiac sunset, steered by leaders of very mixed blessings buttressed by token support.

By Rabia Javed

Everyone knows that workers in the active areas of a nuclear power reactor may be exposed to radiation. A group of professionals called health physicists monitors and measures the radiation levels at the workplace. They estimate the radiation doses to members of the public at the fence post of the reactors. They provide special radiation measuring devices to individual workers and keep track of the radiation doses received. The Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) has prescribed dose limits to workers and members of the public. They follow mostly international norms. The operating management must ensure that these doses are as low as reasonably achievable and within the limits prescribed by the Board.

AERB publishes the relevant data on the radiation doses to workers and the members of the public in its Annual Reports. These doses are well within the limits prescribed by AERB.

The estimated doses at the fence posts of all nuclear power reactors are small compared to the dose limit to the public. In addition, these values are less that the deviations in natural background radiation at the place even in the absence of nuclear power plants.

The operating management maintains the dose records of all workers. The Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) uses state-of the art methods to measure and keep track of doses to individual radiation workers.

Radiation protection specialists unanimously agree that radiation at high dose levels can cause cancer. At low dose levels, say less than 100 mSv, the results are not conclusive. (Sv is a unit of biologically effective dose. One Sv corresponds to a radiation energy absorption of one joule per kg; millisievert is one thousandth of a Sv; Annual dose limit to workers prescribed by the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board is 30 mSv).

Radiation protection specialists accept the Linear-No-Threshold (LNT) dose-effect relationship as a practical approach in radiation protection. This concept has created controversies.

Many scientists question the scientific validity of the LNT hypothesis. Scientists are unable to settle the debates over the effects of ionizing radiation at low dose levels. Admittedly, these are very trivial. The dose-effect relation at very low doses is very complex and unknown now. Many agencies are supporting research efforts to unravel the relation. The latest Low Dose Research (1998-2008) funded by the US Department of Energy revealed many new and interesting phenomena. Presently they are of academic interest. These efforts have not provided any actionable inputs to revise the already conservative radiation protection standards.

Radiation protection specialists presently follow a radiation protection regime without causing undue radiation exposures to workers and members of the public. It will be inappropriate not to derive the benefits arising from nuclear power generation or the applications of radiation in medicine, industry, agriculture and research just because the exact dose-effect relation is unknown. This is because we know enough about the interaction of radiation with living matter. We have been using ionizing radiation safely for the past several decades. In fact, our knowledge on potential effects of ionizing radiation is far more detailed and accurate than those from any other physical or chemical agent we know of today.

The application of the so called Linear No-threshold (LNT) concept without appreciating that it is just a pragmatic and practical concept leads to unreasonable fear about radiation. Equally, radiation-phobia is also due to the association of radiation with atomic bomb. Atomic radiation got associated with fear of cancer, a vague feeling of uncertainty, the images of children suffering from leukemia, birth defects of various types and description among others.

There are many strongly held misunderstandings on biological effects by different sections of people.

A typical example is the so-called genetic effects of radiation.

Genetic effects of radiation

In 1991, Shri Karan Thapar interviewed me on a popular TV programme “Eye Witness”. He asked me 40 questions in ten minutes. This is certainly not a conducive format for eliciting scientific information.

In the ensuing controversy, I stated the known fact (known to radiobiologists and others who cared to read!) that scientists did not find any genetic effects among the thousands of children born to the atomic bomb survivors at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Thapar, however, unhesitatingly contested my statement as “inexplicable”; he wondered how I did form the impression that no genetic effects were found among the thousands of children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. “The opposite is not just a fact, it is the truth,” he asserted. That was his perception.

This scientifically unsupported conviction did not surprise me, as we have found that misgivings and myths about effects of radiations are rampant even amongst technologists, social scientists, physicists, and other highly qualified experts. You may realize that this has nothing to do with LNT concept.

While responding to an opinion survey organized by AERB, for the National Academy of Engineering, over 80% of the participants from reputed academic and research institutions in India (IITs at Mumbai, Kanpur, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, Roorkee University, Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, Kolkata, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai) stated that genetic effect is a major health effect seen in the children of survivors of atomic bombings contrary to the fact.

Overall 762 persons responded: Trained scientists and engineers 242, including the faculty of some institutes of science and technology 182; science and technology students 456.

A large proportion (37%) believed (wrongly) that nuclear power makes the highest contribution to population exposure. Similarly significant number of people thought that nuclear medicine and industrial applications make the highest contribution to population exposure (actually their contribution is negligible).

An opinion poll I did among eighty specialists attending an advanced training programme at the International Centre for Theoretical Physics at Trieste, Italy showed that nearly 30% of the scientists believed in the myth that double-headed monsters were born to the survivors of atomic bombings.

It is virtually impossible to correct such firmly held beliefs. In that context, every stakeholder may face problems.

The fear adversely affect acceptance of nuclear power as a source of energy; it also raises issues on many life saving medical procedures involving the use of ionizing radiation.

Misunderstanding about the adverse effects of radiation is widely prevalent. Belief in the scientifically not accurate LNT concept also contributes. To what degree depends on the individual. People conversant with principles of radiation protection including the “believers” in radiation hormesis (they believe that radiation exposure has some beneficial effects) may blame LNT concept for the fear.

What is the role of the regulatory community in allaying unwanted fear of radiation? One has to be cautious about this. Regulatory community must not go over board as it may compromise the regulator’s impartial role. Regulators must explain the position cogently, confidently and impartially.

The Government of India set up the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board to enforce the provisions under Section 16 (control of radioactive substances), Section 17 (Special provisions as to safety) and Section 23 (Administration of the Factories Act 1948) of the Atomic Energy Act 1962.

The former two are applicable in the present discussion. The mission of the AERB is to ensure that the use of ionising radiation and nuclear energy in India does not cause undue risk to the health of people and the environment.

An important function of the Board is to “take such steps as necessary to keep the public informed on major issues of radiological safety significance”.

In 1990, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) recommended for radiation workers a dose limit of 100mSv over any 5-year period and 50mSv in any one year. The limit for public was one mSv averaged over five years.ICRP retained a dose limit of 500mSv for any tissue or organ and 150mSv for eye lens. AERB implemented the new ICRP prescription in a phased manner.

What is a safe level of radiation?

It will be very useful to convey the values of radiation doses in medical procedures and other activities such as space travel for a full appreciation of dose limits.

What is a safe level of radiation?

The best answer is “It depends”. However, some puritans may argue that there is no safe dose.

There is no universally acceptable safe dose. For radiation workers, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) wants the annual dose to be “as low as reasonably achievable” (ALARA); also, it should not exceed 30 millisievert (mSv) excluding the dose due to natural background radiation and medical exposure, if any. AERB dose limit at 30mSv is lower than 50 mSv prescribed by USA/ICRP. I have received about 0.9mSv while recovering a lost radiation source used in industry.

During the Fukushima accident one worker received 106mSv.

For members of the public, the dose limit is one mSv. Pregnant workers may continue to work but the dose to the foetus should not exceed one mSv. In medically justified procedures, we may measurethe following doses in mSv. Cardiac CT scan 12; angioplasty (a life-saving procedure involving removal of blocks in blood vessels)on an average 400; at times even 1000mSv; treatment of hyperthyroidism, 100,000; radiation treatment of cancer 60,000 mSv

In USA, the dose limit for an astronaut is 250mSv per mission. In an off-site radiation emergency, sheltering and administration of stable iodine may start at a minimum dose of 20 mSv; evacuation is mandated at 100mSv.

The average natural background radiation dose is 2.4mSv annually. This arises mainly from radiation emitted by thorium, uranium and potassium-40 in soil and a major contribution from radon and its decay products present in air.

In England and Wales, the radiation exposure to residents of over 100,000 to 200,000 homes is 10mSv annually from radon, a radioactive gas found in nature. The maximum value is more than 100mSv. Millions of persons in countries with temperate weather receive doses ranging from 5-to10 mSv from radon decay products.

Very detailed radiation measurements in the high background radiation areas in Karunagappally Kerala revealed that the maximum gamma radiation dose in different panchayats vary between 5.7 mSv to 76.5 mSv per year. Nearly 100,000 people have been living in the area where the average gamma radiation level is estimated to be 4mSv per year.

Thus, we note the presence of different values of doses, depending on circumstances.

One need not lose sleep over receiving a few tens of mSv, if the occasion demands it.

Radiation is like any other physical agent. It is not appropriate to attribute any special importance to radiation. In fact, ionizing radiation is a weak carcinogen.

The evolution of the radiation protection standards clearly demonstrates how the regulators followed a very conservative and careful approach in accepting the standards.

The French Academy of Sciences, the only scholarly body with views closer to those who support hormesis (radiation has beneficial effects) conceded that on the basis of present knowledge, it is not possible to define the threshold level (between 5 and 50 mSv) or to provide the evidence for it.

The dose levels to radiation workers achievable are so low compared to the dose limits recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) that the risk from them is negligible. Negligible risk is no risk at all. That we cannot rule out beneficial effects of radiation is also a comforting thought.

“People can be easily sensitized to issues of climatic changes. So nuclear power protagonists can have a natural alliance with informed environmentalists.” Dr Roald Hoffmann, Nobel Laureate suggested in an interview in January 1988.

“We need to educate the public regarding the importance of ‘acceptable levels of risk’—levels that are believed to include risks, but risks for adverse effects that are so small that one would not be able to observe and measure an excess of the effects with a realistic study. Only then will the fear and paranoia associated with radiation effects gradually become less and less and sources for energy production can be fairly and objectively be evaluated,” Evan Douple, , Associate Chief of Research at the Radiation Effects Research Foundation, Hiroshima, proposed in an e-mail response to me. Dr Evan Douple was director of the Board on Radiation Effects Research that provided oversight to the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR VII Report).

This is certainly a pragmatic and acceptable way forward. I believe that over emphasis on hormesis and over simplification of some reassuring observations by nuclear enthusiasts may not be appropriate. Not yet. Low dose research must continue. We must disseminate correct information on recent advances in radiation biology.

Relative impacts of various sources of energy may also be discussed. Discerning public will make the right choice.

Over 26 years ago, NiemanReports listed the Understanding Factors of Risk Perception. The first among the 14 factors was Trust Vs Lack of Trusts.

With understanding trepidation, I read it thus:

“The more we trust the people informing us about a risk, the less afraid we are. The more we trust the process used in deciding whether we will be exposed to a hazard, the less afraid we are. When we trust the agency or company exposing us to the risk, we are less afraid. When we trust government agencies that are supposed to be protecting us, we are less afraid. The less we trust the people informing us, the people protecting us, or the process determining our exposure to a risk, the more afraid we are.”

In any, case “Regulators”: must strive hard to earn the trust, the trust of those whom they serve. I got an opportunity to realize readers impressions when I wrote an article titled, “How safe Kudankulam nuclear power reactors are” in The Hindu on November 10, 2011. I got 93 responses on line and 30 e-mail responses.

Over 50 of the 93 comments and most of the e-mail messages were positive and in favour of safe nuclear power.

“The writer is part of the Nuclear Establishment in India, he has scientific credentials but his entire article is clearly from the Public Relations department of the Koodankulam plant”, one reader wrote.

“The article by the writer, coming close on the heels of green signal given by Dr. Kalam for Nuclear Power / Kudankulam, was very informative and authentic. Just because, the writer belongs to the nuclear establishment, we should not view it with pre-conceived notions, but try to analyse these issues objectively…,” another reader commented.

“A DAE person giving a clean chit to a DAE run plant. What an irony? Who will believe it? I suggest that DAE should get neutral experts from foreign countries, especially people who are known for their integrity, who are not working for supplier companies and countries, which have interest in nuclear plants in India. DAEs trust quotient is very low” was another negative comment (DAE is Department of Atomic Energy; AERB is a functionally independent agency but many consider it as a part of DAE)

Mercifully, other readers balanced the negative views. Thus:

“The above debate is interesting….we often say….one should listen to expert’s views on a given a subject! Yet, some of our friends above have objection, when two eminent scientists & authority speak in favour of Nuke Projects / Kudankulam. What is their fault? They are all ex-officials of same dept. Well, when ex-cricketers Sunil Gavaskar or Kapil Dev speak on cricket with, we all respect their authority on the subject & clap their views. Right, after all, they are experts in the field & we respect / listen to their views. Why on earth double standards then, when two ex – DAE experts speak with authority on Nuke/Kudankulam. One should s and listen to experts & not rabble-rousers. It is indeed shameful that, people are asked to make a choice ….Dr. Kalam or Uday Kumar. Parthsarathy or Pushparayan? Where is the comparison? Let people of our country decide, if they want to go back to Dark Age or bright age!”

“If it is so safe, then Can KSParthasarathy move inside the kudankulam nuclear plant campus if provided a free apartment? Don’t advice for others sitting in a safe place,” a reader suggested.

Since I have superannuated, I cannot get an official residence. Since I did not know his e-mail ID, I blogged that I shall be most grateful if I get a residence in the premises of Kudankulam reactors. I do not need it free, I shall pay rent. I know that the residential premises near nuclear power plants owned by the Department of Atomic Energy are aesthetically appealing!

The comments I received convinced me that the credibility of scientists is not very low as I initially thought. There were a few anti-nuclear activists; we cannot change their views. However, there are many fence sitters waiting for a nudge, based on scientific information.

Everyone must contribute regardless of the perceived trust deficit. Readers of articles and audience attending lectures have access to a lot of material; most of them not authentic. It is appropriate to assist such readers in their quest for accurate and reliable information.

Ousted Pakistani prime minister Nawaz Sharif kicked up a storm when he earlier this month seemingly admitted that Pakistan had supported militants who attacked multiple targets in Mumbai in 2008, killing 166 people.

Mr. Sharif’s admission, which he has since tried to walk back, put a finger on Pakistan’s controversial policy of selective support of militant groups at a sensitive time. Pakistan is gearing up for elections that would secure its third consecutive handover of civilian political power.

Mr. Sharif’s remarks, moreover, stirred up a hornet’s nest because Pakistan is likely to next month be put on a watch list by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), a global financial watchdog that monitors the funding of political violence and money laundering worldwide.

The remarks also put China in a difficult position. China has been pressuring Pakistan to crack down on militants, particularly in the troubled province of Balochistan, the crown jewel in its Belt and Road-related $50 billion plus infrastructure investment in the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).

Yet, at the same time, China has at Pakistan’s behest prevented the United Nations Security Council from declaring Masood Azhar, believed to have been responsible for an attack in 2016 on India’s Pathankot Air Force Station, as a globally designated terrorist.

The militants, dressed in Indian military uniforms fought a 14-hour battle against Indian security forces that only ended when the last attacker was killed. Mr. Azhar was briefly detained after the attack and has since gone underground.

Mr. Sharif’s made his remarks as China was building up its military infrastructure in Pakistan. The build-up is occurring against the backdrop of Pakistan risking being involuntarily sucked into potential attempts to destabilize Iran if Saudi Arabia/and or the United States were to use Balochistan as a staging ground.

In line with a standard practice in Pakistan that has repeatedly seen groups that are outlawed resurrecting themselves under new names, Lashkar-e-Taibe (LeT), the banned group believed to be responsible for the Mumbai attacks, and Jamaat-ud-Dawa, widely believed to be an LeT front, are rebranding under a new name and as a political party, Milli Muslim League, that would compete in the forthcoming election.

The League is headed by Hafez Saaed, a former LeT leader, who was last year released from house arrest despite having been declared a designated global terrorist by the Security Council and the US Treasury, which put a $10 billion bounty on his head. China vetoed Mr. Saeed’s designation by the UN prior to the Mumbai attacks.

Activists, even though the party was last month designated by the US Treasury, are likely to run as independents in the election if the government maintains its rejection of the party’s registration.

So are operatives of Ahl-e-Sunnat-Wal-Jamaat, a front for Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan, a banned, virulently anti-Shiite group that long enjoyed support from Saudi Arabia and operates multiple militant madrassas or religious seminaries in Balochistan that have witnessed an injection of funds from the kingdom in the last two years.

“Militant organisations are active. Call them non-state actors, should we allow them to cross the border and kill 150 people in Mumbai? Explain it to me. Why can’t we complete the trial? It’s absolutely unacceptable. This is exactly what we are struggling for. President Putin has said it. President Xi has said it. We could have already been at seven per cent growth (in GDP), but we are not,” Mr. Sharif said, referring to stalled Mumbai attacks-related trials in a Rawalpindi anti-terrorism court.

Taking Mr. Sharif’s comments a step further, prominent journalist and author Ahmed Rashid asserted that “the deep state of Pakistan is supporting the banned outfits as it has done in the past. This game should be stopped, and the government should show its commitment and sincerity in disarming these groups and not to allow them to enter into politics.”

Former Pakistani strongman General Pervez Musharraf, in an apparent manifestation of links between the circles close to the military and hardliners, said prior to the designation by the US announced that he was discussing an alliance with Mr. Saeed’s league.

Speaking on Pakistani television, Mr. Musharraf pronounced himself “the greatest supporter of LeT… Because I have always been in favour of action in Kashmir and I have always been in favour of pressuring the Indian army in Kashmir,” Mr. Musharraf said.

Pakistan’s military and intelligence service are believed to favour integration of militants into the political process as a way of reducing violence and militancy in a country in which religious ultra-conservatism and intolerance has been woven into the fabric of branches of the state and significant segments of society.

Critics charge that integration is likely to fail in Pakistan. “Incorporating radical Islamist movements into formal political systems may have some benefits in theory… But the structural limitations in some Muslim countries with prominent radical groups make it unlikely that these groups will adopt such reforms, at least not anytime soon… While Islamabad wants to combat jihadist insurgents in Pakistan, it also wants to maintain influence over groups that are engaged in India and Afghanistan,” said Kamran Bokhari, a well-known scholar of violent extremism.

Citing the example of a militant Egyptian group that formed a political party to participate in elections, Mr. Bokhari argued that “though such groups remain opposed to democracy in theory, they are willing to participate in electoral politics to enhance their influence over the state. Extremist groups thus become incorporated into existing institutions and try to push radical changes from within the system.”

Chinese ambiguity about Pakistani policy goes beyond shielding Mr. Azhar from being designated. A Chinese-Pakistani draft plan last year identified as risks to CPEC “Pakistani politics, such as competing parties, religion, tribes, terrorists, and Western intervention” as well as security. “The security situation is the worst in recent years,” the plan said.

Security has since improved substantially in significant parts of Pakistan. The question, however, is whether integration of militants into the political process would stabilize Pakistani politics in the absence of a concerted effort to counter mounting ultra-conservative religious fervour in the country. It may be too early to judge, but so far the answer has to be no.

Good afternoon. I am pleased to welcome you to today’s event to discuss how the Caucasus and Central Asia region can benefit from greater integration. I would like to thank Prime Minister Sagintayev for joining us to discuss this important topic. And I would like to express my appreciation to National Bank of Kazakhstan Governor Akishev for his hospitality in co-hosting today’s event.

I am very pleased to be making my first visit to Astana as IMF Deputy Managing Director. Today’s gathering enables us to exchange views on what is needed to develop a new growth model for this region, and to strengthen policy frameworks and institutions in support of these efforts.

For the first decade of this century, the economic story of the CCA region was quite successful. Growth was strong, inflation came down, and significant progress was made reducing poverty.

However, these achievements were based on a growth model that relied heavily on commodities, remittances, public spending, and construction.

This left the CCA region vulnerable to volatile commodity prices and external developments. We saw that with the shocks that hit the region in 2008-09 and again since 2014. These included lower commodity prices, weaker remittances, and an economic slowdown among trading partners. As you know, the result has been weaker growth, heightened financial sector vulnerabilities, and higher public debt.

The response of the CCA countries to these shocks has been sound. You pursued fiscal support, where possible, more flexible exchange rates, and efforts to stabilize big banks. We are now seeing a turnaround in economic activity. But while growth in 2017 exceeded expectations, the momentum was again driven by external factors—especially higher oil prices. It is not expected to last.

The paper we are releasing today argues for a new growth model for the region. This model would be based on greater openness, diversification, and regional and global integration. Opening the CCA economies to trade and investment would provide more choices at lower prices for consumers and businesses. It would boost productivity. Opportunities such as the Belt-and-Road Initiative and the policy changes in Uzbekistan could help kick-start that economic transformation. But they would have to be well managed.

So how can the region benefit most from greater integration? For starters, CCA countries should take advantage of the current global upswing to reduce tariff and non-tariff barriers. They also should strengthen participation in multilateral initiatives led by the WTO, and increase regional trade. Currently, only 5 percent of the trade of oil exporters, and 15 percent of importers is conducted within the region. Those are low figures by both historical and international standards.

Economic integration needs to be based on stronger macroeconomic frameworks. Sound, sustainable and transparent policies will provide greater stability, predictability, and confidence to investors—both domestic and foreign.

What are some of the specifics? We’ll hear from my colleague, Peter Kunzel, on the specific fiscal, monetary, financial, and structural reform policies that would be helpful. I will say, however, that while reforms may not happen overnight or be easy, countries should take advantage of the current global upswing to redouble their reform efforts. With a strong, shared commitment to greater integration and openness, there is no doubt that the next chapter in the story of the CCA region can be greater growth, jobs, and prosperity for all.

I can assure you that the IMF stands ready to support you.

I look forward to our discussion today, and hope it will stimulate the debate and deepen our understanding of these important issues.

Thank you and let me now turn to Peter to make a short presentation.

For decades, the Kurdish people have been the targets of unacceptable human rights abuse and atrocities. This includes the Anfal Kurdish genocide which took place during Saddam Hussein’s reign. Using tactics, like chemical warfare, imprisonment, torture and intimidation, Saddam Hussein sought to wipe out the Kurdish people for good.

The Yazidis have also experienced severe physical and psychological trauma while fleeing ISIS atrocities in recent years. Christian, Muslim, Yazidi, Kurdish, and Arab victims of ISIS have all found safe sanctuary in Kurdistan. In 2017, the Iraq-Iran border was hit with an earthquake causing more than 500 deaths and leaving many civilians homeless. Kurdistan was in crisis. Kurdish children experienced trauma without any access to the proper psychological care. There was a total lack of therapeutic programs for children, not even simple toys or games for them to play to ease their suffering and bring healing. Additionally, people with disabilities went untreated during this time. The poor economic situation limited our access to wheelchairs, crutches and other medical equipment.

When nobody else was assisting us in our time of need a loyal friend, Ken Isaacs, arrived to help us. Ken and his incredible humanitarian team from Samaritan’s Purse, an international relief NGO, quickly assessed the situation, identified those in need, and gave them the care they needed. Isaacs and his team served everyone regardless of nationality or religious affiliation. Since 2008, Ken Isaacs and Samaritan’s Purse has continuously helped and supported both the people in Kurdistan and Iraq.

Ken’s teams have provided food, shelter, nutrition, water and sanitation, psycho-social support, camp management services and constructed and operated a badly needed emergency field hospital during the campaign to liberate Mosul from ISIS. His continuous support for IDPs and refugees by providing and shipping supplies, will always be remembered. It is also worth mentioning that Ken Isaacs himself spent time visiting refugee families inside the refugee camps. He also visited the Prime Minister, Nechirvan Barzani, to help give insight on how to best serve the people in this region without any national or religious discrimination. This man will be remembered as a friend to all Kurdish people and to all the other people groups he served in our region.

It is for these reasons I offer Ken Isaacs my full support in his campaign to become the next Director General of the International Organization for Migration, IOM. Ken will make an excellent Director General.

Migration is the major issue facing the world today. IOM, the UN’s Migration Agency, is the only international body capable of addressing the unique migration challenges faced by all countries and all peoples. Ken Isaacs is the right leader at the right moment to lead IOM forward into the future and bring innovative solutions to these many complex challenges, while preserving and uplifting the human rights of all individuals involved. I look forward to congratulating Ken Isaacs on June 29th when he is elected the next Director General of IOM.

*Mariwan Naqshbandi is the Spokesperson for the Ministry of Endowment and Religious Affairs for the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) in Iraq

Palaver-filled torpor is an apt description for an article published by Foreign Affairs on April 30 titled, “Time for a New U.S. Foreign Policy Narrative: A Better Alternative to Trump’s ‘America First,” by Ian Bremmer and Joe Kennedy III. They begin the piece demonizing Trump’s understanding of the US’ role in the world by stating:

“Refugees and immigrants were cast as villains, repressive regimes like Russia and China were regarded with admiration, and human rights and democratic freedoms were pushed to the sidelines.”

As historian Dr. Victor Davis Hanson wrote, “(President) Truman May Have Been the Proto-Trump,” with his low approval ratings, crass demeanor, but foreign policy achievements that rivaled any of his predecessors. The Midwestern country-bumpkin title that Democratic elites assailed Truman with were flummoxed when he arguably made the best geopolitical decision of the 20th century by firing MacArthur, replacing him with General Matthew Ridgway and stopping at the 38th parallel.

Now twitter-crass Trump will meet with Kim Jong-un on June 12th in Singapore to possibly bring peace to the Korean peninsula. The Foreign Affairs article never mentions the fact that President’s Clinton, Bush 43, and Obama never made this type of headway with the North Korean regime. But to Bremmer and Kennedy, Trump’s America First monikers and wanting to protect “the well-being of the American people,” from the largest influx of unskilled immigrants in American history makes him a monster. Although there is a case to be made for slowing down unchecked immigration by concentrating on re-establishing America’s pre-eminent place in the world.

Mr. Bremmer and Kennedy’s piece never acknowledges what Trump – or Clinton if she had won – inherited from the former administration. In 2011 when President Obama announced a sudden drawdown of forces from Iraq – after the US had the country under control and Khaddafi had given up his nuclear weapons – a Middle Eastern bloodbath ignited under his national security team’s watch. The US won in Iraq. If we had stayed in Iraq the way we did in Germany, Japan and South Korea then Iraq and the entire Middle East wouldn’t be infested with Iranian Quds Forces, Russian military hardware, Turkish forces or raging jihadists. Bremmer and Kennedy never investigate the Middle East wreckage that continues in Syria. Though ISIS is under control in Northern Syria, other Islamic extremists benefitted and strengthened during this period. Mainly, Al Qaeda, Ahrar al-Sham, Jaysh al-Islam and the Sunni insurgency has flared again in Iraq while a new group called; “White Flags” has surfaced in Kirkuk and Diyala.

But it’s the Iran deal that did nothing to stop Iran’s nuclear program and set in motion Iran’s dangerous ballistic missile program. Simply put, Iran lied about its nuclear weapons program according to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. Furthermore, hundreds of billions in economic gains for the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism and a policy of containment that had been in place for decades under Democrat and Republican administrations was dismantled.

When the Iran outreach policy was executed by Obama, Kerry and former CIA Director John Brennan – Iraq became a puppet state, Syria was taken over by Shia militias led by the Quds Force – and Yemen went up in flames. This outreach policy correlated with Iranian troops now sitting on Israel’s border, causing oil prices to skyrocket. Additionally, Hezbollah now has 150,000 rockets and missiles capable of hitting any part of Israel at a moment’s notice. And former NATO ally Turkey was caught in the middle and now has swung to Iran and Russia’s sphere of influence Mr. Bremmer and Kennedy never dissect this aspect of the former administration’s legacy.

Moreover, while Obama was in office – that Bremmer and Kennedy praise for solid foreign policy decision-making – Crimea was annexed by the Russians in 2014 and nothing was done while China claimed the South China Sea to be territorial waters. Now a series of fortified artificial islands that have been militarized to make their claims a reality to US allies is in full force; while trillions in economic activity that passes through those waterways is essentially under Chinese influence. China’s hegemonic moves now threaten political and economic stability over this strategic waterway for the entire Asian hemisphere, Australia and India. Bremmer and Kennedy should have noted these Chinese efforts have gone unchecked by US administrations, Congress, and NATO. By no means is Trump perfect, but who can fault the man for running on “Make America Great Again?”

Bremmer and Kennedy should have examined the human rights and democratic freedoms that were taken away over the disastrous policies the former administration undertook. If both men want to ask what is America’s overarching national security strategy that is a worthy article long overdue. What this article reeks of, however, his hyperbolic shouting from the rooftops that consists of no coherent policy recommendations other than meandering into tired Russian collusion arguments and unfettered campaign sloganeering. Bremmer knows better as President of the Eurasia Group and Kennedy as well since his namesake – JFK – was an ardent defender against conceding ground to America’s enemies in the name of appeasement.

Their piece ends with a pious heading: “The Moral To Our Story.” Where they invoke the false choices Trump is giving US foreign policy and play the tired canard by stating, “Does the United States reaffirm itself to the cause of freedom, human dignity, and democracy at home and abroad?” It was the former US foreign policy establishment that advocated for leading from behind on the world stage. The two men continue their hollow phraseology:

“Does it compromise the values, promises and foundational liberties etched in the U.S. Constitution because of the latest insult or opportunity that arises?

What does that even mean? What they should have examined was the reasoning behind the former administration and previous ones letting the Iranian people down by not supporting their “Green Revolution.” Or both men could have done a case study on how corruption, bad governance and Venezuela’s failure embracing socialism tears away at the social values of Latin America. If Bremmer and Kennedy want the former administration’s policies or some vague notion of human rights then debate Eli Lake, Michael Oren and Jay Solomon who wrote the bestseller – The Iran Wars – all three men contend the foreign policy establishment wanted a nuclear deal with Iran to preserve Obama’s and their legacy.

The raison d’etre of their piece is proclaiming the era of Pax Americana is over, however, “America’s role in the world is still being written.” Instead of America under Trump there is China’s, “alternative model for global leadership,” or put another way, authoritarian-capitalism that destroys the environment and puts the communist party above the UN’s Declaration of Human Rights. Both men have lost their way with this article and possibly advocating for China’s model over the US led by Trump.

Their entire argument is centered on their hatred for Trump, Republicans and how the US Democratic Party is the beacon of light for the upcoming election cycle. Vote how you want, the US is a free country, but examine the facts of what US foreign policy and western-aligned nations wrought with implementing “leading from behind,” on the world stage.

If they believe in multilateralism and international institutions and a bipartisan foreign policy consensus that had been in place since FDR then how does each man believe the US, NATO, EU and Asian allies confront China, Russia and Iran (CRI)? The policy implications are evident: War, terrorism in Europe, Islamic radicals emboldened, the Middle East and Africa in flames. Pax Americana led by Trump works better than “Globalism with Chinese Characteristics,” Putin yearning for Russian glory days, or tyrannical Iranian Ayatollahs. Brennan and Kennedy only used lofty rhetoric and Trump-bashing without examining the cold, hard facts of international relations and realist foreign policy. Every one of their points and arguments should be dismissed into the failed dustbin of history.

*Todd Royal, M.P.P. is the Managing Partner for Energy development, Oil & Gas, and Renewables for Ascendance Strategies, a global threat assessment and political consulting firm that is based in Los Angeles, California

The Baltic states today are no more a clean sheet of paper waiting for somebody to write something on. During almost 30 years of independence from the USSR the authorities have been cleaning the countries from the Soviet-era’s hangover and are writing new history by themselves. And the results of their activity are various and often disputable.

On the one hand the idea of gaining independence which was in the air for long time had been realized. But unfortunately this is the only great thing that happened to the Baltic states.

The first years of independent existence were marked by national enthusiasm. It seemed as if there were no unrealizable goals for strong in spirit Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians. The three peoples were ready to move mountains. Almost thirty years have passed. And only now it becomes clear, that those who were given the power to decide for the whole nations did not always make right political and economic decisions. And they continue to be in error.

People’s interests are no longer in the list of priorities. The authorities very often forget that they were chosen by people, they are not Lords but they are servants for people’s good.

This fact is proved by the increasing immigration rate. The reality is that Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia are losing people. According to U.N. statistics, “in 2000 Latvia’s population stood at 2.38 million. At the start of this year, it was only 1.95 million. No other country has had a more precipitous fall in population — 18.2 percent. Only Latvia’s similarly fast-shriveling neighbor, Lithuania, is with a 17.5 percent decrease.” The officials’ explanation of such catastrophic statistics arouses surprise and even resentment. Do they really think that young people leave because “borders are open, information about life in other prosperous EU states is available and they just go to see the world.” NO! They do not just want to see the world, they just want to live in prosperous countries, because Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia are poor! Young generation even does not see any perspective at home. No enthusiasm is left, no more trust to the authorities exists. Who is to blame?

But now it is not so important to find those who are guilty, the question “what to do to stop loosing people” is on the agenda.

The scenario of a fairy tale when a hero comes and saves the country does not work in reality. It is time to stop choosing such heroes. Russia, US, NATO or the EU are not those who can make the Baltic states prosperous. It is enough to rely on their decisions and advice. What have the Baltic states achieved since gaining independence? They became a place for possible war conflict. Paradoxically, they took over this status of their own free will. First of all they permitted foreign troops deploying in their territories which irritates neighboring Russia and locals. The authorities allowed to build military warehouses, these steps aren’t also attractive for local population. The matter is foreign military activity is to some extend occupation even if it is conducted for the important purpose. Do the Baltic states really need foreign troops? They need foreign investments, foreign tourists, foreign goods, but not troops and old military vehicles that pollute their soil, air and water. The worst thing is the countries loose self-sufficiency and can’t exist without the so called “donors.” These “generous” countries feel free not only to advice, but to decide for the Baltic states.

One of such examples is the assessment of the Baltic states railways condition made by Modern War Institute at West Point in April 2018. According to the report, “currently, the Baltic states operate Russian-gauge railroad tracks, while other European NATO members utilize a standard European gauge. Such differences impose a big problem for NATO’s Logistics in Northeastern Europe. This incompatibility means that trains “carrying military equipment and supplies from larger NATO bases in Germany or Poland would have to transfer their cargo to Russian-gauge trains or proceed via ground convoys to their destinations. Not only are both options time-consuming, they require trained personnel and significant military resources (e.g., heavy equipment transporter systems, military police and security elements), as well as proficiency and familiarity in conducting such operations.” The documents of such type “advice” to rebuild Baltic rail infrastructure. By the way this will demand huge amount of money. Who will pay for new railway? Most likely the NATO problem once again will become the Baltic states’ problem. As well as the decommissioning of Lithuania’s Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant has become purely Lithuanian problem. Thus strengthening its Western flank NATO automatically makes the Baltic states poorer and weaker.

*Viktors Domburs is an engineer, born in Latvia, and now lives in the United Kingdom.

By John Lancaster*

The recent congressional hearing of Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg illuminates the complicated questions raised by our ever evolving technologically immersed society. The idea of a person or entity being able to track the digital viewing habits of innumerable individuals posits concern about the permissibility of encroaching on private lives. Fortunately, the concept of invading the intimacy of another person’s day to day dealings for financial gain has been addressed before, in the form of blackmail.

Blackmail is often perceived as contemptable due to the devastating economic and social impact it wreaks upon its victims. Loss of reputation, estrangement, and financial ruin are among numerous consequences that await those who have unflattering information held against them. As heart wrenching as the outcomes of blackmail may appear, this is not to say that it infringes upon individual rights. In fact, noted economist Walter Block has produced a prolific amount of work concerning blackmail and personal liberty. One of his most significant and extensive works, Legalize Blackmail, combats the most eminent theories of blackmail from the perspective of libertarian law. Notably, while criticizing Leo Kratz’s evaluation of blackmail as immoral due to its retaliatory nature, Block points out that “The blackmailer never invades, or threatens to invade, anyone’s boundar,” then provides an example of the victim seeking the information holder to persuade him, with money, not to release said information.

Assessing Blackmail in Light of Mises’s “Hegemonic Bonds”

According to Mises in Human Action, there are two forms of bonds in social cooperation: Hegemonic bonds and Contractual bonds. Mises describes a hegemonic bond as “cooperation by command and subordination.”This bond gives way to a scenario where one class of men (directors) dictates the actions of the other class (wards). While Directors, under a hegemonic bond, can act indefinitely, Wards only make the choice between the consequences of obedience and disobedience. Once obedience and subordination are chosen, the director assigns actions to the ward. This is in contrast with a contractual bond where the individuals have a much larger scope of choices (Mises also mentions the need for a symmetrical relationship between the two parties but does not elaborate much further than this). I distinguish the differences as thus: in a contractual agreement, the propositioned party can voluntarily return to the previous status quo (life before the offer is made) without any infringement upon their property. With hegemonic agreements, the propositioned party will have to face a penalty that infringes on their property to return to the previous status quo. Suppose person A and person B are eating lunch, and A wants B to dispose of their plates but B refuses. A then threatens to physically harm B if B does not heed to his demand. In this scenario A has placed a cost on retaining the present health status of B’s body, i.e. his property. B has been placed in a situation where if he wants to retain the current condition of his property, his body, he will have to physically struggle against A. Even if B successfully defends himself against A so flawlessly that B incurs no physical injuries, B would’ve still used his property in a way that diverted from his preferred use due to the nonconsensual costs imposed upon him by another party.

Nowhere throughout the act of blackmail do the victims pay a penalty on their property. A person who has unflattering information held against them is not restrained in any fashion from using their bodies and material possessions as they were before (This is excluding the possibility that the blackmail victim committed a crime, in which relinquishing material possessions or free bodily use would be in due course). As with a contractual bond, the offered party (blackmail victim) is allowed greater freedom in terms of their rightfully owned property. This, however, is wholly different from saying that the blackmail victim will be allowed to use other’s property as the victim did before. What blackmail does in a sense is place a price on not indirectly convincing others to use their mental facilities in ways that they were not previously using them. While this can and usually does influence how the blackmail victim is received in his or her community, the victim is not being deprived of any property right. The only losses a blackmail victim suffers are the ones others are inclined to take away anyway. The victim may be denied admission from certain establishments based on the information presented by the blackmailer, yet privately owned establishments have a right to accept or deny whomever they want to on any bases. Although members of the community may choose to disassociate with the victim, their company was never owned by the victim anyway. Diminish reputation may also await a person whose contemptable deeds have been exposed. This also does not violate a blackmail victim’s property. To quote Rothbard in Man, Economy, and State:

a man has no such objective property as “reputation.” His reputation is simply what others think of him, i.e., it is purely a function of the subjective thoughts of others. But a man cannot own the minds or thoughts of others.

Each opinion is owned by an individual, so one cannot claim legitimate ownership of the final product of those opinions, since each marginal input belongs to a different person. Furthermore, since each individual is the rightful owner of their own body, then anything that individual produces with the sole use of their own body is also rightfully theirs, since they would’ve mixed their labor with something that was inherently theirs to begin with. This would include the labor of using one’s mind to form an opinion.

I will use the Dennis Hastert case to display this theory in a real setting. When former Republican Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert worked as a wrestling coach at Yorkville High School, he sexually abused 4 wrestlers and the team equipment manager. One of the victims, dubbed Individual A (of whom this analysis will focus on), chose not to publicly expose Hastert’s misdeeds so long as he was financially compensated with $3.5 million by Hastert. Eventually Individual A was confronted by the authorities and, by law, had to disclose the details of Hastert’s transgressions.

In this situation, Hastert committed an act of theft unto Individual A by sexually assaulting him. When a person commits sexual assault they are deriving sexual pleasure, but from another person without his or her permission. This is akin to robbing someone of a particular service. During the act of theft, the owner of the stolen property is still the title holder of said property, even if it’s not in the owner’s physical possession. If someone steals Jon Doe’s car from his garage, the car still belongs to Jon Doe, even if he does not have physical access to it. This logic extends to forced sexual activity. Although Individual A already had sexual pleasure derived from the use of his body without his consent, he still owns the ability to lease his body for sexual services to whomever he pleases, provided the circumstances are in Individual A’s favor. Since Hastert robbed Individual A from setting his own preferences for their sexual arrangement, Individual A has the right to seek compensation for the service that was stolen from the faculty (his body) that is inherently his own. The blackmail price of $3.5 million is simply the appraisal of the liberties Hastert took on Individual A. Since the service was already consumed by Hastert, he is obliged to compensate Individual A.

Hastert was not placed in a hegemonic bond by being blackmailed. Hastert paid no penalty on his property that he was not already obliged to pay by his actions towards Individual A. Furthermore, Hastert wouldn’t have faced any unwarranted punishment had he refused to pay for Individual A’s silence. By committing sexual assault, Hastert made himself eligible for legal imprisonment anyway. Financial payment was simply an agreed upon alternative by both parties. To say the blackmailing of Hastert was a hegemonic bond would be to say that Individual A transgressed upon Hastert returning to the normalcy of his life before the blackmail. This insinuates that Individual A did not have the right to hold Hastert accountable for his crime in the first place.

During the publicization of the scandal Hastert suffered a “state of despair caused by extreme isolation and the withdrawal of support from many friends and former colleagues.” Moral judgment aside, Hastert was never, and is still not, entitled to the company of anyone. People choose amongst themselves who to associate with based on whatever criteria they deem appropriate. The people who chose to disassociate with Hastert made a rational decision based on the information at their disposal.

Conclusion

We do not know of cases in which social media companies have employed blackmail as a way to take advantage of information gleaned about users. However, as social media matures, we will likely be faced with many situations in which social media companies are in a position to disclose information about their customers to third parties  — information those customers might prefer not be shared. These situation are not strictly analagous to blackmail, of course, because they do not involve demands for money, and the information in question was often directly given to the social media company by the customers. Nevertheless, the problem of attempting to control information about one’s self is a growing issue. The insights of Rothbard and Block into the nature of blackmail may prove fruitful in better understanding this phenomenon in the future.

About the author:
*John Lancaster is a senior in economics at Frostburg State University.

Source:
This article was published by the MISES Institute.

By Jay Syrmopoulos*

Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has succeeded in forcing George Soros’ Open Society Foundations (OSF) to cease operations in Hungary, as the group confirmed on Tuesday that it would be ending operations in the country. OSF previously said it would move its Budapest operations to Berlin if necessary.

“Faced with an increasingly repressive political and legal environment in Hungary, the Open Society Foundations are moving their Budapest-based international operations and staff to the German capital, Berlin,” OSF announced on Tuesday.

Orbán and the Fidesz party had targeted OSF for “meddling” in the political affairs of Hungary, primarily in the funding of opposition groups that allegedly supported immigration.

Open Society Foundations President Patrick Gaspard refuted Orbán’s characterization of the group, saying the Hungarian leader has “denigrated and misrepresented our work” while repressing civil society “for the sake of political gain.”

Orbán is widely known as a staunch opponent of immigration. “We will never allow Hungary to become a target country for immigrants. We do not want to see significantly sized minorities with different cultural characteristics and backgrounds among us. We want to keep Hungary as Hungary,” Orbán declared in 2015 following the murders in Paris at the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo.

OSF noted that the impetus for the move comes as Hungary “prepares to impose further restrictions on nongovernmental organizations through what it has branded its ‘Stop Soros’ package of legislation.”

The Fidesz party submitted legislation to parliament in February known as the “Stop Soros Act” that aimed to limit immigration and intensify restrictions on the activities of foreign-funded non-governmental organizations (NGOs). According to Reuters:

The bill, submitted to parliament late on Tuesday, is a key part of Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s anti-immigration campaign targeting U.S. financier George Soros whose philanthropy aims to bolster liberal and open-border values in eastern Europe.

The government says the bill, which would also impose a 25 percent tax on foreign donations to NGOs that back migration in Hungary, is meant to deter illegal immigration Orban says is eroding European stability and has been stoked in part by Soros.

Hungary and Poland are both under nationalist governments that have clashed with the European Union leadership in Brussels over their perceived authoritarian drift deviating from EU standards on democracy and rule of law.

“If Soros is found to have engaged in such activity, meaning he organizes illegal immigration, then the rules will apply to him,” Hungarian government spokesman Zoltan Kovacs said.

After Orbán’s recent landslide election victory in April, he said, in reference to Soros and the OSF, “I know they won’t accept the result of the election, they will organize all sorts of things, they have unlimited financial resources.”

When news subsequently broke in April that OSF was planning on moving from Budapest to Berlin, Orbán quipped, “You might understand if I don’t cry my eyes out.”

Soros-affiliated organizations, such as OSF, have reportedly been connected to various color revolutions, the Arab Spring, and a number of other political uprisings across the globe.

According to a report in New Eastern Outlook:

The totality of what is revealed in the three hacked documents show that Soros is effectively the puppet-master pulling most of the strings in Kiev. Soros Foundation’s Ukraine branch, International Renaissance Foundation (IRF) has been involved in Ukraine since 1989. His IRF doled out more than $100 million to Ukrainian NGOs two years before the fall of the Soviet Union, creating the preconditions for Ukraine’s independence from Russia in 1991. Soros also admitted to financing the 2013-2014 Maidan Square protests that brought the current government into power.

Soros’ foundations were also deeply involved in the 2004 Orange Revolution that brought the corrupt but pro-NATO Viktor Yushchenko into power with his American wife who had been in the US State Department.

Zero Hedge reports that Open Society, which was launched in 1979, currently spends more than $940 million a year to support 26 regional and national offices. Last year, Soros announced that he was dedicating the majority of his $18 billion fortune to funding the Open Society Foundations.

About the author:
*Jay Syrmopoulos is a geopolitical analyst, freethinker, and ardent opponent of authoritarianism. He is currently a graduate student at the University of Denver pursuing a masters in Global Affairs and holds a BA in International Relations. Jay’s writing has been featured on both mainstream and independent media – and has been viewed tens of millions of times.

Source:
This article was published by Truth in Media.

By Mitchell Blatt*

When Korea’s former president Park Geun-hye was in the midst of being impeached over a corruption scandal, in December 2016, “T.K.”, the anonymous blogger behind Ask A Korean, wrote, “[W]hat we are seeing in Korea now is the future of Trump. Korean politics already had its own Trump, and it is now showing the world what is going to happen next.”

I, too, noticed similarities between Korean politics and American politics while I was in Seoul in February and March, as the Constitutional court was ruling on her impeachment. Park’s supporters attacked the media. “The press = liars. Mass media = murder weapons,” a sign at a rally read. Some even posted signs praising Trump.

Now it’s more than a year since impeachment proceedings against Park began, and look at the news in America:

Financial records reviewed by The New York Times show that Mr. Cohen, President Trump’s personal lawyer and longtime fixer, used the shell company, Essential Consultants L.L.C., for an array of business activities that went far beyond what was publicly known. Transactions adding up to at least $4.4 million flowed through Essential Consultants starting shortly before Mr. Trump was elected president and continuing to this January, the records show. New York Times

• Firm Tied to Russian Oligarch Made Payments to Michael Cohen
• Trump’s lawyer pitched himself as a fixer to Novartis and got paid $1.2 million
• AT&T Paid Cohen For Advice On $85 Billion Time Warner Merger
• South Korean defense company that paid Trump lawyer Cohen $150,000 is poised to win part of a $16 billion Pentagon deal
  AT&T Paid Cohen Up to $600,000 for Trump Insights, Source Says

Wow. What does this sound like?

Media outlets reported that Choi and President Park’s senior staff members, including both Ahn Jong-bum and Jeong Ho-sung, have allegedly used their influence to extort ₩77.4 billion($60 million) from Korean chaebols—family-owned large business conglomerates—and set up two culture- and sports-related foundations, Mir and K-sports foundations. – Wikipedia

Choi was found to have had used her presidential connections to pressure conglomerates – including electronics giant Samsung – for millions of dollars in donations to two non-profit foundations she controlled. – BBC

Reuters reports that in 2015, Samsung paid $18 million (£14.8 million) to Core Sports International, a consulting firm owned by — you guessed it — Choi Soon-sil. – Business Insider

Put it this way:

Donald Trump is Park Geun-hye, an incompetent, self-dealing heir of a dynastic family who is surrounded by corrupt loyalists.

Michael Cohen is Choi Soon-sil, a long-time associate of the president who was given way too much access, which he sold for profit.

AT&T and the other companies are Samsung and the rest.

We know what will likely happen next.

This week marked eleven months since the fire that engulfed Grenfell Tower, in north Kensington, killing over 70 people in an inferno that should never have taken place. Flats in tower blocks are designed to resist the onslaught of even a serious fire until the emergency services can arrive, but the cladding which had been applied to the tower, to make it look more attractive, was flammable, and in the process of installing it the structural integrity of the tower had been fatally compromised.

We know this from the warnings published by tenants, the Grenfell Action Group, on their website, but shamefully ignored by Kensington and Chelsea Council, and by the management company responsible for their homes, Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation, as I made clear immediately after the fire, in an article entitled, Deaths Foretold at Grenfell Tower: Let This Be The Moment We The People Say “No More” to the Greed That Killed Residents.

We have also had it confirmed, just last week, in a leaked report prepared as part of the Metropolitan Police investigation into the fire, by fire investigation experts BRE Global Ltd., which concluded that “the original concrete building was transformed from a safe structure into a tinderbox by the refurbishment between 2014 and 2016.”

Despite this, the official response to the Grenfell Tower fire is that there is no official response until an inquiry has taken place. The inquiry was first announced 15 days after the fire, on June 29, 2017, when Theresa May also announced that it would be chaired by retired judge Sir Martin Moore-Bick, but the inquiry is not yet underway, and is only starting next week.

However, the choice of judge, the make-up of the inquiry panel, and the terms of reference of the inquiry were all subjected to serious criticism after the inquiry was announced. Matt Wrack, the head of the Fire Brigades Union, said, “Central government has created the housing and fire safety regime and central government must be held to account for any failings in it. Yet the terms of reference signed off by Theresa May appear designed to avoid this.” As the Guardian described it, he “said the inquiry should not focus simply on the actions of a local authority or contractor”, and stated, “It is about the overarching regime, the political climate under which they operate. People across the world are asking how, in the UK, it is possible to apply flammable systems of cladding to residential tower blocks. The risk in Moore-Bick’s terms of reference is that the inquiry is able to avoid probing deeper to examine the regime which allowed these deaths to happen, conveniently taking the spotlight off government ministers and any policies that were or weren’t in place that may have had an impact.”

Concerns about a whitewash of central government’s role in allowing the fire to happen were voiced by local MP Emma Dent Coad, of the Labour Party. She called the terms of reference for the inquiry a “complete betrayal” and said that the community would not have faith in it, because, by not considering social housing, it would “not get to the heart of the problem.” She also said, “We were told ‘no stone would be [left] unturned’ but instead are being presented with a technical assessment which will not get to the heart of the problem: what effects, if any, the lack of investment into social housing had on the refurbishment project.”

For the survivors, a particular bone of contention was the make-up of the inquiry panel, which was regarded as having a lack of diversity, and not representing the community. The led to a petition to the government being launched in November, asking for additional panel members, trusted by the community, to be appointed to the inquiry. The petition gained the 100,000 signatures needed to be eligible for a Parliamentary debate in February, after grime star Stormzy promoted it to his millions of supporters.

Parliament scheduled a debate on the petition to take place on May 14, prior to the start of the official inquiry next week, but perhaps without realising that it marked exactly eleven months since the fire, and so, yesterday, survivors, members of the local community and supporters from across London converged on Parliament to make their feelings known, holding a rally in Parliament Square before the debate began in Westminster Hall, before returning to north Kensington for a Silent Walk from the Methodist church at the foot of Grenfell Tower to Ladbroke Grove station and back. The Silent Walks take place on the 14th of every month, and are a profoundly moving experience, as I appreciated first-hand when I took part in the Silent Walk in December.

Just days before the debate, Theresa May attempted to defuse campaigners’ disappointment with the government’s ongoing failures to treat the Grenfell community and the survivors of the fire with the respect they deserve by announcing that two additional members would be appointed to the inquiry panel. However, as speakers at yesterday’s rally pointed out, it is by no means certain that this concession will satisfy the community’s demands, because the government has not made clear who these two additional members will be, and how they will be chosen.

At yesterday’s rally, the speakers also made a point of explaining how, eleven months on from the disaster, they have little reason for believing that the government intends to deliver anything resembling justice to survivors and the local community, primarily because many of the survivors are still living in temporary accommodation. They also made it clear that their concerns are for all the inhabitants of refurbished tower blocks around the country, who are living in fear, because their buildings also have dangerous cladding, just like Grenfell had, and yet no one is in any hurry to spend the money to make their homes safe.

I arrived at Parliament Square in time to hear from a 19-year old from the Grenfell community speaking about how the disaster politicised him, as is the case with so many others in the vicinity of the tower, and as I stated yesterday, when posting a photo of the rally on Facebook, “Perhaps this politicisation is the only way that those who lost their lives last June will not have died in vain, as the intensity of feeling in the Grenfell community, the solidarity it has created, and the ripples from that anger and solidarity that have emanated from Grenfell across London and around the country continue to create an environment in which those living in social housing, and those marginalised by the establishment, generally on the basis of race, refuse to be treated with contempt by those in positions of power and authority.”

Certainly, the speakers I heard yesterday all echoed this mistrust of the authorities when it comes to delivering justice, and the importance of solidarity amongst those affected — not just in north Kensington, but across the capital and across the UK as a whole. Community organiser Niles Hailstones spoke eloquently about this, as did Moyra Samuels from the Justice4Grenfell campaign, and Natasha Alcock of the survivors’ group Grenfell United, who lived on the 11th floor of Grenfell Tower, and was rescued by firefighters at 4.30am on the day of the fire.

Alcock told the rally, “We don’t want the people who died a year ago to have died in vain. There are also people still living in blocks with this cladding. We want to ensure that people in social housing don’t get treated like we did.” The Guardian explained how Karim Mussilhy, whose uncle died in the fire, also made a similar call. “They should ban the cladding full stop,” Mussilhy said, adding, “We still have death traps out there in London. Let’s make those changes now and give people the assurance they are safe in their homes. Sprinklers need to be added and the cladding removed.”

As the Guardian also explained:

There are 306 residential blocks more than 18 metres in height that are clad in aluminium composite panels similar to those at Grenfell and that have failed government fire tests. The cladding remains in place on 54 social housing blocks and dozens more private apartment towers across England. The cost of replacement has been put as high as £1bn.

The government has said it is the responsibility of landlords to replace failed cladding, but it is keeping this position under review. Many blocks remain untouched because of legal disputes between freeholders and leaseholders over who should pay. The government has ordered a review of building regulations from Dame Judith Hackitt, who is expected to report back this week.

There is widespread concern at Westminster and among survivors that Hackitt will not recommend a ban on the use of combustible cladding and will say materials of “limited combustibility” should still be allowed to be used.

The Guardian also stated that the rally “showcased continued distrust of the authorities among some in the Grenfell community. Speakers described officials as ‘aliens’ and ‘androids’, and the crowd chanted: ‘No justice! No peace!’”

Another speaker I saw, a young Muslim woman called Naima, also pointed out that the majority of the victims in Grenfell Tower were Muslim — an inconvenient truth in a country where sympathy for Muslims has been so damaged by rampant Islamophobia.

I also heard the Labour MP Diane Abbott speak at the rally. As the Huffington Post described it, she “congratulated campaigners on their success in convincing [Theresa] May to include additional panel members, but said it was ‘not enough.’”

“We need to know who they are going to be,” she said, adding, “What made the difference in the Stephen Lawrence inquiry was the actual people who served on the panel. If they just had puppets on the panel that is not going to help anybody.”

She also brought up the class and race issue that the government is doing so much to avoid, saying, “You can talk about the cladding, you can talk about the regulations. But there’s also an attitude to communities that needs to be exposed and needs to be eliminated and I think it’s about those underlying issues about who has power and how they use it that are so important.”

Other MPs also spoke at the rally, and then at the Parliamentary debate. A video of the three-hour debate is here, and a full transcript is here. In addition, Emma Dent Coad has made her speech available here.

The Guardian explained how “MPs debated proposed measures to increase community confidence in the public inquiry. Many voiced concern that parliament and government had already lost the confidence of the Grenfell residents.”

The Guardian added, “David Lammy, who lost two friends in the fire, said 72 households from Grenfell were still living in hotel rooms and 64 remained in temporary accommodation. Referring to the survivors’ campaign for an inquiry panel, he said: ‘I regret that people who are in grief and in so much pain have had to organise and campaign to ensure their voices have been heard. Theresa May talks about burning injustices, but this injustice burned.” He added, “I remind the government of the words of Neville Lawrence [the father of Stephen Lawrence] in 2012: ‘The loss itself combined with the lack of justice means I have not been able to rest all this time.’”

For anyone wanting to know more, I also wholeheartedly recommend the Guardian’s front page feature yesterday, profiling the 71 people who died in the fire.

As I explained when I posted a link to the article on Facebook:

Here are the people who died, the individuals whose lives should not have been lost, vividly, beautifully remembered by their loved ones and friends.

Just a few of the introductions to the profiles are here:

Rania Ibrahim: “Rania did everything fast, as if she knew she was leaving life early”
Fathia Ali Ahmed Alsanousi”: “Her flat was beautiful, always full of people”
Mohamednur ‘Mo’ Tuccu: “He had a way of making you feel like an old friend – welcome and at ease”

Incidentally, the victims were also a cross-section of a modern, international Britain that should be celebrated and not denigrated by the racists trying to dictate our future, although, as the Guardian noted in an article introducing these profiles, while “[t]he makeup of the 71 people who died shows how diverse, open and tolerant Britain has become in the past 30 years (more than half the adult victims had arrived in the country since 1990)”, it is also crucial to remember that “Grenfell was not a microcosm of Britain or London. There were few white-collar workers among the victims and only seven white Britons, indicative of how the disaster disproportionately affected minority ethnic communities.”

Amid global uncertainty, China’s Xi adopts a conciliatory approach with India’s Modi – a timeout for the two rivals.

By Shyam Saran*

Two leaders of Asia’s largest powers – Xi Jinping and Narendra Modi – emerged on the scene two years apart with similar promises. Different paces of growth, different approaches taken by each, dramatically altered their respective positions, giving China a strong upper hand. Global unpredictability may have encouraged Xi to a conciliatory position, giving India only a brief breathing space.

Xi assumed the powerful office of general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party in November 2012. Soon afterward he became chairman of the Central Military Affairs Commission, and in March 2013 was elected president of the Republic of China. Leadership of the party, military and the state was firmly in his hands. The 19^th Party Congress in November 2017 formalized his elevated status through a constitutional amendment enabling him to remain president for life. Xi Jinping Thought is enshrined in the Constitution alongside Mao Zedong Thought, placing Xi in the same category as Mao – an undisputed political and ideological leader. This consolidation of political power has coincided with a phase of assertive, even aggressive, foreign policy as China stakes a claim to international status equal to that of the United States. In Asia, China claims a pre-eminence sanctioned by a narrative of past glory and present scale of economic and military power. This has inevitably altered the context within which it relates to the world and specific countries. Terms of engagement reflecting growing power asymmetry between the two Asian giants have also iimpacted India-China relations .

When Modi became prime minister of India in 2014 backed by an impressive parliamentary majority and a reputation for strong and effective leadership, many saw him as similar in mold to Xi. Chinese analysts widely suggested that the two strong, pragmatic and nationalistic leaders could resolve the longstanding and difficult India-China boundary issue. There was also an expectation that both leaders, giving priority to economic development, would leverage the significant opportunities offered by their rapidly growing economies. During their first summit in 2015, they announced a Development Partnership going beyond the Strategic and Cooperative Partnership established in 2005. However, these early expectations were soon belied as China adopted a more aggressive posture on the India-China border, reinforced its alliance with Pakistan, and opposed India at regional and multilateral fora. For example, China prevented a consensus on India’s application to join the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group.

Relations hit a low when Indian military forces prevented a Chinese military crew from constructing a metal road on the Doklam plateau, in Bhutanese territory but claimed by China. This unilateral Chinese action went against an understanding between China and Bhutan that the status quo on their border would not be violated by either side pending resolution of their boundary issue. The Doklam standoff lasted from 16 June to 28 August 2017 during which Chinese rhetoric was vitriolic with the threat of war. Meetings at the leadership level defused the crisis.  In a brief meeting on the G20 sidelines in July, Modi and Xi agreed that talks would be held at the official level to resolve the standoff. Limited disengagement of the two sides’ forces followed, enabling Modi to travel to Xiamen for the BRICS summit with Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa in September. One may surmise that the prospect of the BRICS unraveling as a result of India-China tensions may have encouraged China to seek a limited tactical compromise. However, the willingness of the two leaders to convene their rather unusual and unprecedented “informal” summit at Wuhan, April 27 and 28, suggests that Doklam may have triggered a rethink on India-China relations going beyond tactical compulsions.

The informal summit reflects the unusual and somewhat similar leadership qualities of the two men:

One, both leaders have a high degree of self-assurance and belief in the value of leader-to-leader engagement transcending the tools of traditional diplomacy. Over two days they held six rounds of talks including four that were one-to-one with only interpreters present, reflecting a mutual belief in the value of personal diplomacy. Their talks must have covered a great deal of ground, enabling better understanding of each other’s perspective on developments both in their respective countries and the world around them.

Two, statements emerging from the two sides after the summit suggest that the leaders were responding to the growing uncertainty in both the regional geopolitical landscape in Asia and the world. Despite the disruptions caused by US President Donald Trump’s policies, the Chinese had, until recently, been confident about managing US relations, avoiding trade-related disputes and offering cooperation in constraining North Korea from pursuing its nuclear program. This confidence has been badly shaken with China blindsided by developments on the Korean Peninsula where a North-South détente is taking shape without a Chinese role and the prospect of a US-North Korea understanding in the impending summit between Trump and Kim Jong-un not mediated by China. Kim’s two recent visits to China and meetings with Xi have been more of a face-saving exercise for China than reflective of a role in the unfolding, dramatic developments in its own periphery. Coinciding with these developments, serious prospect of a damaging trade war between the United States and China will inevitably sharpen the two countries’ already adversarial security postures. The assumption of a linear and upward trajectory of Chinese power has been shown to be premature, and it’s against this background that China reassesses relations with India. Renewed emphasis on the “strategic and global dimension” of India-China relations goes beyond the dynamics of bilateral relations. This is also reflected in the additional measures announced to strengthen peace and tranquility on their border.

Three, India has also been impacted by the shifting currents in the regional and global landscape, and better relations with China provide the nation with much needed breathing space, particularly in its own periphery. Not that China will give up steady penetration of India’s South Asian neighborhood or the Indian Ocean. However, China may advance at a slower pace than before. Improved India-China relations also constrain the temptation of India’s smaller neighbors to wave the China card in squeezing concessions. The prospect of India and China working together on a joint project in Afghanistan blunts India’s declared opposition to China’s Belt and Road Initiative even as Pakistani concerns about Indian influence in Kabul go ignored. India has made some positive gestures towards China including reverting to its traditional position on the status of the Dalai Lama, foreswearing any official relationship with him or the Tibetan government-in-exile. Taking into account China’s concerns about the emerging security relationship among India, Japan, Australia and India – the so-called “Quad” – Australia may not be invited to join the Malabar maritime exercise this year as was widely expected. This give and take, though limited in scope, represents a significant turnaround in India-China relations from the dark days of the Doklam standoff.

Over the past several years, regular leadership engagement between the two countries at bilateral summits and regional and multilateral fora has played a vital role in keeping their relations on an even keel. Balance has been maintained between the competitive and cooperative components. This balance had been eroding as the power gap between them widened. The Wuhan Summit has restored the balance to some extent, but this can only be sustained if India narrows the gap through more rapid buildup of its economic and military capabilities.

*Shyam Saran is a former foreign secretary of India and is currently senior fellow at the Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi.