A senior official at the Iranian Judiciary who calls himself “a critic” of the 2015 nuclear deal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) said the country’s administration should suspend its commitments under the deal following the US withdrawal from it.

Speaking to the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB), Chief of the Iranian Judiciary’s Human Rights Council Mohammad Javad Larijani criticized President Hassan Rouhani’s remarks about the continuation of the JCPOA after Washington’s move to leave the agreement.

He said at least 10 pages of the JCPOA have been overlooked because six or seven articles of the deal are about the US commitments.

“This means that this agreement is no longer the JCPOA, but is basically something else,” the official added.

It is better for Iran to suspend its commitments under the JCPOA because the agreement has been breached, Larijani said.

The remarks came after a number of Iran’s top diplomats and administration officials on Sunday attended a closed session of the parliament about the future of the JCPOA.

Last week, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif made a tight diplomatic trip for negotiations on how to save the JCPOA in the wake of the US withdrawal from the multilateral nuclear deal.

The foreign minister held meetings with Chinese and Russian officials in Beijing and Moscow and then traveled to Brussels for talks with the European parties to the JCPOA.

He was gauging international readiness to guarantee Iran’s interests if it decides to remain in the nuclear pact a week after US President Donald Trump announced that the US was walking away from the JCPOA.

In a speech from the White House on May 8, Trump accused Iran of sponsoring terrorism and seeking nukes before announcing the US withdrawal from the 2015 agreement between Iran and the Group 5+1 (Russia, China, the US, Britain, France and Germany).

Following the controversial decision, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said Iran weighs plans to remain in the agreement with the other five parties, provided that they ensure full benefits for Iran.

Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei has underlined that any decision to keep the deal running without the US should be conditional on “practical guarantees” from the three European parties to the JCPOA.

The summit between US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un “may or may not happen” as scheduled, depending on Kim’s actions in the coming days, Trump said in a meeting with the South Korean president.

Trump and Moon Jae-in met at the White House on Tuesday to discuss the summit, scheduled for June 12 in Singapore. Both remained optimistic about the meeting, though Trump said he was “not happy” about the recent changes in North Korean attitude.

The tone from Pyongyang changed after Kim’s second meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, Trump told reporters prior to the meeting, according to Reuters. He called Xi a “world class poker player” who he would like to think is committed to peace in the Korean peninsula.

“If it doesn’t happen, maybe it will happen later,” Trump said about the summit. “It may not work out for June 12.”

Asked if he would prefer denuclearization over time or all at once, Trump said, “all in one would be nice.”

If Kim follows through on denuclearization, “I will guarantee his safety,” Trump said, adding that leaders of South Korea, China and Japan have told him they would invest large amounts of money to “help make North Korea great.”

“It’ll all work out. I can’t tell you how or why. But it always does,” Trump told reporters.

Moon said that Trump has been able to achieve “dramatic positive change” in relations with North Korea. He is confident that Trump will be able to make the upcoming summit successful and “end the Korean war,” he said.

Acknowledging there are voices in the US skeptical about the summit and the prospects of denuclearization, Moon said that the “fate and future” of the Korean Peninsula hinge on it.

Asked about his vision for the Korean peninsula, Trump said he was “looking at having two very successful Koreas” at first, and then it would be “largely up to them” whether to unify down the road.

He described the border between the two Koreas as “artificial” and largely imposed by the US, during the 1950s Korean War.

The Trump-Kim summit was scheduled after a historic meeting between Kim and Moon and Panmunjom in April. However, the North Korean rhetoric escalated after US national security adviser John Bolton brought up the “Libyan model” of denuclearization, with Pyongyang pointing out that Washington led a “regime change” operation in Libya in 2011, after Tripoli surrendered its nuclear research materials to the US in 2003.

Trump distanced himself from Bolton’s remarks last week, but told North Korea that the Libyan model of regime change might ensue if the peace talks fail. The message was later echoed by his vice president Mike Pence.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Thank you very much. It’s a great honor to have President Moon of South Korea with us. We’ve become great friends over the years. And it’s now — we’ve now known each other for quite some time.

We’re working on many things. Obviously, North Korea is the big one. No matter how big trade is, North Korea, in this case, is the big one. And we’ll be discussing that. We’ll also be discussing trade. We have a very big trade arrangement that we’re renegotiating right now with South Korea. They’ve been excellent people to work with for the Trump administration. And we will have some pretty good news, I think, on trade. And we’ll be discussing other things.

But the big topic will be Singapore and the meeting. See what happens, whether or not it happens. If it does, that will be great. It will be a great thing for North Korea. And if it doesn’t, that’s okay too. Whatever it is, it is.

But I look forward to spending quite a bit of time with the President. And I think a lot of good things will happen. I want to thank everybody for being here.

Mr. President, it’s a great honor. Thank you.

PRESIDENT MOON: (As interpreted.) Well, I’d like to thank you, Mr. President, for your warm hospitality and for sharing much of your time with me. I know you have a very busy domestic calendar, as well as the all-important U.S.-North Korea summit approaching.

I heard the tragic news that many innocent lives were lost due to the shootings in a Texas high school a few days ago. So I’d like to convey my condolences to you and the American people.

On a brighter note, I would like to congratulate you for the safe return of the American citizens who had been detained in North Korea. Thanks to your vision of achieving peace through strength, as well as your strong leadership, we’re looking forward to the first-ever U.S.-North Korea summit. And we find ourselves standing one step closer to the dream of achieving complete denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula and world peace.

All this was possible because of you, Mr. President. And I have no doubt that you will be able to complete — accomplish a historic feat that no one had been able to achieve in the decades past.

I have to say that the fate and the future of the Korean Peninsula hinge on this. And as such, I’ll spare no effort to the end to support the success of the upcoming U.S.-North Korea summit, and stand with you all along the way, Mr. President.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Thank you very much.

Q Mr. President, do you think President Kim is serious about denuclearization?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I do think he’s serious. I think he would like to see that happen. At the same time, he’s going into a future that’s different from what they’ve had. But I think he’s absolutely very serious. Yes.

Q Do you think the summit is going to happen?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: One second. Go ahead. Go ahead, John.

Q Can you give us an update, sir, just on where things stand with the summit? President Moon’s national security advisor, on the way here, seemed to think that things are on track and that this will indeed happen.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, we’re moving along. And we’ll see what happens. There are certain conditions that we want, and I think we’ll get those conditions. And if we don’t, we don’t have the meeting. And frankly, it has a chance to be a great, great meeting for North Korea and a great meeting for the world. If it doesn’t happen, maybe it will happen later. Maybe it will happen at a different time. But we will see.

But we are talking. The meeting is scheduled, as you know, on June 12th in Singapore. And whether or not it happens, you’ll be knowing pretty soon. But we’re talking right now.

Q Do you have an idea of how denuclearization would take place? Would it be all at once?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I do. I have a very strong idea how it takes place. And it must take place. That’s what we’re talking about. It must take place.

But I have a very strong idea, and I have very strong opinions on the subject. I also have very strong opinions that North Korea has a chance to be a great country, and it can’t be a great country under the circumstances that they’re living right now. But North Korea has a chance, really, to be a great country. And I think they should seize the opportunity. And we’ll soon find out whether or not they want to do that.

Yes.

Q Mr. President, have you spoken to Kim Jong-un?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I don’t want to say that. I don’t want —

Q Do you trust Kim Jong-un, going into these meetings?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: There’s no reason to discuss that. I can say this: That for a short period of time, we’ve been dealing with North Korea, and it’s been a, you know, good experience. We have three hostages back. They’re home. They’re living with their families. They’re very, very happy. And so I can only speak for a very short period of time. But it’s been a relationship that seems to be working, and we’ll see how long it continues to work. Hopefully it’s going to work for a long time.

Q Unrelated, Mr. President, can you tell us more about your meeting with Rod Rosenstein and Director Wray yesterday?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, it was just a very routine meeting. As you know, the Congress would like to see documents opened up. A lot of people are saying they had spies in my campaign. If they had spies in my campaign, that would be a disgrace to this country. That would be one of the biggest insults that anyone has ever seen, and it would be very illegal, aside from everything else. It would make, probably, every political event ever look like small potatoes.

So we want to make sure that there weren’t. I hope there weren’t, frankly. But some man got paid — based on what I read in the newspapers and on what you reported, some person got paid a lot of money. That’s not a normal situation, the kind of money you’re talking about. So hopefully that would be — and I think the Department of Justice wants to get down to it. And I can tell you Congress does.

So hopefully they’ll all be able to get together. General Kelly is going to be setting up a meeting between Congress and the various representatives, and they’ll be able to open up documents, take a look, and find out what happened. But if they had spies in my campaign, during my campaign, for political purposes, that would be unprecedented in the history of our country.

Yes.

Q Can you give us an update on trade talks with China? Is there a deal about ZTE?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: No.

Q And what specifically have you agreed?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: No. President Xi and I have a great relationship, as President Moon can attest. But there is no deal. We will see what happens. We are discussing deals. We’re discussing various deals. We can do a 301. We can do — where we don’t need China, where we can just say, look, this is what we want, this is what we think is fair. That’s always a possibility if a negotiated deal doesn’t work out.

As I said, we lost $500 billion a year for many years. And then it varied from $100 billion to $500 billion. When you’re losing $500 billion a year, you can’t lose in terms of a negotiation. It’s really easy to win. But I want this to be a great deal for the United States, and I want it to be a very good deal for China, too, if that’s possible. It may not be possible.

As far as ZTE is concerned, the President asked me to look into it, and I am doing that. And don’t forget, for the ones who say, oh, gee, maybe Trump is getting a little bit easy — ZTE, we closed it. It wasn’t another administration. It was this administration that closed it. It’s a phone company, for those that don’t know. A very large phone company. But it’s also a phone company that buys a large portion of its parts that make up these phones that are sold all over the world from American companies.

So when you do that, you’re really hurting American companies, also. So I’m looking at it. But we were the ones that closed it. It wasn’t done by previous administrations. It was done by us. So we’ll see what happens.

But as a favor to the President, I am absolutely taking a look at it. A lot of the stories on trade were incorrectly written, and I’m not saying that’s the reporter’s fault; I’m saying that I’m not talking about the trade deal. I don’t like to talk about deals until they’re done. So we’ll see what happens. But that deal — I will say, that deal could be much different from the deal that finally emerges. And it may be a much better deal for the United States.

Q Mr. President, do you have confidence in Rod Rosenstein?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: What’s your next question, please?

Q I’m a reporter from —

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Excuse me, I have the President of South Korea here, okay?

Q Yes, I have a question on —

PRESIDENT TRUMP: He doesn’t want to hear these questions, if you don’t mind.

Q President Trump, I’m a reporter from South Korea. How much confidence and trust do you have in my President in playing the mediator role in resolving this North Korea issue and the denuclearization process?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I have great confidence in your President. I think that he’s brought a different perspective to the talks with North Korea. He wants to be able to make a deal. Now, you’ve had some very hardline administrations, and you have President Moon, and you’ve had others before President Moon, who also had more or less this attitude.

I think he’s a very capable person. I think he’s an extremely competent man. I think he’s a very good person. And I think he wants to have what’s good for the Korean Peninsula, not just North or South — for the entire Korean Peninsula.

So I have tremendous confidence in President Moon. And I think that his way — the way he is — really is helping us to potentially make a deal. Whether the deal gets made or not, who knows. It’s a deal. Who knows. You never know about deals. If you go into deals that are 100 percent certain, it doesn’t happen. If you go into deals that have no chance, and it happens, and sometimes happens easily. I’ve made a lot of deals. I know deals, I think, better than anybody knows deals. You never really know. And that’s why I say to you.

But I will tell you, this is a good man and he is a very capable man. And I think South Korea is very lucky to have him. Do you want to interpret that for him, so he can hear? Because, you know, he’s not hearing what we’re doing here. Go ahead.

Wait, we’ll just let that be interpreted.

Q He might surprise you, Mr. President.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: He probably does. He probably knows better than we do.

Did I do a good job? (Laughter.) Huh? I can’t do better than that. That’s called an A-plus rating, right? I can’t do better —

Okay, we’ll take a couple more. Go ahead.

Q Mr. President, what are your conditions for meeting with Kim Jong-un? You said you had —

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, I’d rather not say. But we are working on something. And, you know, there’s a chance that it will work out. There’s a chance; there’s a very substantial chance it won’t work out. I don’t want to waste a lot of time, and I’m sure he doesn’t want to waste a lot of time. So there’s a very substantial chance that it won’t work out, and that’s okay. That doesn’t mean it won’t work out over a period of time. But it may not work out for June 12th. But there’s a good chance that we’ll have the meeting.

Q Mr. President, if I could ask you and President Moon this question. In terms of denuclearization, should it be an all-in-one? Or could it be incremental, with incentives along the way for Kim Jong-un to denuclearize?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, all in one would be nice, I can tell you. I’m not going to go beyond that. It would certainly be better if it were all in one. Does it have to be? I don’t think I want to totally commit myself. But all in one would be a lot better. Or at least for physical reasons, over a very short period of time. You know, you do have some physical reasons that it may not be able to do exactly that. So for physical reasons, over a very short period of time. Essentially, that would be all in one.

Q President Trump, I’m a reporter from South Korea. If North Korea and Kim Jong-un decide CVID, will you literally guarantee the safety of the regime of North Korea?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I will guarantee his safety. Yes, we will guarantee his safety. And we’ve talked about that from the beginning. He will be safe. He will be happy. His country will be rich. His country will be hardworking and very prosperous. They’re very great people. They’re hardworking, great people.

Look at what happened with South Korea. Don’t forget, we helped South Korea. We have spent trillions of dollars — not billions — trillions of dollars over many, many years. We helped South Korea. And South Korea is one of the most incredible countries in terms of what they do. You know that. That’s what you are. That’s where you’re from. Same people. Same people.

So, yeah, I think that he will be extremely happy if something works out. And if it doesn’t work out, honestly, he can’t be happy. But he has a chance to do something that maybe has never been done before. And I think it would be — if you look 25 years into the future, 50 years into the future, he will be able to look back and be very proud of what he did for North Korea and, actually, for the world. But he will be very proud of what he did for North Korea.

And just to finish that, because it’s a very important question, South Korea, China, and Japan — and I’ve spoken to all three — one I happen to have right here — they will be willing to help and, I believe, invest very, very large sums of money into helping to make North Korea great.

Q Mr. President, what do you want to hear from President Moon about his own summit with Kim Jong-un? What can he tell you as you’re preparing for the meeting in Singapore?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, that’s what we’re here for. He’s going to tell me. He’s got his own meetings that he’s had. We’re going to discuss that. He may have a meeting coming up; he may not. The word is that he may not. It may be directly with us. It may go directly to us in Singapore, or it may be at a later date. But that’s one of the reasons that he’s here, to talk about that.

Q Is there is anything you want to ask him specifically that you can tell us?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Nothing. No. We speak a lot on the phone. This should not be that long a meeting, actually.

Q You mean President Moon may have a meeting with Kim Jong-un instead of yourself?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: He may or may not. He may or may not. Right now he doesn’t know whether or not he has a meeting. But he may or may not have a meeting with Kim Jong-un.

Q Mr. President, are you pleased with how the trade talks with China went?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: No, not really. I think that they’re a start, but we need something — look, China has been — I really call it a dereliction of duties. That if you look at it — it’s called — in the military, they’d say it’s dereliction of duty. What happened to our country, that our representatives allowed other countries — and I’m not just talking about China; China is the big one — to take advantage of us on trade the way we’ve been taken advantage of. So China, as an example, has made a fortune. I mean, a transfer of wealth like nobody has ever seen in history. They’re the big one. They’re almost all bad, but China is the big one.

So, no, I’m not satisfied, but we’ll see what happens. We have a long way to go. But I wanted to go fairly quickly. You know, you’re talking about numbers like that; you’re talking about billions of dollars a week. Okay? So when they say, “Oh, let’s meet in a couple of weeks” — oh, that’s $2 billion, right? I view it that way. You know, we’re talking about billions of dollars a week that we suffer, we lose. And so we’re looking to go quickly.

I will say I’m a little disappointed, because when Kim Jong-un had the meeting with President Xi, in China, the second meeting — the first meeting we knew about — the second meeting — I think there was a little change in attitude from Kim Jong-un. So I don’t like that. I don’t like that. I don’t like it from the standpoint of China.

Now, I hope that’s not true, because we have — I have a great relationship with President Xi. He’s a friend of mine. He likes me. I like him. We have — I mean, that was two of the great days of my life being in China. It was — I don’t think anybody has ever been treated better in China — ever in their history. And I just think it was — many of you were there — it was an incredible thing to witness and see. And we built a very good relationship. We speak a lot.

But there was a difference when Kim Jong-un left China the second time. And I think they were dedicating an aircraft carrier that the United States paid for. Okay? Because we paid for it.

Q Do you think China had a role in that?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: That was built in China.

Q Do you think China maybe discouraged Kim from having the summit?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: No, but I think that President Xi is a world-class poker player. And I’d probably, maybe, doing the same thing that he would do. But I will say this: There was a somewhat different attitude after that meeting, and I’m a little surprised. Now, maybe nothing happened. I’m not blaming anybody, but I’m just saying, maybe nothing happened and maybe it did.

But there was different attitude by the North Korean folks when — after that meeting. So I don’t think it was a great meeting. Nobody knew about the meeting, and all of a sudden it was reported that he was in China a second time. The first time everybody knew about. The second time it was like a surprise.

And I think things changed after that meeting. So I can’t say that I’m happy about it. Okay?

Now, President Moon may have a different opinion. I would like to have your opinion on that — what you thought of the second meeting with President Xi. What is your feeling? You may have an opinion.

And I don’t want to get him in trouble. He lives right next to China. You know, he’s not too far away.

PRESIDENT MOON: (As interpreted.) Well, first of all, I am very much aware that there are many skeptical views within the United States about whether the upcoming U.S.-North Korea summit will truly be successful and whether the complete denuclearization of North Korea will be realized.

But I don’t think there will be positive developments in history if we just assume that because it all failed in the past, it will fail again.

There have been many agreements between the United States and North Korea previously, but this will be the first time that there will be an agreement between the leaders.

And, moreover, the person who is in charge is President Trump. And President Trump has been able to achieve this dramatic and positive change that you see right now. And I have every confidence that President Trump will be able to achieve a historic feat of making the upcoming U.S.-North Korea summit successful and end the Korean War that had been lasting for the past 65 years, and also, along the way, achieve complete denuclearization of North Korea, establish a permanent peace regime on the Korean Peninsula, and also normalize relations between the United States and North Korea. I have every confidence that he will be able to make a historic turnaround in this sense. And I will spare no effort to provide all necessary support.

And I believe that all of this will lead to a great thing, that it will also guarantee the security of the North Korean regime, and also promise peace and prosperity for North Korea as well.

Q Mr. President, do you believe that President Xi is committed to peace and committed to North Korea’s denuclearization?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I would like to think so. I hope so. I mean, we’re dealing mostly on trade. But you see, when I’m dealing on trade, I have many other things in mind also. Every time I talk to China about trade, I’m thinking about the border. Because that border is a very important element in what we’re doing. It has been cut off largely, but it’s been opened up a little bit lately. I don’t like that. I don’t like that.

So we have a very powerful hand on trade. And when I’m thinking about trade –you know, I read you folks, and you say, “Well, why doesn’t he” — there’s a much bigger picture that I have in mind. Trade has always been a very important element in my life, in talking about other countries ripping off the United States. I’ve been watching them do it for 35 years. I’ve been watching them do that for so many years.

And nothing has changed, other than over the last 15, 20 years it’s gotten worse. And it’s not just China. But when I think of trade with China, I’m also thinking about what they’re doing to help us with peace with North Korea. That’s a very important element. So we’ll see how it all works out.

But in the end, it will work out. Can’t tell you exactly how or why, but it always does. It’s going to work out. Okay?

Thank you all. John, you have one more? Go ahead.

Q One more, sir. I’m just wondering, what is your vision for the long game with North Korea? Is it two Koreas peacefully coexisting? Or would you like to see reunification at some point down the road?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, I think what’s going to happen is you’ll start off, certainly, with two Koreas. And then it’s going to be largely up to them as to whether or not they get together. You know, that border was artificially imposed many, many years ago — and imposed, to a certain extent and to a very large extent, by us. It’s an artificial border, but it’s a border that nevertheless, it took seed, and that’s what you have.

I would say that we are looking, certainly, right now, at two Koreas. Two very successful Koreas. You’re going to have a very, very successful North Korea, and you’re going to have a very successful — and you already do — South Korea. I mean, South Korea was in condition that was as bad as North Korea many years ago, when they started this great experiment that worked out so well for them.

Now, you look at Samsung and LG, and the ships that they’re building, and what they’re doing. It’s incredible. When I was over there, I flew over plants that are incredible. What they have done is incredible. So I see two Koreas, and then ultimately, maybe someday in the future — it wouldn’t be now — but someday in the future, maybe they’ll get together and you’ll go back to one Korea. And that would be okay with me, too, as long as they both wanted that.

Okay? Thank you all very much. Thank you.

Yeah, go ahead.

Q You mentioned that you were looking into ZTE, as a favor to President Xi.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I am, yes.

Q How do you anticipate that ending up?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, again, ZTE buys a tremendous amount of equipment and parts for their telephones. They’re, as you know, the fourth largest in the world. And they buy them from American companies. So immediately, when I looked at it, it was my administration that closed them down. But when I looked at it, I said, “You know, they can pay a big price without necessarily damaging all of these American companies,” which they are, because, you know, you’re talking about tremendous amounts of money and jobs to American companies.

So I envision a very large fine. I envision, perhaps, new management, new board of directors, very tight security rules. But we caught them doing bad things. We caught them — not anybody else. We caught them doing bad things, and we essentially made it so difficult that it was shut down.

By shutting them down, we’re hurting a lot of American companies, really good American companies. Don’t — and I will tell you, don’t think that we didn’t hear from them by shutting down this massive phone company.

So what I envision is a very large fine of more than a billion dollars. Could be a billion-three. I envision a new management, a new board, and very, very strict security rules. And I also envision that they will have to buy a big percentage of their parts and equipment from American companies.

Okay? Thank you all very much. Thank you. Thank you.

Q (Speaks Korean.) (No translation provided.)

PRESIDENT TRUMP: He’s a friendly reporter. They’re friends. So let them — like you. Except he kills me. For a friendly reporter, he kills me.

PRESIDENT MOON: (Speaks Korean.) (No translation provided.)

PRESIDENT TRUMP: And I don’t have to hear the translation because I’m sure I’ve heard it before. (Laughter.)

Goodbye, everybody. Thank you.

On 20 May, elections took place in Venezuela with the highest abstention rate in a presidential election in the country over the last decades.

These elections could have been a crucial opportunity for all Venezuelan citizens to express, through a democratic, free and transparent process, their political will and thereby determine the future of the country.

However, presidential and regional polls went ahead without a national agreement on an electoral calendar and without complying with the minimum international standards for a credible process, not respecting political pluralism, democracy, transparency and rule of law. Major obstacles to the participation of opposition political parties and their leaders, an unbalanced composition of the National Electoral Council, biased electoral conditions, numerous reported irregularities during the Election Day, including vote buying, stood in the way of fair and equitable elections.

Therefore, as advanced in our statement of April 19th, the EU and its member states will consider the adoption of adequate measures.

It is more urgent than ever that the Venezuelan government takes concrete steps to fully respect the country’s Constitution and create the conditions that will allow all relevant political and social actors to play an active part in addressing the considerable challenges with which their country is faced. We call on the Venezuelan government to release all political prisoners.

Venezuela urgently needs a political solution to end the current crisis and, first and foremost, to deliver on its people most pressing humanitarian needs. The EU reiterates the need to restore the democratic process, and the importance that the country works towards a political and truly negotiated solution.

(RFE/RL) — Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has apologized to the European Parliament for causing “harm” by failing to prevent “fake news” and allowing users’ data to be stolen.

Zuckerberg said in Brussels on May 22 that while Facebook has brought in new features to connect people, it had become clear in the last two years that they “haven’t done enough to prevent these tools from being used for harm.”

Zuckerberg appeared before parliamentary political group leaders after Facebook admitted last month it had improperly shared the personal data of 87 million users with British firm Cambridge Analytica, including that of up to 2.7 million EU users.

European Parliament President Antonio Tajani told Zuckerberg that his appearance was “an important mark of respect towards the European Parliament and the European citizens that are represented here.”

“Of course, Mr Zuckerberg’s apologies are not enough. We are looking for further commitment and we will be following this up to make sure that these commitments are respected,” Tajani said.

While Zuckerberg ducked some of the tough questions posed by the lawmakers, he did apologize for Facebook policies that allowed the spread of fake news during the 2016 U.S. presidential election and the British “Brexit” referendum.

“And that goes for fake news, foreign interference in elections, or developers misusing people’s information. We didn’t take a broad enough view of our responsibility,” he said in his opening statement.

Zuckerberg said he was “committed” to making sweeping changes to the platform to make it safer and more reliable.

“I’m committed to getting this right and to making the significant investments that are necessary to keep people safe,” he said.

Zuckerberg noted that Facebook had already been better prepared to identify and delete misinformation in elections around the world since the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

“We were too slow to identify Russian interference on Facebook in the U.S. presidential election at the time,” he said.

“I have more confidence that we’re going to get this right going forward because we’ve already done a better job in several important elections since 2016, including the French presidential election, the German elections, and the Alabama special election in the U.S. last year.”

Facebook will also be “fully compliant” with the new European data protection standards, known as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), when the new regulation comes into effect on May 25, Zuckerberg noted.

Tension has returned to the Moroccan-Algerian borders after militants from the Polisario Front launched maneuvers and parades, with the participation of Algerian officers and experts, in the Tifariti, region east of Morocco’s defense wall.

Tifariti is located on the Moroccan side of the border with Algeria. Morocco withdrew its military forces from the region in 1991 and later labeled it an arms-free buffer zone within the framework of the Ceasefire Agreement with the Polisario, held under the auspices of the United Nations.

The United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO) was established as a peacekeeping force in 1991 in wake of the ceasefire that was reached that same year.

In recent months, however, the Polisario has been trying to move its camps from the Algerian Tindouf area to the buffer zone on the Moroccan side of the border, because it considers these areas “Liberated Territories”.

The maneuvers and parades in Tifariti were held on the anniversary of the launch of the Polisario’s military operations against Morocco in the mid-1970s, drawing a strong condemnation from Rabat of these “provocative” actions.

“The Kingdom of Morocco considers this provocation a new and serious violation of the ceasefire and a blatant challenge to the authority of the Security Council,” said the Foreign Ministry in a statement on Sunday.

Morocco has officially alerted the President, members of the Security Council, the UN Secretary-General and MINURSO, asking them to assume their responsibilities and to take the necessary measures against these unacceptable actions, the statement said.

“These acts of provocation seriously undermine UN efforts at a time when the Security Council has been calling for the relaunch of the political process with a view to reaching a realistic, pragmatic and sustainable solution to the regional dispute over the Moroccan Sahara,” continued the ministry statement.

It added that Morocco asked the United Nations, specifically MINURSO, to fulfill its mandate against repeated violations of the ceasefire.

It also pointed out that Rabat regretted that this escalation unfolded with the blessing and complicity of a neighboring country, Algeria, which is a member of the Arab Maghreb Union (AMU).

The statement underscored that Algeria violated the union’s charter by closing its borders with Morocco and by sheltering on its soil an armed movement that threatens the territorial integrity of another AMU member.

Algeria, instead of respecting the values of neighborliness and regional stability, continues to encourage the Polisario mercenaries in their destabilizing action, in violation of international law, stressed the ministry.

Original source

By Matt Mace

(EurActiv) — UK Prime Minister Theresa May vowed to halve energy use from new buildings by 2030, as part of a speech that championed the role science and technology will play in delivering her government’s industrial strategy. EURACTIV’s media partner edie.net reports.

Appearing at the Jodrell Bank observatory complex in Cheshire on Monday (21 May), the Prime Minister challenged the construction industry to embrace innovation and deliver higher standards to meet the new 2030 target, which will also reduce household energy bills and help with national carbon targets, according to May.

“We are at the forefront of scientific invention because we embrace change and use regulation not to stifle but to stimulate an environment for creativity,” May said in a speech. “Meeting this challenge will drive innovation and higher standards in the construction sector, helping it to meet our ambitious homebuilding targets and providing more jobs and opportunity to millions of workers across the country.

“We will use new technologies and modern construction practices to at least halve the energy usage of new buildings by 2030. By making our buildings more energy efficient and embracing smart technologies, we can slash household energy bills, reduce demand for energy, and meet our targets for carbon reduction.”

As part of the “clean growth and grand challenge mission”, the UK Government will also aim to halve the energy costs for the existing building stock – both domestically and commercially. Heat and power for buildings currently account for 40% of national energy usage.

May noted that the Industrial Strategy would act as a “catalyst for new technologies” that could then be exported to a “global market for clean technologies”.

Commenting on the announcement, the UK Green Building Council’s (UKGBC) Julie Hirigoyen said: “Addressing the energy used in new and existing buildings will be central to delivering clean growth and can only be achieved with strong leadership from Government working in close partnership with the industry.

“Now this mission has been set, it will be vital to underpin it with clear and consistent policies. Government should set a trajectory for building regulations to achieve net zero carbon from 2030, as well as introducing long-term incentives for retrofitting homes and commercial buildings. These market signals will be key in driving investment and innovation in the supply chain to meet these challenges and get us on track to meeting the Paris Agreement.”

The Prime Minister’s speech outlined several ambitions related to the Industrial Strategy, including championing Artificial Intelligence (AI) and data, and the previously-announced plan to be a global leader in manufacturing zero-emission and electric vehicles (EVs).

May also claimed that she wanted the UK to continue to pay for access to nuclear safety and research programmes such as Euratom and the scientific research fund and innovation platform Horizon 2020.

Construction insight

May’s announcement arrives at a time of continued progress for sustainability ambitions in the construction sector. In November, the Government struck an agreement with the construction industry to halve emissions in the built environment over the next eight years.

edie’s own Sector Insight report found that almost two-thirds of businesses operating in the construction industry are now more committed to taking action on sustainability than they were 12 months ago.

The report combines survey results with an array of key industry facts and stats, drip-fed sustainability success stories and best-practice case studies from the industry.

By Yossi Mekelberg*

It was only a month ago that the presidents of both sides of the Korean Peninsula, Moon Jae-in and Kim Jong Un, were full of smiles, projecting unprecedented optimism about a peaceful and prosperous future for their countries. Who could blame anyone who read the Panmunjom Declaration — which concluded the summit between North and South — for thinking that a new dawn had broken over Korea, banishing conflict from there forever?

Well, much of it was too good to be true. More than anything else, it proved that, despite the deep isolation of North Korea and the inexperience of if its leader, Kim is a rather astute diplomatic operator, playing his limited though powerful cards very efficiently; maneuvering and manipulating his way to survival and being ready to engage with the international community.

For the North Koreans, those in charge of the South are no more than American stooges. Hence, the meeting with Moon was just a prologue, as important as it was, for the planned summit with US President Donald Trump on June 12 in Singapore. If it happens, and there are currently serious doubts as to whether it will still take place, this will be the first ever summit between a sitting US president and a North Korean leader. It is crucial for Kim to have this summit and cash in on his pragmatic approach — as demonstrated in his recent agreement with his arch-enemies from the South — and the only country he could possibly present this check to is the US. Trump is also investing much of his political capital in the success of the impending summit, at which he expects North Korea to renounce its nuclear program in its entirety: Something that he would consider a victory for his self-proclaimed tough approach.

At the end of the day, the real interlocutors for Pyongyang are not in Seoul but in Washington and Beijing. However, there is a significant contrast between the approaches of these two big powers to these delicately hazardous dealings with a regime that is aware its margins for error are very narrow. While China is operating behind the scenes, exerting its influence as the major political ally and economic partner of North Korea, things are diametrically different in Washington.

In this White House administration, much is done in public, with little diplomatic subtlety and even less sensitivity to complexity. For instance, there is the statement by hawkish White House National Security Advisor John Bolton that he would like to model a disarmament agreement with North Korea on the 2003 deal reached with Libya. This analogy sent shivers down quite a few spines among the regime in Pyongyang.

Libyan president Muammar Gaddafi’s decision to terminate his country’s weapons of mass destruction program stunned much of the international community, which reacted in a similar way to the commitments made in the Panmunjom Declaration by president Kim only a few weeks ago, including welcoming international inspectors to verify his commitment to the removal of WMDs. However, the North Korean leadership was incensed by the Libyan analogy, as they are well aware of the gruesome fate that subsequently befell Gaddafi and his country, and the role that Western countries played in it. Pyongyang saw this comparison as both insulting and threatening.

Furthermore, the North Korean leadership is not oblivious to the additional chest-thumping from new Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who, like Bolton, is given to constantly repeating in public that the concessions made by the North Koreans are due to the “maximum pressure” exerted by the Trump administration. Despite avoiding direct criticism of Trump himself, or questioning his sincerity about striking a deal, North Korea is still threatening to cancel the summit in response to these comments. Pyongyang has already abruptly called off high-level talks with Seoul.

Whether Kim and his regime respond to Trump’s pressure, combined with that from Beijing, or conclude that the only way to enable them to preside over economic development and retain power is to concede to Washington’s demands, the high-profile bragging of US officials might achieve the complete opposite of this objective. In the final analysis, it might be the case that the current regime in Pyongyang is susceptible to pressure and is willing to give up its nuclear program. However, threats without any incentives and inflicting public humiliation upon one’s negotiating partner are not a recipe for reaching a peaceful settlement.

In the first instance, the objective of the international community is to stop North Korea from continuing to enrich uranium, developing delivery systems and weaponizing them with nuclear warheads. It is equally important to prevent a war between North Korea and any of its neighbours. In the long run, it should remain an aspiration to see one of the most oppressive regimes in the world give way to one that respects its own people’s most basic human rights — but not through military force.

For all of this, an approach that identifies North Korea’s soft underbelly, including its desperation for economic inducements and guarantees that it won’t face external attempts at regime change, stands a better chance of success than the constant obsession in Washington to present Kim’s regime as one which is surrendering.

Summits always carry with them the danger that, if they fail, there might not be a fall-back plan, especially if they are not well-planned and calibrated. In this case, June 12 might end in deep rifts between those at the top of their respective hierarchies and might result in irreparable personal damage. The Trump-Kim summit should, therefore, only take place if both sides have done their preparatory work and guaranteed that it won’t end by bringing about the collapse of the diplomatic process with North Korea. Otherwise, to cancel the summit is not the worst idea coming out of Pyongyang.

*Yossi Mekelberg is professor of international relations at Regent’s University London, where he is head of the International Relations and Social Sciences Program. He is also an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House. He is a regular contributor to the international written and electronic media. Twitter: @YMekelberg

More than any other issue or event in their history, the non-Russian republics of the Russian Federation are coming together to oppose draft legislation formalizing formalize Vladimir Putin’s insistence that Russian be the only required language in Russian schools with all others being treated as voluntary electives even in non-Russian republics.

Given Putin’s promotion of this idea and the support it has within his docile Duma and all other Moscow institutions, it is unlikely that the non-Russians will succeed in blocking this measure. But the experience of such cooperation in opposition to Moscow may matter more on other issues where they may have a better chance to win.

And the Kremlin leader’s decision to use language policy as his latest weapon against the non-Russians may thus boomerang in potentially dangerous ways, not only reducing the possibilities Putin will be able to use a divide-and-rule strategy to get his way but almost certainly requiring him to adopt even more repressive measures.

Three developments in the last few days point to such outcomes. First, the republic parliaments of Kalmykia, Daghestan, and Kabardino-Balkaria have voted to support the appeal of the Tatarstan State Council against the proposed legislation, a remarkable display of inter-republic cooperation (kam.business-gazeta.ru/news/383076 and idelreal.org/a/29243556.html).

Second, Ilshat Aminov, a member of Tatarstan’s State Council, says that ever more non-Russian republics are considering a joint appeal to the Russian Constitutional Court about the draft legislation arguing that such a measure would violate the rights of the republics (tatar-inform.ru/news/2018/05/21/612218/ and nazaccent.ru/content/27286-nacionalnye-respubliki-mogut-obratitsya-v-konstitucionnyj.html).

And third, yesterday a Moscow roundtable of opponents of the draft language law decided that their best future course was to form a Democratic Congress of the Peoples of the Russian Federation, a group that would represent the republics and their nations against what Moscow wants to do (kommersant.ru/doc/3635986 and idelreal.org/a/29241605.html).

This last measure is probably the least likely to have an impact on the vote in the Duma; but over time, it may prove to be the most consequential for the fate of the Russian Federation because it directly challenge what Moscow is doing in the name of democracy rather than just nationality, thus joining together two forces that played a key role in 1991 and could do so again.

In a first-of-its-kind finding, a new stroke-healing gel helped regrow neurons and blood vessels in mice with stroke-damaged brains, UCLA researchers report in the May 21 issue of Nature Materials.

“We tested this in laboratory mice to determine if it would repair the brain in a model of stroke, and lead to recovery,” said Dr. S. Thomas Carmichael, Professor and Chair of neurology at UCLA. “This study indicated that new brain tissue can be regenerated in what was previously just an inactive brain scar after stroke.”

The results suggest that such an approach may someday be a new therapy for stroke in people, said Dr. Tatiana Segura, a former Professor of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering at UCLA who is now a professor at Duke University. Carmichael and Segura collaborated on the study.

The brain has a limited capacity for recovery after stroke and other diseases. Unlike some other organs in the body, such as the liver or skin, the brain does not regenerate new connections, blood vessels or new tissue structures. Tissue that dies in the brain from stroke is absorbed, leaving a cavity, devoid of blood vessels, neurons or axons, the thin nerve fibers that project from neurons.

To see if healthy tissue surrounding the cavity could be coaxed into healing the stroke injury, Segura engineered a gel to inject into the stroke cavity that thickens to mimic the properties of brain tissue, creating a scaffolding for new growth.

The gel is infused with molecules that stimulate blood vessel growth and suppress inflammation, since inflammation results in scars and impedes regrowth of functional tissue.

After 16 weeks, stroke cavities in mice contained regenerated brain tissue, including new neural networks – a result that had not been seen before. The mice with new neurons showed improved motor behavior, though the exact mechanism wasn’t clear.

“The new axons could actually be working,” said Segura. “Or the new tissue could be improving the performance of the surrounding, unharmed brain tissue.”

The gel was eventually absorbed by the body, leaving behind only new tissue.

This research was designed to explore recovery in acute stroke, or the period immediately following stroke – in mice, that is five days; in humans, that is two months. Next, Carmichael and Segura are determining if brain tissue can be regenerated in mice long after the stroke injury. More than 6 million Americans are living with the long-term outcomes of stroke, known as chronic stroke.

A new study has uncovered when and why the native vegetation that today dominates much of Australia first expanded across the continent. The research should help researchers better predict the likely impact of climate change and rising carbon dioxide levels on such plants here and elsewhere. The dominant vegetation, so-called C4 plants, includes a wide variety of tropical, subtropical and arid-land grasses. , C4 plants also include important worldwide crops such as sugarcane, corn, sorghum and millet. The research has just been published online in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

C4 refers to the metabolic pathway that certain plants use to conduct photosynthesis, as opposed to the method used by the C3 plants, which dominate cooler, higher-latitude regions. C4 organisms comprise about a quarter of the world’s plant life today. In many hotter regions, they came to dominate about 6 million to 10 million years ago. They apparently evolved to photosynthesize under warm, dry, conditions, and low levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, which developed at that time. They have a special ability to take advantage of strong summer rainfall.

To figure when the plants spread across the Australian landscape, the researchers analyzed fossilized pollen and waxy substances found in leaves that had been swept off the continent, to be preserved in deep-sea sediments. Surprisingly, in northwest Australia C4 plants did not expand at the same time as they did on other continents, in spite of regionally arid conditions and falling atmospheric CO2, both of which should have promoted C4 vegetation. Instead, the researchers found, the vegetation expanded only 3.5 million years ago long after the other regions. The authors say that the rise of C4 plants in Australia was likely the result of a strengthened summer monsoon that developed around that time.

“Our results suggest that there was not a single factor that drove the transformation of tropical ecosystems around the globe,” said coauthor Pratigya Polissar, a research scientist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.

In the future, human influence on the atmosphere is likely to play an important role in the distribution of C4-dominated ecosystems. Rising carbon dioxide will place C4 plants at a disadvantage; on the other hand, rising temperature and changes in the season and amount of rainfall could favor them, said project leader Francesca McInerney of the University of Adelaide. In Australia, C4 plants are critical to grazing, soil carbon storage and biodiversity, she pointed out.

“Understanding how changing CO2 levels and other environmental factors affected these plants in the past can help us evaluate and plan for effects from increasing CO2 levels and climate change today,” said Polissar.

A study of ancient mound builders who lived hundreds of years ago on the Mississippi River Delta near present-day New Orleans offers new insights into how Native peoples selected the landforms that supported their villages and earthen mounds – and why these sites were later abandoned.

The study, reported in the Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology, also offers a timeline of the natural and human events that shaped one particular site, said University of Illinois anthropology professor Jayur Mehta, who conducted the work with Vanderbilt University postdoctoral researcher Elizabeth Chamberlain while both were at Tulane University in New Orleans.

The site, now known as Grand Caillou, is one of hundreds of mound sites in coastal Louisiana, Mehta said. (Watch a video about the research and history of the site.)

“Louisiana is incredibly important in the history of ancient mound-building cultures,” he said. “In what is now the United States, earthen monument and mound construction began on the Louisiana coast.”

Ancient peoples began building mounds in North America as early as 4,500 B.C., Mehta said. They often situated their mounds near resource-rich waterways, which could support larger human settlements. As many as 500 people lived at Grand Caillou in its heyday. Some mounds also served ceremonial functions.

That so many mound sites have survived in coastal Louisiana is a testament to their careful construction, Mehta said. Neglect, however, and coastal subsidence – the result of engineered changes to the flow of the Mississippi River – are wearing away at the mounds.

“Louisiana loses about two ancient mounds and/or Native American villages a year,” Mehta said.

The researchers used a variety of methods – sediment coring, radiocarbon dating, carbon-isotope analysis, the dating of ceramics found onsite and a method called optically stimulated luminescence – to figure out how and when the land underneath the Grand Caillou mound was formed by natural forces and when the mound builders arrived and established their settlement.

“We wanted to understand at a deeper level how Indigenous peoples of the coast were choosing where to build their villages,” Mehta said.

Grand Caillou is situated on a natural levee of the Lafourche sub-delta, one of several major lobes of the Mississippi River Delta near New Orleans. Fed by sediments deposited by the river, Lafourche expanded in size over a period of several hundred years, a process that ended at about 800 A.D., the researchers found. The mound builders set up their village around 1200 A.D., long after the site was stable and covered over with vegetation, the team found.

Core samples and excavations revealed that the mound was built in distinct layers, with clay on the bottom, looser sediments piled in the middle and a clay cap on top. This finding confirms earlier archaeological reports that ancient mounds were engineered in layers to withstand the elements.

“The way they were constructed contributes to their durability,” Mehta said.

The Grand Caillou mound was built on top of a river deposit that was naturally higher than surrounding land.

“It’s only a few feet higher than nearby areas,” Mehta said. “But in a landscape where there’s no topography, one or two feet can make a world of difference.”

Ceramics found at the site date to between 1000 and 1400 A.D. Radiocarbon dating of charcoal found evidence that the site was abandoned by about 1400. By looking at ratios of carbon isotopes – carbon atoms with differing masses – the team saw changes over time that were likely the result of saltwater incursion into the area. These changes coincided with the ultimate abandonment of the village site.

The new study is a much-needed addition to research on threatened cultural sites in coastal regions, said University of Tennessee anthropology professor David G. Anderson, an expert on U.S. Paleoindian archaeology who was not involved in the research.

“We are facing the loss of much of the record of human settlement and use of coastal zones – and must take steps to address the challenge,” Anderson said. “Mehta and Chamberlain’s study exemplifies the kind of work that will be needed.”

Syndromes can make for cringe worthy, nervous laughter. To see the Australian Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, struggle with reconciling China the bully of influence with China the resource hungry friend supplied the press with one such spectacle on Tuesday morning. Larded with suffocating clichés, Turnbull could speak of the greatest multicultural society on earth (forget the United States or any other comparisons) and those million or so members of the Australian-Chinese family who had made Australia what it is. Lurking, as ever, is the next diplomatic storm, and the next allegation, of Chinese influence in Australia.

China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi has been doing his own bit to ruffle Australian policy. Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang quoted Wang’s remark that Australia “take off tinted glasses [and] see China’s development from a positive perspective”. He also spoke of the “difficulties” that had beset relations between the countries “which even inflicted impacts on bilateral cooperation in some respects.”

Australia’s own Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop, has been very busy keeping her own tinted glasses on. “I get on very well with Foreign Minister Wang Yi, we’ve known each other for a very long time.” Recent discussions with Wang were “very warm and constructive”. Pure deceptive theatre indeed.

Within Australia’s own parliament, members are itching to lob grenades at China’s channels of influence, a tendency that is now producing a form of avid competition. Andrew Hastie, chair of the intelligence and security committee, availed himself of parliamentary privilege to out a certain “Co-conspirator 3 or CC-3” from the shadows, a person familiar to both the Liberal and Labor parties.

Businessman Chau Chak Wing, it seems, had not only busied himself lining the pockets of both sides of the parliamentary aisle to the tune of some $200,000 (donations are not bribes, it seems); he had also been attempting to woo the former president of the UN General Assembly, John Ashe, with a tidy sum. He had, in Hastie’s words of forced concern, “close contact with the United Front, the influence arm of the Chinese Communist Party in 2007”.

“I share it with the house because I believe it to be in the national interest. My duty, first and foremost, is to the Australian people and the preservation of the ideals and democratic traditions of our Commonwealth.” The Chinese Communist Party, Hastie claimed, was “working to covertly interfere with our media, our universities and also influence our political processes and public debates”.

While such revelations are delivered with a sense of heavy moral responsibility, much of it is stretched. Trade Minister Steve Ciobo was almost dismissive in claiming that the content was hardly novel. Turnbull dumped some cold water on Hastie’s fire by claiming that “the specific allegations that were made… were not new.” But getting on the China bandwagon of condemnation is all the rage. Parliament has already sought to curb that vague and immeasurable term “influence” with legislation that muddies rather than clears the water. When the National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage and Foreign Interference) Bill 2017 was introduced, it signalled a new front in an inchoate war that, on closer inspection, merely looks like a good stab at civil liberties and an attempt to harness paranoia.

A “new and balanced secrecy regime” criminalising the disclosure of “inherently harmful information” was introduced alongside “offences that criminalise covert and deceptive activities of foreign actors that fall short of espionage but are still intended to interfere with our democratic systems and processes or support the intelligence activities of a foreign government.”

Such words are hard going in the wake of one overwhelming reality: Australia’s satellite status and broader importance in the US imperium. Should Australia ever wish to bend over for Beijing – and here, Hastie and company should take comfort – a few Pentagon goons are bound to be dispatched Down Under to right matters. Washington’s indifference to sending an ambassador of clout, or any ambassador at all for some eighteen months is simply an acceptance that the good politicians of Canberra will behave. Head boys and girls are simply not required.

Acknowledgment of Australia’s efforts has also been forthcoming. One senior official in the Pentagon with a brief covering US defence policy in Asia, Randy Schriver, was rather pleased by the spurt of legislative activity seeking to rein in those nasty foreign influences. “I think [Australia’s] woken up people in a lot of countries to take a look at Chinese activity within their own borders.” The country had “done us a great service by publicising much of this activity and then taking action.” With such rounded approval from empire, what could go wrong?

The field of political influence will always be a hostage to trends. As things stand, Australian citizens are being treated to daily doses of anti-Chinese hysteria. It is hardly surprising that such distractions are necessary consumption for a government desperate to keep its oar in regarding the electorate. Villains are always necessary in political bouts, even if they pay your bills, buy your products, and fill the coffers.

By Dr. S. Chandrasekharan

On 17th of May, the Chiefs of UML and Maoists Centre, Nepal announced the merger of their two parties and the formation of a new party- called Communist Party of Nepal. The day also marked the 25th anniversary of late Madan Bhandari of UML who died in a car accident though many still believe that he died under suspicious circumstances.

This formal announcement of a merger came after intense negotiations for two hours at Baluwatar between Oli the UML chief and Dahal- the head of the Maoist Centre the previous day.

The following decisions appear to have been taken and it is said that both the chiefs gave in on some issues to allow the merger. Compromises had to be made and it was done. Dahal did not insist on a fifty-fifty proportion of office bearers while Oli agreed to accept the benefits of People’s War as an ideological line. The details as known from the press are as follows.

• The new party will be headed by both Oli and Dahal as Co. Chairmen of the party.
• The Sun will be symbol of the new party. ( Sun was the symbol of UML)
• There is an informal understanding that the prime ministership will be rotated between the two and Oli will step down after three years to make way for Dahal.
• There will be a nine-member Secretariat with Bishnu Paudel as General Secretary and Narayan Kaji Shrestha as the Spokesman. This will include the three senior leaders of UML- Madhav Nepal, Jhalanath Khanal and Bamdev Gautham as well as other members- Ishwor Pokhrel of UML and Ram Bahadur Thapa of Maoist Centre.
• There will be a standing Committee of 45 members to be divided between UML and MC in the proportion of 26 to 19.
• Similarly there will be a Central Committee of 441 members with UML having 241 members and the MC 200 members
• The ideological frame work will include the positive aspects of People’s multi party democracy and that of the People’s democracy of the 21st century of the Maoists. The final document is supposed to include the political achievements of the people’s war that ushered secularism and federalism as well as the philosophy of Marxism and Leninism (whatever it means!)
• The structural arrangements of the party will remain till the regular convention that will be held within one year from the formation of the party.

Dahal likened the merger of the two parties as that of the molecules of hydrogen and oxygen getting fused to form water and the implication is that water cannot once again be broken into oxygen and hydrogen molecules! He claimed that the “new force” will provide for stability, development and prosperity of the people.

The new party will have 174 MPs out of 275 in the Lower house and 39 out of 59 in the upper house. This does not include three members the government can nominate to the upper house.

While the new party will have a significant and comfortable majority to go along with their agenda they will still be short of two thirds majority to make any constitutional amendments. For this, the help of one of the Terain Groups will be necessary and it is heard that Upendra Yadav of SSFN is only too eager to join if he is given the post of Deputy Prime Ministership! That innocent lives were unnecessarily lost in the Terai during the agitation thanks to the Madhesi leaders has been forgotten!

Though there are smaller and insignificant leftist parties, the merger of the two main stream parties is historic and fulfills the dream of late Pushpalal- 69 years after the party was established in the same name in the country. This agreement comes almost 8 months after the initial agreement when the two parties jointly contested the elections.

The general expectation of the public is that the new party will be able to provided political stability to the country that was badly needed for economic development.

The reaction of the Nepali Congress was surprisingly sober and it said that the merger will strengthen democracy. The party is yet to come to terms with the debacle they had and the rise of the powerful leftist alliance which people expect to rule for the next five years. Deuba who should have quit after the debacle continues to call the shots. The Koirala clan is still alive and clicking and courted by the embassies. Ramachandra Paudel who has lost his relevance still believes that he has a great following wants to be heard on all issues! The younger crowd led by Gagan Thapa continues to be marginalised. Gagan who made a fine speech in the Parliament on the day Oli took over should have been nominated to call on Indian PM but was not and he continues to be ignored. Arjun Narsing KC who believes that the Party will have to unite to meet the challenge failed in his efforts to get the leaders together. The Nepali Congress needs to revamp itself against a formidable opponent in the new Communist Parfty of Nepal. But it is yet to show the urgency or the need!

On the new communist party itself, it is difficult to say how it will move along though it is the wish of all those interested in Nepal’s stability that the new party succeeds. Nepal needs it. The problem is that the decisions on the merger have been handed over from the top to the cadres at the grass roots level and may not be acceptable. The convention which is scheduled to be had within one year will throw up more complications and discontentment as many of the leaders of the present may not have the same status or power.

It is to the credit of Oli that he went out of the way to ensure that Indian PM’s visit was a success. Nepal needs the support of both India and China for its economic development and this is being understood in Nepal by all sections of people. This is a good sign.

By Dr. S. Chandrasekharan

An editorial in Irrawaddy of 17th May, while discussing Myanmar’s failing peace noted that the recent clashes with insurgents demonstrate that the ethnic groups are losing faith in the current peace process and in negotiation with the military and the government. It added, significantly that the silence of Aung San Kyi and other top leaders is “alarming and surprising”- a sign that they are admitting defeat in the quest for peace.

Is Suu Kyi to blame?

Surely, the Irrawady more than any other entity in Yangon knows the real problem and the helplessness of the government in dealing with the ethnic crisis. It looks that Irrawady is reluctant to tell the truth that may offend those really responsible for the present breakdown in the peace process.

Another noted and knowledgeable analyst from Kachin, Joe Kumbun places the blame squarely on the NLD. He said that Suu Kyi had disappointed members of ethnic communities who had cast their votes in the last election in the expectation of Suu Kyi ending the fighting, restore Panglong Agreement and bring peace to the country.

Under the ‘Guest Column’ in the same note of 19 May, Joe Kumbun had also said that both the President Win Myint and de facto leader Suu Kyi as well as other elected members of the Parliament should not keep silent but speak out. In the same paragraph it is admitted by the same writer that in the crackdown by the Police force on civilian demonstrators who were protesting against the escalation of fighting between the Army and the Kachins, the government can do little to rein in the Police force as it is controlled by the Army “via the Ministry of Home Affairs!”

Speaking out is fine- but to what end? Can the Government order a cease fire? Is the Army under the control of the Government? Will the Army (Tatmadaw)- obey? These are questions that need to be answered.

Everyone understands that the 2008 Constitution is a big millstone round the neck of the Government and it is the Army that calls the shots and not the Government!

Suu Kyi is in a very unenviable position. She was accused of inaction by the West when the Rohingya crisis began though nothing was under her control! The ARSA- the Jihadi outfit is quiet now as its cause has been taken over by the West and other UN agencies. But surely it will raise its head again if the international attention shifts.

Consider the Following:

• Fighting in Kachin area has intensified and the Myanmar Army is said to be using air strikes with the newly acquired JF-17s from Pakistan and artillery to pound the KIA positions. As a result of the escalation in fighting, thousands of innocent civilians have been forced to flee from the homes and many have been trapped in the jungles. In the fierce fighting between the Army and the Kachin fighters, there have been heavy casualties on both sides in the area between Myitkyina and Putao.
• Since March there has been sporadic clashes between the Army and the KNLA- the armed wing of KNU, but the clashes intensified when the Army tried to upgrade the road between two villages in Papun Township. The KNU is one of eight original signatories of the Cease fire Agreement since January 2012.
• Relationship between the Army and the RCSS-A ( Restoration Council of Shan State Army (south) and the New Mon State Army has deteriorated to such an extent that the RCSS has declared that they had indefinitely postponed public consultation meetings in Shan State because of the Army’s interference. RCSS is one of the original signatories of the cease-fire agreement since December 2011 and the New Mon State Army had recently left the UNFC ( United Nationalities Federal Council) to sign the national cease fire agreement.
• A report in the Irrawady of May 18 indicates that there has been little improvement in relations between the Army and the Wa and Mongla groups that are based close to the border with China. The seven party alliance which goes by the name FPNCC (Federal Political Negotiation and Consultative Committee) has not given up its demand to negotiate collectively and has also declined to sign the National Cease-fire agreement.

The China Factor:

The FPNCC is greatly influenced by China and its leadership under UWSA is said to be completely dependent on China. It would have been in the interest of China to have a cease fire in the first place before negotiations. Instead, fighting has escalated not only in the Kachin area but also in the Shan State area near Muse close to the border with China.

The Chinese, though at every meeting/function reiterate their support for the Peace process, it is yet to formulate any formal proposal relating to the ethnic conflict. It is known that the major hurdle in the peace process is the refusal of the FPNCC to go along with the National Cease-fire agreement and proposing its own narrative on the ethnic conflict. The FPNCC is the powerful entity with more than 50,000 well armed and trained fighters and has the support of China.

There has been no dearth of visits of high level delegations from China. The most recent one was the visit of a senior Chinese delegation led by State Councillor and Public Security Minister Zhao Kezhi on 9th May, when they met the President U Win Myint and Suu Kyi.

The Chinese Special Representative Sun Guoxiang as the special envoy for Asian affairs is supposed to assist in facilitating discussions between the Armed Groups and the Government, but his role appears to be more as a liaison officer and not that of making any positive inputs to make the cease fire negotiations successful.

As said earlier in other papers, the key to success in the ethnic conflict in Myanmar is surely with China and the other stake holder- the Myanmar Army. Suu Kyi on some occasions had expressed her inability to deal with the ethnic conflicts in view of the rigid and inflexible constitution.

Civilian Opposition escalating:

Meanwhile, the civilian opposition to the ethnic conflict that has displaced thousands of people is slowly emerging in Yangon, Mandalay, Myitkyina and other major cities as also outside the country too. As expected, the security agencies have dealt with the protests with a heavy hand. Protests are likely to mount once it is seen that Army would relentlessly continue the fighting in Kachin area with more and more innocent people getting displaced.

There is also concern now in some western countries of the escalation of fighting in the Kachin area, The US is said to be deeply concerned about intensified fighting that had forced thousands of people to flee their homes. It has urged all parties to cease fighting and has called upon the government including the military to protect the civilian populations and allow humanitarian assistance.

Conclusion:

It is no wonder that the third Panglong Conference has been postponed for the fourth time to mid June. With no new group signing the agreement, with escalation of clashes between the Army and the ethnic groups as also among the ethnic groups themselves and inability of some groups to have public consultations, there is a feeling that there is no point in having another Panglong Conference now.

What is now needed is a cease-fire with all the groups. The Tatmadaw does not appear to be ready. The Chinese are still unhelpful. And the people suffer.

Earth is the only planet of the solar system inhabited with life. The varied forms of life (biodiversity) add to the beauty of the biosphere. Environment consisting of biotic (living) as well as abiotic (non-living) components form the vital and core component of the earth. The sound environmental scenario is necessary for our personal and social well being. However, the anthropogenic intervention of man has changed the discourse of ecology in toto and altered the ecological processes of the nature and simultaneously caused serious ramifications for all the life forms, particularly man (Homo sapiens).During the last few decades, the disharmony between man and environment has caused heavy strain on the surrounding environment.

Gone are the days when the nature was in a state of equilibrium. Man has over the period of time exploited nature to such an extent that now; there is only a half-state of sorrow. The world of today is bereft of environmental order and there is a looming environmental crisis. The increasing population of the world puts an unprecedented pressure on the environmental resources and ultimately causes the scarcity of the resources generating a lot of waste which pollutes our environment day-in and day-out. The anthropogenic threats to the environment on a massive scale have radically altered our planet, Earth including the lives of many species of plants and animals. Man is part and parcel of biosphere and cannot turn a blind eye towards the contemporary ecological crisis and responsibilities with respect to the protection of nature. Environmental degradation is the most hazardous event of the current century attributed to misuse of natural environment.

The crisis has taken a major sway over both developed and developing countries. The developed countries dump effluents into the environment polluting the earth. Kashmir which is glorified for its beauty is getting victimised due to the environmental problems of the current times. The valley of Kashmir has been enormously blessed by God with the scenic beauty and really stunning green environs. But, unfortunately, the indifferent attitude of the people towards the environment has ultimately caused ramifications which bode ill to the man itself.

Over the world, climate change is the buzzword of the recent century which has assumed unimagined proportions and all the nation states of the globe are confronting this problem. The untimely downpours in summer, warm climate in winters, wind storms, hail storms in spring, etc. are the problems of the current times and attributed to changes in the environment over the period of time.

The government introduced environmental education in schools and colleges with the sole motive of making people in general and students in particular environmentally conscious. This aims at promoting values and beliefs, inculcating knowledge and understanding towards making positive contributions towards the environment.

Environmental education strives to make pupils aware regarding the environmental problems and creates a motivational current in them to tackle those problems with a responsible sense and know-how in the technical sense for the solution of the same. The concerns over the world regarding the steadily deteriorating environmental state lay emphasis for the environmental education in order to bring about a paradigm shift for prevention. Not only this, the government is spending huge financial resources to carry research on the environment in various prestigious laboratories of renowed universities and research institutions of the country. In addition to this, the National Policy on Education(NPE),1986 lays great emphasis on environmental education and holds that awareness regarding the environment should be created right from a child to an old person, spread over all sections of the society. However, the practical aspect lies with the masses. We are to environment as environment is to us

The dreadful flash floods of 2014 which caused a heavy damage to life, property and overall environment in Kashmir are grim reminders of ecological change and imbalance.The recent episodes of forest fires during this year’s winter at some places of Kashmir which destroyed various species of plants and vegetative cover was a cause of concern. The timely intervention of the forest department and youth of the respective areas stopped the further damage. In some pockets of Anantnag, the recent rains and one-night light snowfall has severely damaged the flower buds of the apple orchards and caused mayhem to the fruit growers, rendering trees devoid of any apple fruits.

Our environment is at the brink of a disaster, waiting for the feasible time to happen. The pollution of air, water and land are in a state of continuity and ensue change with the currents of time. This has paved ways for a bundle of problems. Pollution is the horrific ecological crisis of the current times. Air, water and land in the past times are said to have been in a state of purity, virgin and devoid of human disturbance. But, over the period of time the situation is caught in a reverse way. Ecological imbalance caused due to the development of transport, machines, infrastructure, paraphrenalia, etc. in general and science and technological prowess in particular may prove disastrous for humanity in the long run.

Environmental degradation in terms of deterioration in the quality of air, water and soil surfaces cause a number of biological manifestations, which partic ularly affect human health and its well being. The degradation in the quality of water gives rise to a number of diseases like bacteria, cholera, jaundice, and etc.The increasing ratio of light, small, medium and heavy vehicles is day by day polluting the quality of the environment in J&K.

Soil erosions caused as a result of frequent rains have resulted in the siltation of the water bodies, like river Jhelum(Veth) which complicate the issues in times of rainfalls and leads to the flooding of the adjoining areas (say floods of 2014).Unfortunately, the environment of JK has been affected and destroyed in the last century due to uncontrolled cutting down of the forest trees which has not only altered the patterns of weather and climate, but also increased the massive destruction of the environment.

People in Kashmir have unfortunately turned a blind eye towards the environment and ignore all ethical standards vis-a-vis environment. The water bodies have become the ultimate target for the disposal of the wastes, whether house-generated or otherwise. Every household empties the sewerage in the adjoining streams. The space of the water bodies has been gravely shrunken and the waste lies littered. Even, at some places the household waste clogs the flow of water which causes its way-out on the roads and hampers the movement of the commuters. Also, some people have erected illegal structures over the water bodies and downsized them.

The major implications of excessive deforestation are soil degradation, excessive floods, dam siltations, alterations in climatic patterns and ultimately drives towards environmental bankruptcy. The pollution of water bodies in J&K has reached a point of crisis, rendering them as cesspools due to solid wastes, wrong drainage patterns, sewerage, etc.This has not only degraded the quality of these water bodies, rendering them ineffectual for drinking and usage of water, but also caused the unwanted growth of weeds and plants in them, ultimately shrinking their space with the passage of time.Dal lake, anchar lake, etc are the glaring and live examples of our environmental problems.
The people of the state have got a prominent role in the conservation of the environment. Government of the state has also the responsibility of conserving the environment which can fully blow into a crisis if not tackled on time.Otherwise, time will not be far when there will be only pangs of guilt and sorrow and the future generations will curse us for the full fledged eco-crisis which they would face in future.

Administration can play a prominent role in generating awareness and promoting environmental consciousness among the masses with the aid of print, electronic and overall mass media. The educational institutions can be used as the instruments of environmental consciousness. Besides, the water bodies and other polluted places can be cleaned using manpower and infrastructure in close proximition.It is vital on part of the administration to create awareness among the masses for the preservation, protection and conservation of environment and mitigation afterwards.

Today, when we are living in the post-truth era, our morale is slowly ebbing to the point zero. This place is to others as it is to the human beings. Man cannot destroy the other forms of life and claim hegemony over the environment sans ethical and moral conduct without any regard for the other living organisms. After analysing the true picture of the land and people in the recent times, what comes to fore is a non-compatible attitude of man with respect to the surrounding environment. Man has destroyed environment and is paying back a heavy price. If a similar situation exists in near future, human civilization will face disasters everywhere. There is an urgent requirement for appropriate measures in order to tackle the crisis. Searching into the past through the medium of oral or written histories of Kashmir, the vivid picture is that of purity and semblance of nature.

It is our foremost duty to conserve and preserve the environment. The need of the hour is to make people sensibly aware through the environmental education programmes.

Environmentalists have time and again reiterated their view that a solution to environmental crisis will require a proper understanding of environmental awareness deeply engrossed in the system of education spanning all levels of school education. A fair amount of know-how about the burning environmental issues is vital for the protection of the healthy environment. Being part and parcel of the ecosystem, man has a crucial responsibility to protect the environment.

However,responsibility is subservient to ethical motivation which can be generated at various levels of the society. Here,again, the role of multiple players viz, government, NGO’s and everybody else is necessary. NGO’s can actively engage general public and students through programmes and activities. This will entail a plethora of research and dissemination of knowledge on various issues confronting the environment. The survival of human beings is largely dependent upon the environmental balance. No nation-state can remain in isolation, because the problem is pan-global without any consideration for limits. Thus, it requires a global solution. The development of man should be in harmony with nature. This way we can envision an environmentally sound place to dwell upon as previously eulogized by the Mughal emperor of india, Jehangir as heaven on the earth.

*Abid Ahmad Shah works in the Govt. Education Dept. J&K, views are personal.

The European Union is to “consider the adoption of adequate measures” in the wake of a controversial presidential and regional polls in Venezuela, saying the elections were held without “a national agreement, political pluralism, democracy, transparency, and rule of law”.

Federica Mogherini, EU’s foreign policy chief, in a statement urged Venezuela to “take concrete steps to fully respect the country’s constitution”.

Mogherini said the elections with the highest abstention rate in the country over the last decades “could have been a crucial opportunity for all Venezuelan citizens to express, through a democratic, free and transparent process, their political will and thereby determine the future of the country.”

“However,” Mogherini said, “presidential and regional polls went ahead without a national agreement on an electoral calendar and without complying with the minimum international standards for a credible process, not respecting political pluralism, democracy, transparency, and rule of law.”

Original article

Thai Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-Cha has announced that the general election will be held by February 2019 if three conditions are met. Why is Prayut demanding three conditions and to what extent will the GE result in political change or consolidation for the incumbent Thai junta?

By Antonio L. Rappa*

The Royal Thai Armed Forces has played a central role in all previous general elections (GEs) since the 1932 coup. RTAF Supreme Commander Thanchaiyan Srisuwan reiterated the central role of the army and continues to support the political consolidation and public policies under Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-Cha. While the self-appointed prime minister announced that he is not interested in retaining his position, the new pro-military Constitution virtually guarantees that he will be re-elected PM as long as 376 out of 750 Members of Parliament (MP) vote for him in the lower house election slated for early 2019.

Prayut already controls the upper house given the fact that 200 senators had to be pre-approved by the junta. Prayut and his deputy Prawit Wongsuwan have sufficient MPs and senators to form a new political party. Without ruling out his own political future, the PM believes in three conditions for the GE to take place; with the caveat that the military will not tolerate any public demonstrations and political violence that is likely to occur once the election dates are fixed.

Military’s Three Conditions

The first condition is that all political parties have to support the role and function of the National Peace Keeping Council (NPKO) of which the prime minister is the Chairman. This situation is entrenched by the new pro-military Constitution that virtually guarantees that Prayut and his Cabinet have ministerial positions regardless of the political party that wins. However, the glitch is that a winning party with more than 375 MPs will be able to overturn the NPKO/junta’s stranglehold over the government and people of Thailand.

The second condition laid out by the Thai PM is that the new election law that was changed in January 2018 will ensure that the political parties have sufficient preparation time. But both the Puea Thai and Democrat party spokesmen have argued that the law merely gives the NPKO more time to entrench its political power bases in Bangkok and other major cities of the kingdom.

The amended election law is perceived by political scientists from Chulalongkorn University and Thammasat University to ensure that the NPKO and its network of supporters remain in a custodial position before, during and after the GE in 2019.

Government-Military Relationship Still Strong

The third condition that Prayut hinted at in 2017 and is expected to reiterate in May/June 2018 is a fair and balanced conduct of the general election. The PM’s genuineness was demonstrated in March when the Election Commission (EC) received 34 applications for political parties that seek approval to take part in the GE, the first time that the EC has been empowered since Prayut overthrew the democratically-elected Yingluck Shinawatra government in 2014 over the multi-billion baht rice-pledging scandal.

A professor from Rangsit University told the press that the relationship between the government and the military remains very strong.

A positive sign that democracy is alive is the participation of Thai Summit Group CEO Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit and Thammasat University law professor Piyabutr Sangkanokkul. Their Future Forward party criticised the coups in 2006 and 2014 military coups without directly mentioning Prayut.

Two Possible Scenarios

The consequences for Thai voters are clear. Firstly, there will be a clear win in the direction of the NPKO and the political party that it will back. Secondly, the likelihood of a military-supported putsch will only take place if the military fails to win a majority vote. Therefore, two scenarios are likely: the first is the consolidation of political power by the incumbents and the second the transformational changes to the military-backed junta to rejuvenate the old guard under Prayut.

A third consequence that is very likely is that the balance of power will continue to shift toward the military leaders and away from the people. Nevertheless regardless of how powerful the NPKO/junta is today, they will still need the endorsement of Rama X, King Maha Vajiralongkorn to hold the election.

*Antonio L. Rappa is a Visiting Researcher at the Institute for Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) Chulalongkorn University, Thailand and Associate Professor and Head, Management and Security Studies, School of Business, Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS) . He was previously an Adjunct Senior Fellow with the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore and consults in Counterterrorism and Political Violence in Southeast Asia.

By Jonathan Power*

Can you smell the whiff of smoke? You surely can. But the gunfire? Not yet. But it must start soon if the battle has any chance of success.

President Donald Trump has to be faced down. Not only because of his sabotage of the Iran nuclear deal but also because of his attack on Europe’s export of steel and aluminium which breaks all the rules on tariffs set by the World Trade Organisation. This man should not be allowed to get away with his gross disturbance of the world political and economic order.

Donald Tusk, the President of the Council of the European Union, said boldly last week, “Who needs enemies when you have friends like this?” Who indeed? Trump is, as David Goodhart wrote in Foreign Affairs, “a living fossil, the sort of ‘ugly American’ common enough in earlier eras”. Trump is leading America into a dark tunnel where there is no sunlight and no daylight at the end of it.

His unilateral ending of the Iran nuclear agreement could easily lead to war between Israel and Iran, between Iran and Saudi Arabia and even between the US and Iran. The Middle East, already devastated by wars that the US and the UK started, will become a moonscape of destruction. Iran, instead of being just an antagonist of the US will become an enemy, strong enough to give the US a large and regular dose of political and military pain.

Does America, even many of those who voted for Trump, want to confront Iran? The polls say “no” by a good margin. For nearly 80 years America and Europe have for most of the time run in a three-legged race. This had disadvantages, but most of the two electorates have wanted it this way, and still do. Trump doesn’t. His irrationality can only be explained by his determination to undo all the good things Barack Obama did.

This is not a good enough reason to break up a treaty that Europe, Russia and China so value. Europe must call a halt to this. Retaliation is the only way. Sanctions, the weapon that brought Iran and white South Africa to the negotiating table, must be introduced against the US.

Europe is both strong enough to do this and strong enough to go for the long haul. Europe has 500 million consumers compared with the US’s 300 million. It will also have the quiet support of Russia and China.

Politically Europe is more than ready. Before Trump announced earlier this month that he was abrogating the Iran deal polls in Germany and France showed how popular Obama was and how unpopular is Trump. Days after Trump’s election a survey found that 75% of the French held a negative opinion of him. The then president, Francois Hollande, said Trump’s “excesses” made him want to “throw up”.

A survey reported that 92% of Germans disapprove of Trump According to a Pew survey 25% of Germans trust Putin compared with 11% who trust Trump.

Economically, Germany has the power to face down Trump, especially when supported by the rest of the EU. The US only buys 9% of German’s exports. The EU overwhelmingly trades with itself. On the other side of the coin German companies employ 700,000 people in the US.

Europe’s squeeze should probably begin with sport, just as President Jimmy Carter did at the time of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The US withdrew its contingent from the Olympics in Moscow. It badly upset the American athletes who had trained for years. But it was broadly popular in America.

Sport boycotts quickly call the populace’s attention. At least half of Americans have only a crude idea why the Iran nuclear agreement is so important. So to hit the US with a boycott of US tennis matches and American players in Europe will hurt. So it will with rowing at Henley and ice hockey in Sweden. It is likely that Russia, also a signatory of the Iran agreement, could be persuaded to ban the US from the football World Cup in Moscow next month.

Germany and other European investors in America should be made to withdraw some of their investments and lay off American workers (with good termination payments). New investment should be halted. European car, drug, machinery and high tech manufacturers should be given government direction and help to invest more in Canada, Japan, China, India, South East Asia, Africa and Latin America, all of which, apart from the last, have booming markets. The EU (and Russia) should rely more on themselves for rocket development and space exploration. Where possible trade with Iran should be sheltered from US sanctions.

The list can easily be made longer. I doubt if Trump will be able for long to resist the pressure to change his mind from an electorate already turning against him.

*Note: For 17 years Jonathan Power was a foreign affairs columnist and commentator for the International Herald Tribune – and a member of the Independent Commission on Disarmament, chaired by the prime minister of Sweden, Olof Palme. He forwarded this and his previous Viewpoints for publication in IDN-INPS. Copyright: Jonathan Power.

By Whitney Webb*

On the heels of the fifth anniversary of whistleblower Edward Snowden’s disclosure of classified National Security Agency (NSA) documents to journalists, one state legislature has recently taken steps to hold the government agency accountable for its warrantless surveillance programs by making it illegal for state and local governments, including law enforcement and public utilities, to support the NSA’s warrantless spying on American citizens.

According to Michigan’s Fourth Amendment Rights Protection Act, also known as Public Act 71 of 2018, state and local governments can only assist or provide support to the federal government’s collection of data if there is a search warrant or the informed consent of the targeted party. The bill is set to take effect in just a few weeks on June 17th.

While the NSA has no publicly disclosed facility in the state, the bill’s proponents have asserted that it sends a clear message to the federal government regarding the lack of popularity for its warrantless wiretapping of millions of Americans in violation of the legal protections granted to them by the Constitution.

“It hangs up a sign on Michigan’s door saying, ‘No violation of the Fourth Amendment, look elsewhere’,” said Republican state Rep. Martin Howrylak, the bill’s author, according to the Washington Examiner. “Democrats as well as Republicans would certainly stand very strong in our position on what this law means.”

“This new law guarantees no state resources will be used to help the federal government execute mass warrantless surveillance programs that violate the Fourth Amendment protections enshrined in the U.S. Constitution,” Howrylak said soon after the bill was first passed earlier this year in March.

“Michigan will not assist the federal government with any data collection unless it is consistent with the constitution,” he added.

The Michigan law seeking to condemn the NSA’s most controversial program is not the first of its kind. However, it is the first to have been passed successfully without having been  subsequently watered down. For instance, in 2014, state lawmakers in Maryland sought to shut off power and water to NSA headquarters but many of its sponsors dropped their support of the bill after a powerful political backlash. A similar bill was floated in Utah’s state legislature at the same time, but went nowhere after it was rejected by the state’s governor.

The only state to have passed a bill similar to Michigan’s is California, which passed the Fourth Amendment Protection Act in 2014. However, that piece of legislation protects the Fourth Amendment in name only as it bans local assistance “in response to a request from a federal agency” and “if the state has actual knowledge that the request constitutes an illegal or unconstitutional collection.”

Despite the efforts being made by state legislatures to restore the Fourth Amendment, such efforts have been largely absent at the national level in recent years. Earlier this year, in January, Congress voted to extend the government’s warrantless surveillance of American citizens for another six years. However, Congress’ reauthorization of the program was more than a mere extension of the program as it actually helped expand the NSA’s authority by codifying some of the more controversial aspects of the program, suggesting that interest in protecting and restoring the Constitution is largely found at the state and local levels of government.

About the author:
*Whitney Webb is a staff writer for MintPress News and a contributor to Ben Swann’s Truth in Media. Her work has appeared on ZeroHedge, the AntiMedia, Newsbud and 21st Century Wire, among others. She has also made radio and TV appearances on RT and Sputnik. She currently lives with her family in southern Chile.

Source:
This article was published by Truth in Media.