Just two weeks after President Trump pulled the US from the Iran nuclear agreement, his Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, issued 12 demands to Iran that could never be satisfied. Pompeo knew his demands would be impossible to meet. They were designed that way. Just like Austria-Hungary’s ultimatum to Serbia in July, 1914, that led to the beginning of World War I. And just like the impossible demands made of Milosevic in 1999 and of Saddam Hussein in 1991 and 2003, and so many other times when Washington wanted war. These impossible demands are tools of war rather than steps toward peace.

Secretary Pompeo raged at Iran. The mainstream news media raged at Iran. Trump raged at Iran. But then a strange thing happened: nothing. The Iranians announced that they remained committed to diplomacy and would continue to uphold their end of the nuclear agreement if the Europeans and other partners were willing to do the same. Iranian and European officials then sought out contacts in defiance of Washington in hopes of preserving mutually-beneficial emerging commercial relations.

Washington responded to the European snub by threatening secondary sanctions on European companies that continued doing business with an Iran that had repeatedly been found in compliance with its end of the bargain. Any independent European relationship with Iran would be punished, Washington threatened. But then, again, very little happened.

Rather than jump on Washington’s bandwagon, German Chancellor Angela Merkel made two trips to Russia in May seeking closer ties and a way forward on Iran.

Russia and China were named as our prime enemies in the latest National Security Strategy for the United States, but both countries stand to benefit from the unilateral US withdrawal from the Iran deal. When the French oil company Total got spooked by Washington threats and pulled out of Iran, a Chinese firm eagerly took its place.

It seems the world has grown tired of neocon threats from Washington. Ironically the “communist” Chinese seem to understand better than the US that in capitalism you do not threaten your customers. While the US is threatening and sanctioning and forbidding economic relations, its adversaries overseas are busy reaping the benefits of America’s real isolationism.

If President Trump’s canceled meeting with North Korea’s Kim Jong-Un remains canceled, North and South Korea have shown that they will continue with their peacemaking efforts. As if Washington was no longer relevant.

I’ve often spoken of the unintended consequences of our aggressive foreign policy. For example, President Bush’s invasion of Iraq only helped Iran – our “enemy” – become more dominant in the Middle East. But it seems new consequences are emerging, and for the neocons they must be very unintended: for all of its bellicosity, threats, demands, sanctions, and even bombs, the rest of the world is increasingly simply ignoring the demands of Washington and getting on with its own business.

While I am slightly surprised at this development, as a libertarian and a non-interventionist I welcome the growing irrelevance of Washington’s interventionists. We have a far better philosophy and we must work hard to promote it so that it can finally be tried after neocon failure becomes obvious to everyone. This is our big opportunity!

This article was published by RonPaul Institute.

Italy’s PM-designate Giuseppe Conte said he’s given up on attempts to form a government after President Sergio Mattarella rejected his candidacy for economy minister. The country may now face a new election by the end of 2018.

“President [Mattarella] has received Prof. Giuseppe Conte …. who returned the mandate given to him on May 23 to form the government. The president has thanked him for his effort in fulfilling this task,” Ugo Zampetti, an official within the presidential administration, told RAI. After the talk, Mattarella said that he was going to make a decision on the new parliamentary vote in the country in the coming hours.

Conte confirmed his failure to form “the government of change” in Italy, saying: “I can assure you that I did my utmost to try to fulfill this task.”

Mattarella told the media that he “agreed to all the ministers except the finance minister” proposed by the coalition. “I asked for a figure, who would mean not risking an exit from the euro,” he explained.

As for the possibility of a new election, the president said that he will “take decisions on the basis of how the situation evolves in parliament.”

The president had summoned Conte to his office in order to find a way to break the two-months-long deadlock on forming the coalition government after a similar meeting on Friday ended fruitlessly.

The candidacy for economy minister has been the main stumbling block for the creation of the new cabinet in the country. The anti-establishment Five Star Movement (M5S) and its rightist coalition ally Lega Nord, which won the most parliamentary seats in the March vote, insist on having Paolo Savona in the vital role.

M5S was outraged by Mattarella’s decision, with 5-star leader Luigi Di Maio calling it “an institutional clash without precedent” in a Facebook live video.

“What’s the point of going to vote if it’s the ratings agencies that decide?” Di Maio fumed.

Paolo Savona is a distinguished economist who served as the industry minister in 1993-94 and also worked at the Bank of Italy. But Mattarella has been refusing to appoint the 81-year-old due to concerns over his criticism of euro, the EU and Germany’s economic policies. In a book, which Savona co-authored in 2015, he argued that Italy should have a “plan B” to leave the eurozone with minimum damage if the situation calls for it.

Earlier on Sunday, Savona made a public statement to clarify his views, saying that he stands for “a different Europe, stronger, but more equal.” He said that he believes Italy’s debt should be reduced through targeted investment and stimulation of the economy, but not austerity or tax cuts.

The Centro Nacional de Investigación sobre la Evolución Humana (CENIEH) has led a new international study published in the journal Quaternary Geochronology, about the direct dating of a fossil tooth of Homo antecessor from the unit TD6 of the archaeological site of Gran Dolina in the Sierra de Atapuerca (Burgos, Spain). In the work, a time range of between 772,000 and 949,000 years was found for this species of the Lower Pleistocene, so confirming earlier indirect datings.

In order to carry out this dating, a leading-edge methodology was employed, combining high-resolution Uranium-Thorium analysis using laser ablation coupled to a mass spectrometer and measurements of a fragment of enamel by Electron Spin Resonance (ESR).

“We used the same special protocol that had previously worked successfully with the fossil remains of Homo naledi and the oldest Homo sapiens found outside Africa” said Mathieu Duval, member of the Geochronology and Geology Program of the CENIEH and now at the Australian Research Center for Human Evolution at Griffith University (Australia)

“By combining direct dating of the piece with a new, more precise paleomagnetic study of the deposits of the stratigraphic unit TD6, it was possible to obtain a dating which is consistent with the previous indirect estimates based on the sediment or fauna associated to the hominin remains”, the researcher said.

Collective work

To obtain this dating and overcome the different challenges which arose over the study duration of almost three years, collaboration was needed from specialists in different scientific disciplines such as geochronologists, geologists, archaeologists and paleoanthropologists, among whom are included several researchers from the CENIEH such as Josep María Parés and José María Bermúdez de Castro, coordinators of the program, as well as Laura Martín-Francés and Isidoro Campaña.

Researchers attached to institutions based in Australia (Griffith University), Spain (IPHES, Complutense University of Madrid), France (University of Bordeaux) and China (University of Nanjíng), also collaborated.

Gran Dolina: a dating undergoing constant evolution

With the constant improvement over time of the analytical techniques and dating methods, it has been possible to progressively refine the chronology of the archaeological site of Gran Dolina since its initial study, published in 1995.

The present work joins other recent studies centering on the lower levels. In fact, relatively recently the chronology of the level TD4, where the oldest lithic industries of the site were identified, was successfully refined.

In TD1, it has likewise been possible to date a level at the base of the sedimentary fillings, where a change of magnetic polarity, identified as the Jaramillo event, was observed: this is very difficult to detect at archaeological sites in caves and it marks a very well-defined moment approximately one million years ago.

“Gran Dolina thus becomes one of the best-dated archaeological sites in the world, adding this new direct dating of a human fossil”, said Bermúdez de Castro.

Americans’ belief in a duty to accept refugees has dipped, according to a survey showing that white Evangelicals are among the least favorable to refugees.

While 50 percent of Catholics said they think the U.S. has a responsibility to accept refugees, only 25 percent of white Evangelicals did. The white Evangelical response was statistically identical to the percentage of Republicans who saw a duty toward refugees.

Of black Protestants, 63 percent saw a duty to accept refugees. However, only 43 percent of white mainline Protestants did. About 65 percent of the religiously unaffiliated see a national duty toward refugees.

“Opinions about whether the United States has a responsibility to accept refugees – which were already deeply polarized – have grown even more so,” said the Pew Research Center, which conducted the recent survey.

Decline in support for refugee admissions among Republicans and Republican-leading independents drove the number lower, the Washington Post reports. About 74 percent of Democrats believe in an American duty to refugees.

In February 2017, a time of controversy over the Trump Administration’s new limits on refugee admissions, 56 percent of Americans said the U.S. had a responsibility to accept refugees. The figure is now at 51 percent. Republican pro-refugee sentiment dropped nine percentage points, while Democratic pro-refugee sentiment rose about 3 points.

In a March 26 letter to Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and to the U.S. State Department, Bishop Joe Vasquez, speaking as chair of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Migration, lamented the low number of refugee admissions.

“As Christians, our concerns for refugees is integral to our life of faith,” the bishop said.

“Most often they are at-risk women and children who are too vulnerable to remain in the region and/or in situations too dangerous for them to wait in the host country until the conflict at home has ended.”

Broken down along race and ethnicity, 67 percent of blacks believe the country has a duty toward refugees, compared to 59 percent of Hispanics and 46 percent of whites, Pew said.

The Pew survey of 1,503 U.S. adults conducted April 25-May 1 claims a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points.

Refugee admissions to the U.S. have declined sharply in the first half of fiscal year 2018. Muslim refugee numbers fell to 1,800, compared to about 22,900 in all of fiscal year 2017.

This is in part due to Trump administration policy that caps admissions to 45,000 people per fiscal year, the lowest cap since 1980, when Congress created the current refugee program, Pew says. The administration also restricted admissions for several months as part of a security review.

About 10,500 total refugees, and about 6,700 Christians entered the U.S. in the first half of the fiscal year. At the same point in fiscal year 2017, there were 39,100 admissions, with 18,500 Muslims and 16,900 Christians.

Using a pioneering method, researchers from the Astronomy and Astrophysics Group of the UPC and the Canary Islands Institute of Astrophysics (IAC) have found a neutron star of about 2.3 Solar masses—one of the most massive ever detected. The study was published in The Astrophysical Journal and opens a new path of knowledge in many fields of astrophysics and nuclear physics.

Neutron stars (often called pulsars) are stellar remnants that have reached the end of their evolutionary life: they result from the death of a star of between 10 and 30 Solar masses. Despite their small size (about 20 kilometres in diameter), neutron stars have more mass than the Sun, so they are extremely dense.

Researchers from the Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC) and the Canary Islands Institute of Astrophysics (IAC) used an innovative method to measure the mass of one of the heaviest neutron stars known to date. Discovered in 2011 and called PSR J2215+5135, with about 2.3 Solar masses it is one of the most massive of the more than 2,000 neutron stars known to date. Although a study published in 2011 reported evidence of a neutron star with 2.4 Solar masses, the most massive neutron stars that had previously achieved a consensus among scientists, reported in 2010 and 2013, have two Solar masses.

The study was led by Manuel Linares, Marie-Curie researcher of the Astronomy and Astrophysics Group (GAA), linked to the UPC’s Department of Physics, in collaboration with the astronomers Tariq Shahbaz and Jorge Casares of the IAC. The researchers used data obtained from the Gran Telescopio Canarias (GTC), the largest optical and infrared telescope in the world, the William Herschel Telescope (WHT), the Isaac Newton Telescope Group (ING) and the IAC-80 telescope, in combination with dynamical models of binary stars with irradiation. An article reporting on the results of the study, entitled “Peering into the dark side: magnesium lines establish a massive neutron star in PSR J2215+5135”, was published in The Astrophysical Journal.

A pioneering measurement method

The team developed a more accurate method than those used to date to measure the mass of neutron stars in compact binaries. PSR J2215+5135 is part of a binary system, in which two stars orbit around a common centre of mass: a “normal” star (like the Sun) “accompanies” the neutron star. The secondary or companion star is strongly irradiated by the neutron star.

The more massive the neutron star is, the faster the companion star moves in its orbit. The novel method uses spectral lines of hydrogen and magnesium to measure the speed at which the companion star moves. This allowed the team led by Manuel Linares to measure for the first time the speed of both sides of the companion star (the irradiated side and the shaded side), and to show that a neutron star can have more than twice the Sun’s mass.

This new method can also be applied to the rest of this growing population of neutron stars: over the last 10 years, the Fermi-LAT NASA gamma ray telescope has revealed dozens of pulsars similar to PSR J2215+5135. In principle, the method can also be used to measure the mass of black holes and white dwarfs (remnants of stars that die with more than 30 or fewer than 10 Solar masses, respectively) when they are found in similar binary systems in which irradiation is important.

Denser than an atomic nucleus

Being able to determine the maximum mass of a neutron star has very important consequences for many fields of astrophysics, as well as for nuclear physics. The interactions between nucleons (the neutrons and protons that make up the nucleus of an atom) at high densities are one of the great mysteries of physics today. Neutron stars are a natural laboratory for studying the densest and most exotic states of matter that can be imagined.

The results of the project also suggest that in order to support the weight of 2.3 Solar masses, the repulsion between particles in the nucleus of the neutron star must be sufficiently strong. This would indicate that we are unlikely to find free quarks or other exotic forms of matter in the centre of the neutron star.

Total and its partners have taken the final investment decision to launch the Zinia 2 deep offshore development in Block 17, 150 kilometers offshore Angola. The Zinia 2 project will have a production capacity of 40,000 barrels per day (b/d), sustaining Pazflor field production, on stream since 2011.

Zinia 2 is the first of several possible short-cycle developments on Block 17 that will unlock its full potential by connecting satellite reservoirs to the existing floating storage, production and offloading (FPSO) units.

“Zinia 2 opens a new chapter in the history of Block 17. This project will allow to extend the profitability of this prolific block, with over 2.6 billion barrels already produced. Thanks to the favorable fiscal framework introduced by the Angolan authorities for satellite developments, other projects similar to Zinia 2 are currently under consideration on Block 17,” said Arnaud Breuillac, President of Total Exploration & Production. “The project is also a good example of capex discipline and cost optimization: the work carried out to simplify the design while capturing deflation allowed the partners to cut the development costs by more than a half.”

Zinia 2 comprises nine wells in water depths ranging from 600 to 1,200 meters, tied back to the Pazflor FPSO with a budget of US$1.2 billion.

Total operates the Block 17 with a 40% interest, alongside affiliates of Equinor (23.33%), Exxon Mobil (20%), and BP (16.67%). Sonangol, is concessionaire. It has four FPSOs — Girassol, Dalia, Pazflor and CLOV. In 2017, its production averaged 600,000 b/d.

Total Exploration & Production in Angola
Present in Angola since 1953, Total is the country’s leading oil operator. Total’s production averaged 229,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day in 2017 from Blocks 17, 1 and 0, as well as Angola LNG.

In addition to Block 17, Total also operates the Kaombo deep offshore project in Block 32 with 30% interest. In April 2014, the final investment decision was made to develop its estimated 650 million barrels of reserves using two converted FPSOs, for a production capacity of 230,000 b/d. The start-up of the first FPSO, Kaombo Norte, is expected by summer 2018.

Total is also a partner in Blocks 14 (20%), 14K (36.75%) and 0 (10%) and Angola LNG (13.6%).

In a recent article titled ‘Challenges for Resolving Complex Conflicts’, I pointed out that existing conflict theory pays little attention to the extinction-causing conflict being ongoingly generated by human over-consumption in the finite planetary biosphere (and, among other outcomes, currently resulting in 200 species extinctions daily). I also mentioned that this conflict is sometimes inadequately identified as a conflict caused by capitalism’s drive for unending economic growth in a finite environment.

I would like to explain the psychological origin of this biosphere-annihilating conflict and how this origin has nurtured the incredibly destructive aspects of capitalism (and socialism, for that matter) from the beginning. I would also like to explain what we can do about it.

Before I do, however, let me briefly illustrate why this particular conflict configuration is so important by offering you a taste of the most recent research evidence in relation to the climate catastrophe and biosphere annihilation and why the time to resolve this conflict is rapidly running out (assuming, problematically, that we can avert nuclear war in the meantime).

In an article reporting a recent speech by Prof. James G. Anderson of Harvard University, whose research led to the Montreal Protocol in 1987 to mitigate CFC damage to the Ozone Layer, environmental journalist Robert Hunizker summarizes Anderson’s position as follows: ‘the chance of permanent ice remaining in the Arctic after 2022 is zero. Already, 80% is gone. The problem: Without an ice shield to protect frozen methane hydrates in place for millennia, the Arctic turns into a methane nightmare.’ See ‘There Is No Time Left’.

But if you think that sounds drastic, other recent research has drawn attention to the fact that the ‘alarming loss of insects will likely take down humanity before global warming hits maximum velocity…. The worldwide loss of insects is simply staggering with some reports of 75% up to 90%, happening much faster than the paleoclimate record rate of the past five major extinction events’. Without insects ‘burrowing, forming new soil, aerating soil, pollinating food crops…’ and providing food for many bird species, the biosphere simply collapses. See ‘Insect Decimation Upstages Global Warming’.

So, if we are in the process of annihilating Earth’s biosphere, which will precipitate human extinction in the near term, why aren’t we paying much more attention to the origin of this fundamental conflict? And then developing a precisely focused strategy for transcending it?

The answer to these two questions is simply this: the origin of this conflict is particularly unpalatable and, from my careful observation, most people, including conflict theorists, aren’t anxious to focus on it.

So why are human beings over-consuming in the finite planetary biosphere? Or more accurately, why are human beings who have the opportunity to do so (which doesn’t include those impoverished people living in Africa, Asia, Central/South America or anywhere else) over-consuming in the finite planetary biosphere?

They are doing so because they were terrorized into unconsciously equating consumption with a meaningful life by parents and other adults who had already internalized this same ‘learning’.

Let me explain how this happens.

At the moment of birth, a baby is genetically programmed to feel and express their feelings in response to the stimuli, both internal and external, that the baby registers. For example, as soon after birth as a baby feels hungry, they will signal that need, usually by crying or screaming. An attentive parent (or other suitable adult) will usually respond to this need by feeding the baby and the baby will express their satisfaction with this outcome, perhaps with a facial expression, in a way that most aware parents and adults will have no difficulty identifying. Similarly, if the baby is cold, in pain or experiencing any other stimulus, the baby will express their need, probably by making a loud noise. Given that babies cannot immediately use a cultural language, they use the language that was given to them by evolution: particularly audibly expressed noise of various types that an aware adult will quickly learn to interpret.

Of course, from the initial moments after birth and throughout the next few months, a baby will experience an increasing range of stimuli – including internal stimuli such as the needs for listening, understanding and love, as well as external stimuli ranging from a wet nappy to a diverse set of parental, social, climate and environmental stimuli – and will develop a diverse and expanding range of ways, now including a wider range of emotional expression but eventually starting to include spoken language, of expressing their responses, including satisfaction and enjoyment if appropriate, to these stimuli.

At some vital point, however, and certainly within the child’s first eighteen months, the child’s parents and the other significant adults in the child’s life, will start to routinely and actively interfere with the child’s emotional expression (and thus deny them satisfaction of the unique needs being expressed in each case) in order to compel the child to do as the parent/adult wishes. Of course, this is essential if you want the child to be obedient – a socially compliant slave – rather than to follow their own Self-will.

One of the critically important ways in which this denial of emotional expression occurs seems benign enough: Children who are crying angry or frightened are scared into not expressing their feelings and offered material items – such as food or a toy – to distract them instead. Unfortunately, the distractive items become addictive drugs. Unable to have their emotional needs met, the child learns to seek relief by acquiring the material substitutes offered by the parent. But as this emotional deprivation endlessly expands because the child has been denied the listening, understanding and love to develop the capacity to listen to, love and understand themself, so too does the ‘need’ for material acquisition endlessly expand.

As an aside, this explains why most violence is overtly directed at gaining control of material, rather than emotional, resources. The material resource becomes a dysfunctional and quite inadequate replacement for satisfaction of the emotional need. And, because the material resource cannot ‘work’ to meet an emotional need, the individual is most likely to keep using direct and/or structural violence to gain control of more material resources in an unconscious and utterly futile attempt to meet unidentified emotional needs.

In essence, no amount of money and other assets can replace the love denied a child that would allow them to feel and act on their feelings.

Of course, the individual who consumes more than they need and uses direct violence, or simply takes advantage of structural violence, to do so is never aware of their deeply suppressed emotional needs and of the functional ways of having these needs met. Although, I admit, this is not easy to do given that listening, understanding and love are not readily available from others who have themselves been denied these needs. Consequently, with their emotional needs now unconsciously ‘hidden’ from the individual, they will endlessly project that the needs they want met are, in fact, material.

This is the reason why members of the Rothschild family, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Amancio Ortega, Mark Zuckerberg, Carlos Slim, the Walton family and the Koch brothers, as well as the world’s other billionaires and millionaires, seek material wealth and are willing to do so by taking advantage of structures of exploitation held in place by the US military. They are certainly wealthy in the material sense; unfortunately, they are emotional voids who were never loved and do not know how to love themself or others now.

Tragically, however, this fate is not exclusive to the world’s wealthy even if they illustrate the point most graphically. As indicated above, virtually all people who live in material cultures have suffered this fate and this is readily illustrated by their ongoing excessive consumption – especially their meat-eating, fossil-fueled travel and acquisition of an endless stream of assets – in a planetary biosphere that has long been signaling ‘Enough!’

As an aside, governments that use military violence to gain control of material resources are simply governments composed of many individuals with this dysfunctionality, which is very common in industrialized countries that promote materialism. Thus, cultures that unconsciously allow and encourage this dysfunctional projection (that an emotional need is met by material acquisition) are the most violent both domestically and internationally. This also explains why industrialized (material) countries use military violence to maintain political and economic structures that allow ongoing exploitation of non-industrialized countries in Africa, Asia and Central/South America.

In summary, the individual who has all of their emotional needs met requires only the intellectual and few material resources necessary to maintain this fulfilling life: anything beyond this is not only useless, it is a burden.

If you want to read (a great deal) more detail of the explanation presented above, you will find it in ‘Why Violence?’ and ‘Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice’.

So what can we do?

Well, I would start by profoundly changing our conception of sound parenting by emphasizing the importance of nisteling to children – see ‘Nisteling: The Art of Deep Listening’ – and making ‘My Promise to Children’.

For those adults who feel incapable of nisteling or living out such a promise, I encourage you to consider doing the emotional healing necessary by ‘Putting Feelings First’.

If you already feel capable of responding powerfully to this extinction-threatening conflict between human consumption and the Earth’s biosphere, you are welcome to consider joining those who are participating in the fifteen-year strategy to reduce consumption and achieve self-reliance explained in ‘The Flame Tree Project to Save Life on Earth’ and/or to consider using sound nonviolent strategy to conduct your climate or environment campaign. See Nonviolent Campaign Strategy.

You are also welcome to consider signing the online pledge of ‘The People’s Charter to Create a Nonviolent World’.

As the material simplicity of Mohandas K. Gandhi demonstrated: Consumption is not life.

If you are not able to emulate Gandhi (at least ‘in spirit’) by living modestly, it is your own emotional dysfunctionality – particularly unconscious fear – that is the problem that needs to be addressed.

The Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) lies on Pakistan’s western border and covers an area of 27,220 square kilometers and inhabited by a population of 5,001,676 people (according to 2017 census). Its terrain is one of the most difficult in the world. Harsh environment and historical and cultural factors have made its populace one of the most rigid and toughest in the world. Love for independence and bravery are the identity of the area.

FATA is a traditional and tribal society where literacy rate is low, development is at infancy, and employment opportunities are rare. The society in FATA is governed by customs and traditions. Arms and weapons are considered as part of the dress of males. Revenge dominates all customs and traditions as it lasts for decades taking lives of people generation after generation. Tribal fighting, feuds and animosities are the normal business of the day of the people living in FATA. Despite these facts, FATA was considered as one of the most peaceful areas in the country just as Pakistan’s western border was thought to be safe for about 55 years since the independence of Pakistan. The authorities never felt a need to deploy armed forces either in FATA or Pakistan’s western border with Afghanistan since 1947.

However, the situation changed at the dawn of the 21st century. The events following 9/11 changed the situation in FATA as it did in other parts of the world. Under American pressure, the Pakistani government deployed its troops on its border with Afghanistan and also launched military operations against suspected militants settled in FATA. The successive attempts – both military and political – to clear the area from foreign militants did not succeed and various imprudent policies pursued by Pakistani government sowed the seeds of hatred in the area towards the state functionaries and institutions including the armed forces. The reactionary elements took arms against Pakistani state, formed various militia groups and militant organizations under different banners, Tahreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) being the most prominent among them. These militant groups operate either in Afghanistan or Pakistan or in both countries.

Reportedly, US has claimed that FATA provides sanctuaries to Afghan Taliban fighting against the US-led coalition forces in Afghanistan. The American government wanted a full-fledged military operation either by coalition forces or Pakistani troops in FATA to root out the resistance movement in Afghanistan. However, Pakistani government did not cede to this demand.

Alternatively, the US government launched, apparently with the help of Pakistani authorities, a campaign of drone strikes run by its premier spy agency, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which has taken the lives of over 2,500 people and left hundreds others wounded since 2005. On the other, hand they have also stated funding to the militant groups particularly TTP to start a war against the state of Pakistan which claimed around 50,000 lives and leaving many more injured in the country.

Another adventure of the CIA is the establishment of the Islamic State of Khorasan Province (ISKP) in January 2015 with former TTP militant Hafiz Saeed Khan as its leader. Defunct militants from various terrorist organizations such as TTP, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) have not only joined ISKP, but also pledged allegiance to ISIS and its leader Abu Bakr al- Baghdadi. According to the Story Maps website, during 2017 in Pakistan, ISKP carried out attack on the shrine of Sehwan Sharif and the Police Training College in Quetta, which resulted death of 150 innocent people.

There are several instances that reveal that the CIA is supporting terrorist outfits in FATA to carry out terror activities inside Pakistan such as, a CIA helicopter evacuated top TTP leadership into Afghanistan before the start of Pakistani military operation, terrorists from TTP enjoy safe havens inside Afghanistan with the help of CIA and RAW, satellite mobile phones from a Gulf state were provided to the terrorists of TTP and SWAT, the CIA helped RAW establish a base in Afghanistan, no CIA drones have ever attacked any of the TTP and SWAT terrorists, as they are freely called by BBC and western media and the Nuristan province in Afghanistan has a base run by CIA, RAW and NDS that provides full support to terrorists inside Pakistan. Recently, the CIA in collaboration with Ministry of Tribal Affairs Afghanistan through NDS is funding and patronizing the Pashtoon Tehafuz Movement to create disenchantment and ill feeling among the tribal and Pakistan government.

It was upon this background that after putting up with so much for so long, the chief of the prime intelligence agency of Pakistan ultimately confronted the CIA Director Leon E. Panetta with some highly classified and irrefutable evidence. Panetta was startled when Director-General ISI placed the facts before him in Islamabad on November 20, 2009. The deliberate leaks after the meeting of the spy chiefs of the two countries spoke of the mind of the ISI. The ISI chief had earlier conveyed the facts about the interference of CIA in acts of terrorism in Pakistan to the Government, but realizing that either the message was not strongly conveyed to the Americans or it had no desired impact on them, finally put its foot down and expressed serious concerns over the CIA’s crude interference in the country’s internal matters.

The proof about instances of covert US support to some hardened militant outfits and the terrorist activities they carried out over the past were presented to Panetta. It was indeed a startling revelation for the top US spy and a bold maneuver of ISI. This move had surprised Panetta as the evidence presented was categorically proof that the CIA officials provide assistance to perpetrators of some of the most serious and deadly attacks on offices and key persons in Pakistan’s security services. He was told that in the view of the negative impact on Pakistan’s efforts in its war on terror, the CIA must stop such activities. The clarity with which the information was meant to be a loud message to Washington and CIA headquarters at Langley that if they wanted Pakistan’s cooperation in the war on terror; it must give up playing a double game. Pakistan has publicly expressed concerns over the freedom enjoyed by the Indian intelligence agency RAW is operating from Afghanistan. RAW is not only involved in acts of terrorism in FATA, but also in Balochistan. India cannot undertake such wide-scale activities in this region without the approval and backing of the CIA. The question is: how did India develop such a huge presence in Kabul?

Peace and conflict resolution in FATA is in the wider interests of the people living in the area as well as those in the entire country and the world because of having contiguous border with Afghanistan which has become center of gravity for global terrorism. The American CIA, Israeli MOSSAD, Indian RAW and Afghani NDS have a joint base in Afghanistan from where their covert operation are not only being initiated, but monitored and controlled as well. So peace and stability is essential for socio-economic development and prosperity of the people and for that purpose meddling in FATA by foreign spy agencies particularly CIA must cease. Peace and conflict resolution in FATA would not only pave the way for socio-economic development of the area, but wit ould also contribute to the prosperity of the entire Pakistan, as well as the world. It is mentionable that Pakistan with the help of its Armed Forces has succeeded in bringing peace in FATA, but it is a challenging task to prevent foreign agencies, especially the CIA to cease their interference. It is a responsibility of new incumbent CIA chief Gina Haspel to ensure peace in Afghanistan by ceasing interference in FATA and other parts of Pakistan, including Balochistan and Karachi.

*C Andrew is a freelance journalist covering Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Upon returning to the United States from Venezuela and reading the terrible media reporting of the election, it was evident that the people of the United States are being lied to. The Intrepid News Fund and Venezuela Analysis invited me and others to come to Venezuela for the election to see first hand what actually happened so we could report what we saw and break the media blockade against Venezuela.

The US is leading an economic war against Venezuela that is causing tremendous damage, but there is also a media blockade preventing the truth from being told. Mayor Carlos Alcala Cordones of Vargas, speaking to foreign delegations, told us the media blockade was more damaging than the economic blockade.

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) summarized the biased and inaccurate media coverage, writing,

“Western media have taken an entirely different outlook to the [elections], unanimously presenting them as seriously flawed, at best, and at worst a complete sham presided over by a dictator. The New York Times (5/20/18) presented the election as ‘a contest that critics said was heavily rigged in his favor,’ Huffington Post (5/21/18) christened it ‘a vote denounced as a farce cementing autocracy in the crisis-stricken OPEC nation,’ while NPR (5/21/18) stated: ‘Nicholas [sic] Maduro has easily won a second term, but his main rivals have refused to accept the results, calling the polling fraudulent—a view shared by the United States and many independent observers.’” [Emphasis in original]

In reality, Venezuela had free, fair and transparent elections and manages the most sophisticated and accurate voting system in the world. Former President Jimmy Carter, whose Carter Center has a Democracy Program, said, “As a matter of fact, of the 92 elections that we’ve monitored, I would say that the election process in Venezuela is the best in the world.” This is consistent with others who have monitored Venezuelan elections. In the recent election, there were 150 international observers from over 30 countries who also noted the advanced nature of the election system and validated the results.

The opposition and the United States faced two choices in this election: (1) run against President Maduro and the Bolivarian Revolution, or (2) seek to undermine the election by not participating. The US decided the latter approach was the best alternative and directed its vassals in Venezuela to boycott. Henri Falcon, the leading opposition candidate, did poorly, falsely declaring the election a fraud. Not only did the boycott hurt him, but he also advocated succumbing to the United States, e.g. dollarize the economy and seek loans from the IMF and western financiers. This was not popular because such loans end up being a disaster for national sovereignty as the financiers dictate neoliberal policies that send money to the capitalists while cutting essential services for the people

Despite the boycott, Maduro received the vote of 28% of the eligible electorate, around the same as Barack Obama received in 2008 and more than he got in 2012 or Trump in 2016. The 46% turnout is similar to US turnout and much higher than countries like Chile and Switzerland.

The economic punishment is not related to democracy. There is no economic blockade of Honduras, where a coup was followed by questionable elections, or Brazil, where there was a coup, or Saudi Arabia, a monarchy without national elections. Granma, the official voice of Cuba, which has a lot of experience with US economic war, describes ten examples of efforts to destabilize the government since the election.

Why Maduro was supported by the electorate in the midst of an economic crisis

The people of Venezuela are suffering from serious impacts of the economic war being fought against them. The US sanctions combined with the drop in oil prices has sent the Venezuelan economy reeling. This election was important because Venezuela withstood the attack of the US and western powers, who refused to accept the election and tried to oust Maduro.

The Venezuelan people are well aware of who is causing their problems. When we took a tour of the Metro Cable, a Chavez-built gondola that brings people in poor neighborhoods down the hillside, we were stopped by a grandmother who had a message she wanted us to share with people in the United States. She said, “We know you want our oil, but stop punishing the people of Venezuela.”

When the Bolivarian Revolution had money from high oil prices, it was used to improve the lives of the poor. The results were marked decreases in poverty and illiteracy and increased access to health care and housing. The economic war has put stress on all of these programs, but Maduro persists despite it.

One of the great successes of the Maduro era is the Housing Mission, which built two million homes for the poor. Each home houses four to five people, meaning eight to ten million people received housing, which included furniture. This is quite an accomplishment in a nation of 32 million people. The program began in 2011 after there were devastating mudslides and hopes to reach 3 million homes by 2019.

Compare this to the United States, which is in a housing crisis, where the 2,461 people are evicted every day, and poor and middle-class families are housing-insecure. Consider the US response to the storms in Puerto Rico, where nine months later the island is still in crisis, or cities like my hometown of Baltimore, where we have thousands of homeless and 16,000 abandoned homes.

The economic sanctions are creating food shortages in Venezuela with blockades of food and medicine purchases and with some wealthy Venezuelans adding to the problem by hiding food or sending it to Colombia.  In response, Maduro announced an expansion of the Local Provision and Production Committees (CLAPs), to distribute food to six million people.

The Bolivarian Revolution is seeking food sovereignty in response to the injustices of the global food supply system, a goal made more difficult but also more essential due to the economic war. Food production is a long-term problem in Venezuela due to its oil-based economy, which caused farmers to move to urban areas in the 20th Century.

Maduro has also fought off agribusiness by banning GMO’s and the privatizing of seeds, protecting indigenous food knowledge from corporate capture and seeking to create a democratic food system.  Venezuela is an example of ecosocialism, where food systems are socialized and developed in an economically sensible and sustainable way.

These are just some of the social programs that Venezuela has sought to expand under Maduro. Maduro has also tried to break the financial blockade with oil-backed cryptocurrency.

US sanctions have had the effect of causing the people to blame the United States and unify around Maduro and the current government.

Deep Democracy Not Dictatorship

US leaders and the media describe Maduro as a dictator. It is absurd on its face when the election history of Venezuela is examined. Not only does Venezuela have lots of elections, but it is seeking to develop participatory democracy at the local level.

The Chavistas have won almost all elections since 1998, but lost two national elections. In 2007, the opposition defeated Chavez-supported constitutional amendments. In 2015, the opposition won the national assembly. In the last presidential election, Maduro narrowly defeated Henrique Capriles by 1.49%. This history shows consistently free and fair elections, not a dictatorship.

The National Constituent Assembly is pointed to as an example of dictatorship. When the opposition won a large majority, they showed their true colors by removing portraits of Hugo Chavez and Simon Bolivar. Then they passed an amnesty law for themselves where they listed all 17 years of crimes in seeking to overthrow the government. This law was found unconstitutional by the court.

The opposition promised removal of Maduro within six months and incarceration of Chavista leaders when they took power. Violent opposition protests followed that led to over 125 deaths. The Supreme Court found that three of the right wing legislators were elected by fraud and until they left, the Assembly could not act. The Assembly refused the court’s decision and in the midst of a stalemate, Maduro used his constitutional power to activate the National Constituent Assembly. The opposition tried to block the vote and 200 polling stations were besieged on election day, but it went forward. Chavistas were elected but the opposition claimed the turnout of over eight million voters was “too high” to be credible.

The National Constituent Assembly has an interesting democratic makeup. Two-thirds of the members are geographically based and one-third represent different constituencies, including trade unions, communal councils, indigenous groups, farmers, students, disabled people, and pensioners. They are currently writing amendments to the constitution, which will be voted on.

The communal councils show the participatory nature of Venezuelan democracy. The 2006 law on Community Councils allowed groups of citizens to form Citizen Assemblies that represent 150 to 400 families in urban areas, 20 families in rural areas, and 10 in indigenous communities. More than  19,000 councils have been registered. They elect their leadership, meet and decide on projects needed for the community.  They have received $1 billion in funding for various projects and have established nearly 300 communal banks, which provide micro-loans. Communes are combinations of local councils that work on larger projects.

These councils are the frontline of participatory democracy, but are ignored by the western media, as they are inconsistent with the claims of ‘dictatorship.’ For the Bolivarian Revolution, the councils are intended to ultimately replace the democratic liberal state by bringing together citizens, social movements, and community organizations, to practice direct participatory self-governance. They are a main pillar in the transition to an ecosocialist, communal state. They are a work in progress, striving toward these goals based on a belief in the sovereignty of the people, which take on more functions of the public sector as they demonstrate competence. Maduro recognizes Venezuela is still a capitalist-based economy and has identified the commune as the centerpiece of democratic socialist governance.

The example of creating real democracy, working to break from capitalism and moving to a socialized economy by and for the people, is what the United States and oligarchs fear. That is why Maduro is called a dictator and the US calls for a military coup “to restore democracy”, which really means restore the pre-1998 oligarchy and protect capitalism.

The presidential election, originally scheduled for the end of 2018, was moved up to April when the US State Department, OAS Secretary General Luis Almagro, other regional conservative governments and opposition parties called for 2018 presidential elections to be brought forward. Then, they claimed April was too soon. To appease the opposition, the government agreed to move the elections to May 20, signing an agreement with right-wing candidates Henri Falcon and Javier Bertucci that included a host of electoral guarantees. Despite this, the US and its allies said the elections were illegitimate. In the end, the elections went forward and Maduro won an easy victory.

Maduro Takes First Steps After Election

While Maduro won the election against Venezuelan candidates, he was really running against US imperialsim. Maduro overcame great challenges to win a mandate to continue the Bolivarian Revolution. After the election, he urged dialogue with the opposition, seeking to move Venezuela to peace. Maduro also ordered the US Charge d’Affaires Todd Robinson and head of political affairs (who he described as the head of the CIA), Brian Naranjo, to leave Venezuela.  He accused them of being involved in “a military conspiracy” against Venezuela. This is consistent with calls for a military coup by former Secretary of State Tillerson and Senator Rubio as well as Trump’s claims of a military option for Venezuela.

Maduro must confront the economic war and build an independent economy, alongside and often led by the communes. Grassroots activists are calling for a National Emergency Plan on food, the electric system and Internet, health care and education. China and Russia recognized Maduro’s victory. He needs their support for major projects.

Maduro and the Venezuelans still face significant obstacles. The internal traitors, who seek a return to the pre-Chavez era, have been exposed as more loyal to the US and international finance than to Venezuela will need to be held accountable. The problems of corruption and crime will continue. And, Maduro will be under threat of attacks from US-allied Colombia and Brazil.

To show solidarity, people in the US should call for an end to sanctions and threats of regime change in Venezuela. Let Venezuela be independent and pursue its Bolivarian revolutionary path. We may learn something about democracy from them.

Norwegian air service provider AVINOR with Indra and its Norwegian subsidiary, Indra Navia, as technology provider have successfully completed the first test in a series of validations within SESAR 2020 Programme to simultaneously manage traffic in multiple airports from a single remote position.

While single remote tower control has already been deployed and has been considered a revolutionary concept of Air Traffic Management, the most significant impact in terms of meeting business case objectives, operational cost-effectiveness and the lowest possible total cost of ownership is expected to be generated from multiple tower operations and/or remote center applications, Indra said.

Late March, Indra Navia hosted in their facilities at Asker the first validation exercise to assess the air traffic controller officers (ATCOs) capability when providing simultaneous air traffic services to three aerodromes from an integrated controller working position.

The testing platform, based on Indra air traffic management systems, provided a fully integrated 3D tower environment recreation of three Norwegian airports, Røst, Haugesund and Bodø with simulated traffic. All relevant information and controls were available through InNOVA, the integrated controller working position which included radar traffic views, meteorological information, relevant airport monitoring and control, and electronic flight strips for the three airports. The validation platform also composed of other tools such as voice communication system to the ATCOs.

A new short-term planning and management tool was developed specifically for the validation. This includes a time-line that provides the controller officers with an intuitive graphical indication of the imminent traffic load based on up-to-date estimations of arrival and departure times.

Three experienced ATCOs were individually exposed to three different scenarios with increasing traffic load and complexity. The exercises where followed by interviews and questionnaires on subjects such as situational awareness, human factors, workload, operational constraints, feasibility and tool support for further analysing.

The validation brings valuable information and results and will form an important base for the work towards the next maturity level of the multiple remote tower concept. Initial results clearly indicate that it is possible for a single air traffic controller to operate traffic at more than one airport simultaneously.

Avinor’s Remote Tower Program will establish Remote Towers at 15 airports and control them from a Remote Tower Centre, and Multiple Operations is a vital part of our concept. “We are very happy that this validation shows we are on the right track”, said Jan Østby, Director Remote Services, Avinor ANS.

The German cabinet has agreed to grant compensation of up to EUR1 billion (USD1.17 billion) to the utilities forced to shut down their nuclear power plants by the Energiewende, or energy transition, that the government of Chancellor Angela Merkel introduced in response to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident in Japan in March 2011. At that time, Germany was obtaining around a quarter of its electricity from 17 nuclear reactors operated by EnBW, EOn, RWE and Vattenfall.

The cabinet’s approval of a draft law at a regular meeting in Berlin follows a ruling two years ago by the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe that the 2011 decision to withdraw all of Germany’s nuclear power plants by the end of 2022 violated some property rights, enabling the possibility of compensation for the utilities affected.

The draft law envisages compensation for RWE and Vattenfall for losses incurred as a result of Energiewende. A specific figure could only be calculated in 2023, the cabinet said, but the German Environment Ministry (BMU) has said payments for the two utilities would not exceed a low single-digit-billion-euro amount and would more likely be in the high three-digit-million-euro range.

Vattenfall, a Swedish state-owned utility, took its case for compensation to the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) in Washington in 2012, which has yet to reach a conclusion.

In a BMU statement, Federal Environment Minister Svenja Schulze said the bill passed by the cabinet ensures that the accelerated phaseout of nuclear power in Germany will continued and each nuclear power plant will retain its current statutory cut-off date of 31 December 2022.

The BMU added that the bill enables the utilities to “now demand adequate financial compensation for so-called frustrated investments they made in nuclear power plants between 28 October 2010 and 16 March 2011, with legitimate expectations of the extension of their lifetime”.

In August 2011, the 13th amendment of the Nuclear Power Act came into effect, which underlined the political will to phase out nuclear power in Germany. As a result, eight of the 17 nuclear power units were closed down immediately, and the remaining nine plants will be phased-out by the end of 2022. The eight were EnBW’s Phillipsburg 1 and Neckarwestheim 1; EOn’s Isar 1 and Unterweser; RWE’s Biblis A and B and Vattenfall’s Brunsbüttel and Krümmel.

More than 100 Iranian lawmakers have signed a motion to make into law the conditions set by Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei for staying in the 2015 nuclear deal, known as the JCPOA, following the US withdrawal from the international pact, an MP said.

Speaking to the Tasnim News Agency, Hosseinali Haji Deligani said the parliamentarians have developed a motion that, if passed, would require the Iranian administration to meet the Leader’s conditions in its diplomatic talks with the European parties to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

Currently, more than 100 MPs have signed the motion, he said, adding that the number of signatures is increasing.

The said that the motion is planned to be submitted to the presiding board of the parliament after being finalized.

Titled “Receiving Guarantees from Leaders of European Parties to the JCPOA”, the motion requires the administration to obtain the guarantees demanded by Ayatollah Khamenei during the course of negotiations with the remaining parties to the nuclear agreement.

According to the conditions, the European side should issue a resolution against the US violation of UN Security Council Resolution 2231.

The EU parties should also promise not to raise the issues of Iran’s missile program and regional influence in talks with the Islamic Republic, the motion says.

Europe should guarantee that Iran’s oil would be purchased despite US obstructionist moves, according to the measure.

The motion also says that European banks must guarantee transactions with Iran, and that Europe should counter any sanctions against Iran.

Europe should respect Iran’s right to resume any suspended nuclear activity in case any of the above conditions are not met, the proposed motion further says.

In a speech from the White House on May 8, US President Donald Trump pulled his country out of the JCPOA, which was achieved in Vienna in 2015 after years of negotiations among Iran and the Group 5+1 (Russia, China, the US, Britain, France and Germany).

Following the US exit, Iran and the remaining parties have launched talks to save the accord.

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

In comments on May 23, the Leader stressed that Europeans must protect Iranian oil sales from the US pressure and continue buying Iranian crude, and must promise they would not seek new negotiations on Iran’s missile program and regional activities.

“European banks should safeguard trade with the Islamic Republic. We do not want to start a fight with these three countries (France, Germany and Britain), but based on their past records, we don’t trust them either,” Ayatollah Khamenei said.

“Europe should fully guarantee Iran’s oil sales. In case Americans can damage our oil sales…, Europeans should make up for that and buy Iranian oil,” the Leader stated.

When strongman Ramzan Kadyrov last month opened The Local, a United Arab Emirates-funded luxury hotel in the Chechen capital of Grozny and prepared to receive Egypt’s World Cup qualifying national team as its first guests, he was cashing in on more than the Russian region’s Muslim identity.

Eager to forge close ties to Middle Eastern nations, Mr. Kadyrov, who tightly controls Chechen sports, was cashing in on the fact that he has aligned himself with like-minded governments that not only stand out in their repression of dissent, but also their efforts to oppose Saudi-inspired ultra-conservative Sunni Muslim Islam.

Mr. Kadyrov, a barrel-chested man who recognizes the political utility of sports and is widely seen as a henchman of Russian President Vladimir Putin, earned his credentials by brutally suppressing an Islamist insurgency in Chechnya during his decade-long tenure.

Speaking to The Washington Post, Beslan Visambiev, a manager of a Grozny-based UAE investment fund, suggested that Mr. Putin was using Mr. Kadyrov as his point man in the Muslim world. “It seems like Putin delegated those powers to Kadyrov,” Mr. Visambiev said.

Mr. Visambiev echoed Mr. Kadyrov’s own words four years earlier when he addressed 20,000 members of his militia in a Grozny stadium.

“The time has come for us to make our conscious choice, and we say this to the whole world that we are the combat infantry of Vladimir Putin,” Mr. Kadyrov said quoting a speech given by his father shortly before he was assassinated in 2004.

Criticism by human rights groups of the UAE’s investment and Egypt’s choice of Grozny has focussed on Chechnya rather than the Emirates and Egypt, even if both countries have recently been in the news for their own alleged violations of basic rights.

The US the House of Representatives last week voted to investigate a potential US role in torture in a UAE-operated network of prisons in Yemen.

A close US ally, the UAE stands accused of being a “colonizing force” in Yemen that supports extremist militias responsible for violence against Yemeni activists and Islah, a Muslim Brotherhood-linked political party, and a bete noire of UAE crown prince Mohammed bin Zayed.

In recent days, Egypt, whose prisons are filled with an estimated 60,000 political prisoners, arrested Hazim Abdelazim, a one-time campaigner turned critic for general-turned-president Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, and prominent blogger and activist Wael Abbas.

Mr. Kadyrov, whose human rights record, like that of Prince Mohammed and Mr. Al-Sisi, has been questioned, has denounced allegations of abuse as a “myth” designed to destabilise his government.

Yet, Mr. Kadyrov’s notion of a more liberal interpretation of Islam is not dissimilar to that of Mr. Al-Sisi or Prince Mohammed, even if the effective UAE ruler has been not quite as harsh in measures against transgender, gay, and gender non-conforming people.

Both Chechnya and Egypt have in the last year brutally targeted gays, prompting Human Rights Watch to demand that world soccer body FIFA oppose a proposed Egyptian anti-LGBT law and to demand the release of Oyub Titev, the head of Chechnya’s only still operating human rights group.

The bullet-riddled body of Mr. Titev’s predecessor, Natalia Estemirova, was dumped by the road shortly after she was kidnapped in 2009.

The fact that Egypt and the UAE are the vehicles Mr. Kadyrov is using to exploit this month’s World Cup in Russia in a bid to project Chechnya on the world stage in a more positive light and polish his tarnished image is no coincidence.

Both the UAE and Egypt have been in the forefront of efforts to counter political Islam and promote more quietist, apolitical interpretations of the faith that counter Saudi-style ultra-conservatism and are more in line with their vision of autocratic rule even if both countries are closely aligned with the kingdom.

The UAE has quietly nurtured the creation of moderate Islamic institutions such as the Muslim Council of Elders, the Global Forum for Prompting Peace in Muslim Societies and the Sawab and Hedayah Centres in a bid to counter the influence of controversial, Qatar-based Islamic scholar, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood, and more militant Islamist forces.

Mr. Al-Sisi, an observant Muslim who in a 2006 paper argued that democracy cannot be understood without a grasp of the concept of the caliphate, has been advocating with limited success that Al Azhar, one of the Muslim world’s foremost institutions and the world’s oldest seat of Islamic learning, spearhead “a religious revolution” to counter militancy.

Mr. Kadyrov, who professes to be a Sufi, a more mystical interpretation of Islam, facilitated in 2016 a high point of the Emirati and Egyptian efforts when he hosted in Grozny a gathering of prominent Sunni Muslim leaders that effectively excommunicated Saudi-backed ultra-conservatism.

In a frontal assault on Saudi-backed religious movements such as Wahhabism, Salafism and Deobandism, the conference charged that the label Sunni had been hijacked by heretics whose deviant practices distorted Islam.

In defining Sunni Islam, the conference explicitly excluded Wahhabism, the version of Islam long propagated by Saudi Arabia, as well as Salafism and Deobandism from its definition.

Mr. Kadyrov’s alliance with the UAE and Egypt has allowed him to exploit Russia’s hosting of the World Cup even if Chechnya will not be a venue for any of the competition’s matches.

The alliance has also paid off in other ways. The UAE last year created the Zayed Fund that aims to support Chechen businesses and is funding construction of a gleaming skyscraper in the Chechen capital. UAE-based carrier Air Arabia launched in April direct flights from Sharjah to Grozny

The UAE-Egypt-Chechnya alliance may have produced economic benefits but appears to have done little to improve the tarnished image of the Russian republic or Mr. Kadyrov himself.

“FIFA’s decision to use Grozny for a World Cup team camp is absolutely shocking and outrageous. FIFA should reverse their decision and move the training camp to another city, ” said Human Rights Watch associate director Jane Buchanan.

FIFA last year conceded that anti-LGBT attacks in Chechnya were in “sharp contradiction to the values of FIFA as an organization and we firmly condemn them” but more recently insisted that it had “no grounds to believe that the choice of the Egyptian FA to locate its base camp in Grozny will cause particular adverse human rights impacts.”

Countered Ms. Buchanan, the author of a report on World Cup worker abuses in Russia: Mr. Kadyrov runs Chechnya “like his own fiefdom and commits human rights abuses with impunity. FIFA’s decision will only legitimize the utterly abusive Kadyrov regime.”

By Nadia Bazuk*

Gulen’s movement may be involved in a church issue in Ukraine, some details show. Let’s try to study the facts and find out whether it’s true or not.

Who is Fethullah Gulen and why is he considered a terrorist in Turkey?

Preacher and former imam Fethullah Gulen was born in 1941 in Turkey. By 1981, when he retired, he became one of the most influential clerics in the Islamic world. Gulen’s movement, known as Hizmet, has more than a thousand schools in 180 countries. Until 1999, Gulen was a close friend of Turkey’s current President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, but a conflict between them urged him to flee from the country and move to the US. From that moment, he became Erdogan’s main adversary. Erdogan’s attitude to Gulen even worsened after the 2013 corruption investigations in Turkey, when he accused the preacher of constantly interfering in the country’s domestic affairs. In 2015, Turkey put Hizmet on the list of terror organizations under the name of the Gülenist Terror Organisation (Fethullahçı Terör Örgütü, FETO). In 2016, FETO was named responsible for the July coup attempt. After that, massive purges against Hizmet‘s followers were initiated in Turkey and other countries, including Ukraine.

According to the Turkish news agency Anadolu, two FETO educational organizations and a news site Ukrayna Haber operate in Ukraine. In 2016, the news website published an interview with Gulen and became listed as a FETO-linked organization.

Attention should also be paid to Ukrayna Haber‘s editor-in-chief and founder Yunus Erdogdu. He was born in Turkey, then moved to Turkmenistan, where he got a degree and became a journalist. In the late 1990s, Erdogdu started to work at the local Zaman newspaper, which promotes Hizmet‘s ideas. In 2005, he became a correspondent for the Turkish opposition news agency Cihan in Ukraine (closed down by the government in 2016) and in 2006 founded the Ukrayna Haber website. According to Yunus Erdogdu himself, he is a Gulen follower.

After the failed coup attempt in Turkey in 2016, Erdogdu was accused of having ties with terrorists, and had to settle in Ukraine. In his articles and interviews, the journalist often lashes out at Erdogan and his government and covers the events connected to Hizmet followers.

What does Gulen’s movement have to do with the church?

Back in 2016, the Turkish media revealed information about close ties between the Ecumenical Patriarchate of the Orthodox Church in Turkey and Fethullah Gulen. In particular, the media focused on good personal relations of Patriarch Bartholomew and the preacher. Then, the information was fiercely refuted but it had already been leaked to the public.

For almost two years, there have been no visible signs of FETO attempting to influence religious organizations. However, a peculiar detail has recently emerged.

On April 9^th, during his visit to Turkey, the Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko met with Patriarch Bartholomew in his residence in Istanbul’s Fener quarter. The main issue to be discussed was the bestowal of autocephaly (independence) to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

Turkish media seem to have ignored the Fener negotiations, but it were Ukrainian news outlets that covered the event in Turkish. One of the first news pieces was published at Yunus Erdogdu’s site.

The piece, which appeared to be nearly the first among the other news in Ukrainian media, also included photos and a video that had been uploaded to the website of the Administration of the Ukrainian President about an hour before. The Ukrayna Haber‘s and the Administration’s footages seem to be identical but the video uploaded to the news site is about forty seconds longer. We have been unable to find similar footages.

Interestingly enough, Patriarch Bartholomew is titled by the author ‘Ecumenical’ while Turkey officially doesn’t recognize this status.

The meeting of Poroshenko and Bartholomew was also covered in the Turkish language by Kirim Haber Ajansi and Ukrturk news sites, but there were just a couple of photos and no video. The Ukrayna Haber seems to have obtained an exclusive footage.

Albeit Yunus Erdogdu’s site has published no news on the topic since then, it looks like someone was about to disseminate the information on the visit of Ukraine’s leader to the Fener. If it were Ukrainian government officials, why did they choose such an anti-Erdogan website? And if it were Gulen’s followers, it means they are up to foster the negotiations between Kyiv and Constantinople and have close ties with the President’s Administration. But what can be their goals? Let’s figure this out.

What does FETO need the Ukrainian Church for?

First, in case Patriarch Bartholomew bestows autocephaly to the Ukrainian Church, Gulenists will preserve and expand their influence in Ukraine through the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s structures and the newly-created Single Orthodox Church. The religious organization will require staff, and it’s a perfect moment to promote their own candidates.

Second, the Ecumenical Patriarchate will obtain a source of income not linked to the US or FETO and raise its status in the Orthodox world and Turkey. The Turkish authorities will have less opportunities to track down financial flows to the Fener and gather additional evidence of the ties of Gulenists and the Patriarchate.

Here is another detail that draws attention. For a long period of time, the Ukrainian authorities were unable to convince the Fener to bestow autocephaly to the UOC, but for some reason now Bartholomew gave his consent. FETO may have facilitated Kyiv’s efforts in exchange to the safety of its structures in Ukraine.

There is also a possibility of the involvement of US intelligence agencies, which are said to be behind FETO. They could be supplying Gulenists with information on the Ukrainian Church issue to let them design a strategy and derive as much as possible from the situation.

FETO’s interest in expanding its influence, its ties with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, a news piece with exclusive footage at a pro-Gulenist site – everything hints at the involvement of Fethullah Gulen’s organizations in the Ukraine Church issue. However, there has been no direct evidence of a confederacy of the Ukrainian authorities, Gulenists and the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and their roles are a mystery to unravel.

About the author:
*Nadia Bazuk, Freelance journalist from Ukraine with a MBA degree.

Source:
This article was published by Modern Diplomacy.

By Mark Luskus*

Veterans have made enormous sacrifices for the United States. The rest of us should ensure that they lead prosperous lives after their service.

Affordable, high-quality health care has been a cornerstone of this promise since the formation of the Veterans Health Administration. However, some people in the Trump administration apparently want to privatize veterans’ health care, which will ultimately put the health of veterans in jeopardy.

The Veterans Health Administration, a division of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, delivers health care to 9 million veterans across 170 medical centers and nearly 1,000 outpatient clinics. This impressive network is well suited to address the health needs of veterans, who are burdened with higher rates of cancer, suicide, and debilitating chronic diseases than non-veteran adults.

Despite the VA’s well publicized shortcomings, a 2016 systematic review of 69 studies concluded that VA medical centers generally provide safer and more effective care than non-VA medical centers.

However, after former Veteran Affairs Secretary, David Shulkin, departed the agency in March, he revealed that administration officials were advocating for privatization of Veterans Health Services.

If VA medical centers provide safe, effective care, why are officials discussing privatization?

Privatization advocates argue that VA medical centers are providing insufficient care, despite what outcome studies have shown. A primary grievance is excessive wait times for appointments, a problem that plagues hospital systems across the country.

In 2014, in response to excessive wait times at VA facilities, Congress approved the VA Choice program. This “privatization lite” program permits veterans to receive health care at non-VA facilities if wait times at a local center exceed 30 days, or if they live more than 40 miles from a center.

Has that worked any better? So far, there’s no evidence it has.

A large-scale, systematic review of the program isn’t available yet. But patients are reporting difficulty scheduling appointments with non-VA providers, billing issues, and perhaps most alarmingly, delays in non-VA providers sharing information with a patient’s primary VA physician.

The medical records system at the VA is robust and ensures coordination of care across a patient’s various physicians and medical sites. Receiving health care outside of the VA system appears to be creating gaps in that record, which can lead to poor patient outcomes.

Privatization is also a bad deal for taxpayers. A 2014 analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that care delivered by VA medical centers is up to 10 percent cheaper than the private sector.

Why should we pay private hospitals more for the same level of care?

Advocates for privatizing VA services are right about one thing: We can do better for our veterans.

But the best solution isn’t to shift federal dollars to private, for-profit entities. We should instead invest in our network of public medical centers that have a proven record of success.

Health care providers choose to work at the VA because they’re committed to improving the health of veterans, which has transformed them into veterans’ health experts. The commitment and expertise cannot be matched by any other hospital system, and it’s a disservice to all veterans for us to believe otherwise.

*Mark Luskus is a med student at Emory University. He’s interested in infectious diseases and public policy. Distributed by OtherWords.org.

May 2018 marks 20 years of “overt” nuclearization of South Asia wherein one is reminded of the nuclear tests at Chagai and Pokhran-II, which established nuclear deterrence between India and Pakistan. However, it pertinent to mention that the nuclearization of South Asia started with India’s so called peaceful explosion in 1974, which forced Pakistan to seek nuclear weapons in face of the existential threat from India and to contain the prospects of war with the nuclear neighbour. For Pakistan nuclearization was not a matter of prestige but a necessity, nonetheless several attempts were made to stop Pakistan even though India had conducted the PNE in 1974. Such efforts included the proposal for establishment of nuclear weapon free zone in South Asia, which was denied by India.

Later, in 1998 when India conducted two sets of nuclear tests on 11 and 13 May, albeit opening of Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty for signing in 1996, Pakistan was forced to make a tough decision to detonate its nuclear device for validation and credibility of its nuclear deterrent vis-à-vis India. Fact worth mentioning is that the violation of non-proliferation norms by India left the world in shock but no sanctions were implemented readily. However, detonation of nuclear weapons by Pakistan was responded with immediate condemning resolution from UNSC and sanctions from the US. Thus, the biasness of International community regarding Pakistan’s nuclear program was there since the beginning.

However, rationale behind Pakistan’s decision is the fact that national security has no price and if choice between international sanctions and survival would be given, survival would be opted. Overt nuclearization by both states brought nuclear deterrence into full play, which stabilized the region through fear of mutual catastrophic destruction. However, nuclear deterrence requires validation to maintain its credibility in face of ever growing threats. For Pakistan maintaining nuclear deterrence vis-à-vis India is quite an arduous task because of its continuous attempts to break free from fear of catastrophic destruction. In case of South Asia, although deterrence has brought stability but deterrence itself is in fragile state; largely because of two factors;Indian strategic ambitions, and the criminal silence of international community on massive Indian strategic build-up.

To promote its aggressive strategic ambitions, currently India is pursuing aggressive policies and doctrines like “Cold Start Doctrine (CSD) based on limited war proactive strategy” and “Joint Armed Forces Doctrine comprised of surgical strikes” which are making the future of strategic stability in region ambiguous by eliminating the deterrence stability on lower levels of conflict. India’s strategic arsenal composed of short range ballistic missile (Prithvi), medium range ballistic missile(Agni-2), intermediate range ballistic missiles(Agni IV), intercontinental ballistic missiles(Agni V), TNWs (Prahaar and Pragiti), sea launched subsonic cruise missile, ALCM and submarine launched ballistic missiles (K4 and K15) are also significant developments, which from time to time challenge the deterrence equilibrium in the region.

Moreover, the positive trajectory of Indo-US nexus and Capitol Hill’s rhetoric of “do more” for Pakistan is making South Asian political and strategic environment more and more complex. Due to possibility of long term strategic ties with India to counter China, the US has turned the blind eye towards offensive force posture of India. In addition, India is receiving continuous support from international community after Indo-US strategic deals. Recently it has been is allowed into export cartels like MTCR, Wassenaar Arrangement and Australia Group to strengthen its credential for NSG and to improve India’s military technological capabilities.

Consequently, maintaining strategic stability in an environment of continuous arms race, ongoing conflicts and offensive policies by statesmen is becoming very difficult for Pakistan to maintain. India’s offensive force posture, military modernization and arms acquisition and development including the sophisticated missile technology have ability to destabilize the region. However, Pakistan’s calculated response by developing sophisticated military technology like short range ballistic missiles (Nasr), Multiple Independently Reentry Targetable Vehicle (Ababeel) and SLCM (Babur 3) has played significant role in preservation of minimum credible deterrence. Although, Pakistan developed policy to extend deterrence at all levels of conflict spectrum, its national policy discourages arms race in the region. Hence, to maintain stability in the region and for its own security, Pakistan is relying on deterrence stability.

Last but not the least, it is the need of the hour that both states should try to achieve strategic stability and resolve underlying disputes for utilization of their resources on the segments where their populations are suffering. As arms race and ignorance of deterrence will bring nothing but more weapons, conflicts and aggressive rhetoric.

*Ahyousha Khan is a “Research Associate” at Strategic Vision Institute, Islamabad.

British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson was pranked by Russian callers who posed as the Armenian prime minister.

The Guardian reported Johnson was called by Alexei Stolyarov and Vladimir Kuznetsov, known as Lexus and Vovan.

One of the callers pretended to be new Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, and the newspaper said Johnson spoke to them for 18 minutes, discussing topics like the poisoning of former Russian spy Sergei Skripal.

A recording of the call, said to have taken place last week, was posted on YouTube.

In the recording, Johnson says Britain is “almost 100 percent sure” Russian President Vladimir Putin’s Kremlin ordered the attack on Skripal and his daughter Yulia. Moscow has denied involvement in the incident, which has sparked a crisis in U.K.-Russia relations.

Johnson was also heard lamenting the poor state of U.K. relations with Russia, saying Moscow seems “unable to resist malign activity of one kind or another.”

“We will continue to tighten the squeeze on some of the oligarchs who surround Putin,” Johnson said.

The UK Foreign Office similarly to US Senator Adam Schiff who was also pranked out of his shoes, pretended they knew the whole thing was a hoax: “we realized it was a hoax, and ended the call. We checked it out and knew immediately it was a prank call.” The office criticized the pranksters for the stunt.

“The use of chemical weapons in Salisbury and Syria and recent events in Armenia are serious matters,” it said in a statement. “These childish actions show the lack of seriousness of the caller and those behind him.”

Prime Minister Theresa May’s office said “obviously this shouldn’t have happened,” and announced there would be a government investigation into how the hoaxers got through to Johnson.

Britain is certain the comedy duo have backing from the Kremlin.

In February, I embarked on a global book tour that has, thus far, taken me to eight nations. The main theme of all my talks on various cultural, academic and media platforms was the pressing need to refocus the discussion on Palestine on the struggle, aspirations and history of the Palestinian people.

But, interacting with hundreds of people and being exposed to multiple media environments in both mainstream and alternative media, I also learned much about the changing political mood on Palestine in the Western world.

While the nations I have visited — the US, Canada, the UK (England and Scotland), the Netherlands, Austria, Australia and New Zealand — do not in any way represent all Western countries, the diverse platforms that were available to me allowed me to gain a reasonably good perspective on the ideas, perceptions and attitudes of people in government, media, academia and civil society.

First, the civil society support base for Palestine is growing exponentially, not only in the number of people who are concerned with or interested in learning about Palestine, but also in the nature of that engagement. The detachment or sense of despair of the past has all but vanished, being replaced with a proactive approach — as in people wanting to be agents of change at local and national levels.

Second, the consensus regarding support of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement is constantly increasing among unions, churches, university campuses, etc. The old view that BDS was divisive and counter-productive does not have much traction these days, and most of the remaining debates concerning BDS are not concerned with the ethics of the strategy, but rather the nature and extent of the boycott.

Third, the degree of decisiveness in supporting Palestinians has also been heightened. The wishy-washy stances that depended on the Israeli “peace movement” or Labor Party “doves,” while condemning “extremists on both sides,” have a diminishing appeal. Indeed, the successive Israeli wars on Gaza and the ongoing siege have all gradually, but irreversibly, pushed the narrative on Palestine in a whole new direction; one that has little time to wait for an Israeli awakening. The recent lethal Israeli response to Gaza’s peaceful “Great March of Return” protests has further galvanized support for Palestinians, even among relatively apolitical audiences.

Fourth, unable to push back against growing pro-Palestine movements, Israeli and pro-Israel supporters are pushing, like never before, the accusation of anti-Semitism against those who question the Israeli occupation, use the term “Israeli apartheid” or support BDS. While the tactic is no longer silencing the discussion on Palestine, it is creating the necessary distraction to divert attention, energy and resources to less urgent issues. A case in point is the British media’s obsession with the supposedly rampant anti-Semitism within the Labour Party at a time when thousands of Gazans were injured and scores killed while peacefully protesting in Gaza.

Fifth, young people are less likely to be intimidated by long-standing Israeli tactics. While the older generation of civil society leaders and activists are unwittingly beholden to the many smear tactics used by Israel and its supporters, the younger generation is not so easily cowed. Part of the reason is that digital media — social media in particular — has helped younger people achieve a degree of global connectivity that has heightened their sense of unity and resolve. The new generation of Palestinian university students and young intellectuals are also reclaiming their role in this trajectory. Their ability to connect with Western societies as insiders and outsiders has helped bridge cultural and political gaps.

Sixth, while ideas for a “one democratic state solution” are yet to achieve the critical mass that could, and will, eventually push for a change in policies amongst various governments, the so-called “two-state solution” no longer commands a dedicated following. It is almost a complete reversal from the views that permeated during my earlier world tours, nearly 20 years ago.

Seventh, some intellectual and even civil society circles are still obstructed by the erroneous thinking that the best way to convey the Palestinian viewpoint is through non-Palestinians. This belief is even championed by some Palestinians themselves (especially members of previous generations who suffered political and cultural marginalization and discrimination).

Although many anti-Zionist Jewish and Western intellectuals have been placed center stage to articulate a Palestinian message, the alienation of the Palestinians from their own discourse has proven costly. Despite strong and growing support for Palestine, there is still a serious deficiency in an authentic understanding of Palestine and the aspirations of the Palestinian people — their history, culture, everyday realities and viewpoints. Needless to say, what is needed is an urgent and complete reclamation of the narrative over Palestine and the decolonization of the Palestinian discourse.

Eighth, the connection between the Palestinian struggle for freedom and that of other indigenous groups is often highlighted, but much more can be done. Israeli supporters are actively pushing the misleading notion that Israelis are the “natives” of the land and are, thus, reaching out to indigenous communities around the world in search for common ground. While the reality is the opposite, pro-Palestine groups can do much more to link the struggle of the native Palestinians with that of other indigenous, oppressed and historically marginalized groups around the world.

A general but equally important realization I have experienced throughout my three-month journey has been the numerous personal and group initiatives carried out by thousands of people all over the world in solidarity with the Palestinian people. From 11-year-old Salma, who convinced all of her classmates in Perth, Australia, to write Palestine on the map in her geography class, despite knowing that they would all have been marked down for their action; to the elderly couple in Auckland, New Zealand, who, well into their 80s and walking with much difficulty, continue to hand Palestine flyers to passers-by at a busy street corner, as they have done for the last 20 years.

It is these people, and millions like them, who represent the real constituency for Palestine. They are fighters in the trenches of human solidarity that nobody — neither Israel nor anyone else — can possibly defeat.

By Rebecca Spong

UAE property developers are ramping up efforts to win over prospective buyers with discounts and attractive payment terms, hoping to counter the expected fall in sales during Ramadan.

The onslaught of deals come as the country is already grappling with declining real estate prices as well as an anticipated increase in the supply of residential units in the coming year.

“During the holy month, property transaction levels are known to dip and this when combined with a real estate market that is continuing to soften, developers will unsurprisingly, get creative to entice demand,” said Faisal Durrani, partner, head of research at property consultancy Cluttons.

“Offering to cover part, or all of the property transfer fee, or providing ‘special’ Ramadan
 payment plans are reflective of both a seasonal reduction in domestic buyer demand, as well as the persistence of a challenging market,” he told Arab News.

Deyaar is offering to cover 100 percent of the Dubai Land Department fee for any purchase of the last available units in its Midtown Dania district development, according to a stock exchange filing.

Emaar — the developer behind the iconic Dubai Mall — is making a similar Ramadan offer of covering the land fee on the sale of units in Downtown Dubai and the Opera District. It is also offering 50 percent off the fee on some projects in Dubai Creek Harbor, Dubai Hills Estate and Emaar South.

Abu Dhabi’s Aldar has also announced it will waive 100 percent of the property registration fee on certain developments during the holy month.

Developers are offering increasingly flexible payment terms, with Deyaar giving buyers the chance to sign up to a payment plan that comes into force three months after the purchase, with one percent monthly instalments.

The developer’s Midtown properties are priced from 680,000 dirhams ($185,125) for a one-bed apartment, with buyers due to pay 80 percent of the cost on handover. A five percent booking fee is required to secure the property. The development — which is being built in Dubai Production City — is at 35 percent completion and Deyaar is on track to hand over properties in the fourth quarter of 2019, according to to the DFM filing.

Dubai’s Emaar is also offering more payment flexibility, with four or two-year post-handover payment plans on specific projects.

Sale prices of apartments and villas in Dubai dropped by 3.8 percent last year, according to Knight Frank’s GCC property report published in April. Abu Dhabi saw a sharper drop with apartment sales prices declining by 10.2 percent and villas by 5.5 percent.

The supply in residential properties is edging up in both emirates, the report found. Dubai has an existing stock of approximately 488,000 units, with a further 37,000 units expected in 2018.

Abu Dhabi’s existing stock stands at 250,000 units, with a further 8,000 units anticipated this year.

Rental costs have also declined in the UAE, with the cost of renting villas in Dubai and and Abu Dhabi falling by 8.3 percent and 10 percent respectively last year. Apartment rents fell by 7.2 percent and 11.7 percent, according to Knight Frank data.