By Daniel Lacalle*

One of the most common fallacies of the new populists is to say that their model is the “Nordic” one and that those countries are successful examples of how “socialism works”. When I mentioned it to the Finnish Finance Minister Petteri Orpo at a recent ECR dinner, he could not believe it.

Expropriations, massive tax increases, appropriation of savings and subordinating the growth model to political control is what populists defend. The same as Venezuela, which all of them praised — from Bernie Sanders to Owen Jones or Corbyn and Chomsky — until it collapsed. Then they moved on to the fallacy of “the Nordic model”.

Do you know what interventionists forget about the Nordic nations?

They are leaders in the economic freedom index (Heritage) and ease of doing business according to the World Bank.

Private property is guaranteed by law and citizens’ savings are fully private and free of government control. All Nordic countries have been lowering the tax wedge and — until the recent US tax cuts — had lower corporate tax rates than the US.

The state does not dictate or impose schooling and healthcare (most have co-payment schemes). It simply administers and promotes choice between private and state-run services.

They are leaders in private banking, which finances the vast majority of economic activity (80%).

They are leaders in attracting capital, guaranteeing legal security and private investment.

Nordic countries are also leaders in the privatization of inefficient state-owned entities and applying world-class private company corporate governance and defending shareholder interests in semi-state owned companies (Statoil, etc).

The public sector does not dictate the growth pattern or the way in which the economy should be run, it is generated from the private sector, which finances more than 60% of research and development, and government applies private-sector best practices of efficiency and transparency in the management of public services. In addition, public officials do not have a life-long position. The opposite of the political control these populists defend.

Nordic countries have carried out successful privatizations of state sectors, from telecommunications to electricity generation and distribution. Even the postal service and some forests were privatized.

They have a labor market that is among the most flexible in the world.

In these countries, private education is encouraged through school vouchers, not forced state-run schools.

There is also the fact that it is virtually impossible to copy in the US a model used in countries with fewer inhabitants than New York, but the most important difference is that choice, freedom and private initiative are the cornerstone of Nordic nations, pillars of a society that none of the populists want to implement.

No, socialism is not the model of the Nordic countries. And the interventionists that use these countries as their “model” have a completely different system in mind. State control.

I recommend you read Scandinavian Unexceptionalism by Nima Sanandaji or “The Secret of their Success” in The Economist.

The success of the Nordic countries has been to take pro-market measures, privatize inefficient sectors and guarantee private property, wealth creation as well as legal and investment security.

The Nordic countries know that there is no welfare state without a thriving private sector, economic freedom, and private investment and that the public sector is there to facilitate, not absorb the country’s economic activity. They know that there are no tax revenues without a flourishing private sector. And they know, because they made the mistake in the past, that multiplying state intervention only leads to failure. That’s why they rejected socialism.

There is nothing Socialist about the Nordic Nations. Being leaders in Economic Freedom, free enterprise, defense of private property, leaders in private banking and entrepreneurship promotion is the opposite of socialism. Interventionists willingly want us to confuse a welfare system in a capitalist society with socialism.

Socialism is the political and economic theory which defends that the means of production, distribution, and financing should be owned or controlled by the state. Nordic countries are NOT socialist. They are capitalist societies with a welfare state, like most capitalist nations have, by the way. The US as well. And they are the first ones that understood what we all know: socialism never works.

About the author:
*Daniel Lacall is a PhD Economist and Fund Manager. His most recent book, Escape from the Central Bank Trap,  is about realistic solutions for the threat of zero-interest rates and excessive liquidity. He is also the author of Life In The Financial Markets and The Energy World Is Flat.

Source:
This article appeared at the MISES Institute and was originally published at dlacalle.com

By Matthew Allen

Voters look set to reject a radical overhaul of the Swiss financial system that calls on the central bank to take total control of money supply and bring commercial bank lending under tighter control.

The ‘sovereign money’ initiative may have captured the imagination of economists and the foreign media, but opinion polls suggest that little more than a third of Swiss voters on Sunday will support the plan.

The initiative calls for all credit issued by commercial banks to be backed with real money created by the Swiss National Bank (SNB). The central bank would issue loans to commercial banks to underpin the credit they extend to individuals and businesses.

At present, only a portion of commercial bank lending is backed by actual money. The rest of the loan exists on paper, creating a large pool of non-central bank issued ‘money’ – around 90% of the total supply in Switzerland, according to the sovereign money camp.

Proponents of the initiative fear another financial crisis if too many debtors default, as happened in 2008. Forcing commercial banks to cover every franc of credit they generate would make them think twice about issuing too much. This in turn would protect the economy against boom and bust cycles, bank collapses and customer deposits being burned, the argument runs.

Arguments against

The proposal has been rejected by the Swiss government, the SNB and a number of influential banking and economic associations – in short, the establishment. Critics say it would strip away an important revenue stream for commercial banks, making them less likely to give credit in future.

They also say the initiative fails to give proper recognition to a number of measures already taken to make banks safer.

The SNB says the sovereign money system would be unwieldly to implement, could bring into question its political independence and deflect the central bank from its mandate of achieving price stability.

Pollsters say voters appear to have paid more attention to the “no” camp arguments. The initiative only has broad support from leftwing political party supporters and people in the French-speaking part of the country. Crucially, younger voters and those on lower incomes are against the idea.
Lingering scepticism

But even if the polls are right, the very fact that the initiative has made it as far as a vote signifies a lingering resentment towards bankers following the financial crisis a decade ago, says Martin Brown, a professor of banking at the University of St Gallen.

“This shows that people are still very sceptical about banks,” he told swissinfo.ch. “They have the general impression that banks are just in it for the money rather than providing a valuable service to society.”

Brown believes the sovereign money initiative is a misplaced outlet for dissatisfaction with the banking system because it misses the real cause of the financial crisis – the fact that banks stopped lending to one another. But, irrespective of the vote result, at least it has brought such discontent out into the open, he says.

“Even if we solve the problem of banking stability, the issue of negative public opinion towards the sector still needs to be addressed,” he said. “The industry needs to concentrate harder on trust building measures in order to convince the population.”

Austria will shut seven mosques and expel 40 imams, Chancellor Sebastian Kurz announced on Friday.

During a news conference with Vice Chancellor Heinz-Christian Strache and EU Affairs Minister Gernot Blumel, Kurz said the move came as part of a crackdown on “political Islam”.

Kurz said that the investigation on several mosques and associations conducted by the Ministry of Interior and Office of Religious Affairs had been concluded and that the activities of seven mosques were found to be forbidden — one of them belonging to the Turkish-Islamic Cultural Associations (ATIB).

The Austrian chancellor added that the imams would be deported on grounds of being foreign funded.

In 2015 when Kurz was Austria’s minister for Europe, integration and foreign affairs he backed Austria’s “law on Islam” (Islamgesetz) — legislation that, among other things, banned the foreign funding of mosques and imams in Austria. The controversial law, which eventually passed through parliament, was intended to develop an Islam of “European character,” according to Kurz.

“We act decisively and actively against undesirable developments and the formation of #parallelsocieties – and will continue to do so if there are violations of the #law on Islam,” Kurz wrote on his Twitter account.

Turkey slams Austria’s move

Turkey’s presidential aide Ibrahim Kalin on his Twitter account said that Austria’s move to close seven mosques and expel imams “is a reflection of the Islamophobic, racist and discriminatory wave in this country”.

“It is an attempt to target Muslim communities for the sake of scoring cheap political points,” he said.

Kalin said that the Austrian government’s “ideologically charged practices are in violation of universal legal principles, social integration policies, minority rights and the ethics of co-existence”.

“Efforts to normalize Islamophobia and racism must be rejected under all circumstances,” he added.

Original source

A new blood test for pregnant women detects with 75-80 percent accuracy whether their pregnancies will end in premature birth. The technique can also be used to estimate a fetus’s gestational age — or the mother’s due date — as reliably as and less expensively than ultrasound.

Developed by a team of scientists led by researchers at Stanford University, the tests could help reduce problems related to premature birth, which affects 15 million infants worldwide each year. Until now, doctors have lacked a reliable way to predict whether pregnancies will end prematurely, and have struggled to accurately predict delivery dates for all types of pregnancies, especially in low-resource settings.

The blood tests are described in a paper that will be published online June 7 in Science. Stephen Quake, PhD, professor of bioengineering and of applied physics at Stanford, shares senior authorship with Mads Melbye, MD, visiting professor of medicine. The lead authors are former Stanford postdoctoral scholar Thuy Ngo, PhD, and Stanford graduate student Mira Moufarrej.

“This work is the result of a fantastic collaboration between researchers around the world,” said Quake, who is also the Lee Otterson Professor in the School of Engineering. “We have worked closely with the team at the Stanford March of Dimes Prematurity Research Center, and the research involved collaborations with scientists in Denmark, Pennsylvania and Alabama. It’s really team science at its finest.”

The tests measure the activity of maternal, placental and fetal genes by assessing maternal blood levels of cell-free RNA, tiny bits of the messenger molecule that carry the body’s genetic instructions to its protein-making factories. The team used blood samples collected during pregnancy to identify which genes gave reliable signals about gestational age and prematurity risk.

“We found that a handful of genes are very highly predictive of which women are at risk for preterm delivery,” said Melbye, who is also president and CEO of the Statens Serum Institute in Copenhagen. “I’ve spent a lot of time over the years working to understand preterm delivery. This is the first real, significant scientific progress on this problem in a long time.”

Largest cause of infant mortality in U.S.

Premature birth, in which a baby arrives at least three weeks early, affects 9 percent of U.S. births. It is the largest cause of infant mortality in the United States and the largest contributor to death before age 5 among children worldwide. In two-thirds of preterm births, the mother goes into labor spontaneously; doctors usually do not know why. Previously, the best available tests for predicting premature birth worked only in high-risk women, such as those who had already given birth prematurely, and were correct only about 20 percent of the time.

Quake first became interested in this problem when he became a parent: his daughter was born nearly a month premature. “She’s now a very healthy and active 16-year-old, but it certainly stuck in my mind that this is an important problem to work on,” Quake said.

Doctors also need better methods for measuring gestational age, he added. Obstetricians now use ultrasound scans from the first trimester of pregnancy to estimate a woman’s due date, but ultrasound gives less reliable information as pregnancy progresses, making it less useful for women who don’t get early prenatal care. Ultrasound also requires expensive equipment and trained technicians, which are unavailable in much of the developing world. In contrast, the researchers anticipate that the new blood test will be simple and cheap enough to use in low-resource settings.

‘Super-high resolution view of pregnancy’

The gestational-age test was developed by studying a cohort of 31 Danish women who gave blood weekly throughout their pregnancies. The women all had full-term pregnancies. The scientists used blood samples from 21 of them to build a statistical model, which identified nine cell-free RNAs produced by the placenta that predict gestational age, and validated the model using samples from the remaining 10 women. The estimates of gestational age given by the model were accurate about 45 percent of the time, which is comparable to 48 percent accuracy for first-trimester ultrasound estimates.

Measuring cell-free RNA in mothers’ blood also could provide a wealth of new information about fetal growth, Ngo said. “This gives a super-high resolution view of pregnancy and human development that no one’s ever seen before,” she said. “It tells us a lot about human development in normal pregnancy.”

To figure out how to predict preterm birth, the researchers used blood samples from 38 American women who were at risk for premature delivery because they had already had early contractions or had given birth to a preterm baby before. These women each gave one blood sample during the second or third trimester of their pregnancies. Of this group, 13 delivered prematurely, and the remaining 25 delivered at term. The scientists found that levels of cell-free RNA from seven genes from the mother and the placenta could predict which pregnancies would end early.

“It’s mostly maternal genes,” Moufarrej said, noting that the genes that predict prematurity are different than those that give information about gestational age. “We think it’s mom sending a signal that she’s ready to pull the ripcord.”

Biology of preterm birth still mysterious

The scientists need to validate the new tests in larger cohorts of pregnant women before they can be made available for widespread use. A blood test to detect Down syndrome that was developed by Quake’s team in 2008 is now used in more than 3 million pregnant women per year, he noted.

The biological mechanism behind preterm birth is still a mystery, but the scientists plan to investigate the roles of the genes that signal prematurity to better understand why it happens. They also hope to identify targets for drugs that could delay premature birth.

Almost a third of the natural gas fuelling UK homes and businesses could be replaced by hydrogen, a carbon free fuel, without requiring any changes to the nation’s boilers and ovens, a pioneering study by Swansea University researchers has shown.

Over time the move could cut UK carbon dioxide emissions by up to 18%.

Natural gas is used for cooking, heating and generating electricity. Domestic gas usage accounts for 9% of UK emissions. In an effort to reduce annual carbon emissions, there is presently a concerted effort from researchers worldwide to offset our usage of natural gas.

Enriching natural gas with hydrogen is one way forward. Experiments have shown that modern-day gas appliances work safely and reliably with hydrogen-enriched natural gas as the fuel. It is already used in parts of Germany and the Netherlands, with a £600m government-backed trial in the UK taking place this year.

Natural gas naturally contains a small quantity of hydrogen, although current UK legislation restricts the allowed proportion to 0.1%.

The question the Swansea team investigated was how far they could increase the percentage of hydrogen in natural gas, before it became unsuitable as a fuel, for example because the flames became unstable.

The team, Dr Charles Dunnill and Dr Daniel Jones at the University’s Energy Safety Research Institute (ESRI), found that an enrichment of around 30% is possible, when various instability phenomena are taken into account. Higher percentages make the fuel incompatible with domestic appliances, due to hydrogen’s relatively low energy content, its low density, and a high burning velocity, and a 30% enrichment by hydrogen nevertheless equates to a potential reduction of up to 18% in domestic carbon dioxide emissions.

The research was published by the Royal Society of Chemistry.

Dr Charles Dunnill of the Energy Safety Research Institute at Swansea University said, “Up to 30% of the UK’s gas supply can be replaced with hydrogen, without needing to modify people’s appliances.

As a low carbon domestic fuel, hydrogen-enriched natural gas can cut our greenhouse gas emissions, helping the UK meet its obligations under the 2016 Paris Climate Change Agreement.

Hydrogen-enrichment can make a difference now. But it could also prove a valuable stepping-stone towards a future, pure hydrogen, zero carbon gas network.”

An international team of researchers led by the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History has analyzed two 3,800-year-old Y. pestis genomes that suggest a Bronze Age origin for bubonic plague. The strain identified by the researchers was recovered from individuals in a double burial in the Samara region of Russia, who both had the same strain of the bacterium at death.

The study, published in the journal Nature Communications, shows that this strain is the oldest sequenced to date that contains the virulence factors considered characteristic of the bubonic plague, and is ancestral to the strains that caused the Justinian Plague, the Black Death and the 19th century plague epidemics in China.

The plague, caused by the bacterium Yersinia pestis, was the cause of some of the world’s deadliest pandemics, including the Justinian Plague, the Black Death, and the major epidemics that swept through China in the late 1800s. The disease continues to affect populations around the world today. Despite its historical and modern significance, the origin and age of the disease are not well understood. In particular, exactly when and where Y. pestis acquired the virulence profile that allows it to colonize and transmit through the flea vector has been unclear.

Recent studies of ancient Y. pestis genomes identified its earliest known variants, dating to the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age, but these genomes did not show the genetic signatures thought to make the plague particularly efficient – namely, adaptation to survival in fleas, which act as the main vectors that transmit the disease to mammals. This study aimed to look at more Bronze Age Y. pestis genomes, in order to investigate when and where these important adaptations occurred.

3,800-year-old double burial of two plague victims yields oldest bubonic plague genome to date

In the study, the researchers analyzed nine individuals from tombs at a site in Russia. Two of the individuals were determined to have been infected with Y. pestis at the time of their deaths. The two were buried together in a single grave and were dated to approximately 3,800 years old. Analysis of the human DNA showed that the individuals were likely from the Samara-region Srubnaya-culture, which matches with the archaeological evidence.

“Both individuals appear to have the same strain of Y. pestis,” said Kirsten Bos of the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History. “And this strain has all the genetic components we know of that are needed for the bubonic form of the disease. So plague, with the transmission potential that we know today, has been around for much longer than we thought.”

The researchers used the data collected in combination with previously sequenced Y. pestis strains to calculate the age of their newly identified lineage at around 4,000 years. This pushes back the proposed age of the bubonic plague by 1,000 years.

“Our Y. pestis isolates from around 4,000 years ago possessed all the genetic characteristics required for efficient flea transmission of plague to rodents, humans and other mammals,” said Maria Spyrou of the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, first author of the study.

Early stages of the evolution of one of humankind’s most notorious pathogens

Although prior studies had identified a single lineage of Y. pestis to be present across Eurasia during the Bronze Age, the current study suggests that there were at least two plague lineages circulating contemporaneously, and that they may have encompassed different transmission and virulence characteristics.

“Whether the lineages were equally prevalent in human populations, and the extent to which human activities contributed to their spread, are questions that would need further investigation,” said senior author Johannes Krause of the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History. “Additional Bronze Age and Iron Age plague genomes could help pinpoint key events that contributed to the high virulence and spread of one of humankind’s most notorious pathogens,” he added.

The beautifully bright and clear colorful rays of light offered by precious metals and jewels give us a rich sense of that object’s physical quality. This is due to our ability to perceive materials, which provides an estimate of the surface condition and material of objects. Humans tend to attribute value to the phenomenon of light reflecting from or passing through the surface of an object in a complex manner.

In fact, humans as a species have sought good material properties since the dawn of time. Based on this knowledge, researchers in various fields of study including neuroscience, psychology and engineering have strived to uncover the processes related to material perception that occur in our brain.

Reflective materials are materials such as mirrors and polished metals that have a surface on which light is specularly reflected. Transparent materials are materials such as glass and ice through which light permeates and refracts. The images that appear on the surfaces of these materials greatly vary in complex ways depending on what surrounds them. Because these objects can produce a countless number of images, the way in which humans distinguish between mirror and glass was unknown.

In everyday life, a viewed object and the viewer, namely, a human are hardly ever stationary at the same time. As such, it was believed that the information on visual perception sent to the brain when an object is viewed also included latent dynamic information. For instance, when a mirror (reflective material) rotates, humans are only able to perceive dynamic information on the front side of the object. However, when glass (transparent material) rotates, humans can perceive dynamic information at both the front and rear (opposite information) of the object because the object is transparent.

The research team came to the hypothesis that humans discriminate between reflective/transparent materials by using dynamic information from those materials as a cue among a vast possible selection of information. The team empirically measured the degree to which people perceive and discriminate between moving objects made of reflective and transparent materials, and used that data to develop and test a model for discriminating between reflective/transparent materials. This model correlates closely with human perception and suggests that material perception in humans can be accurately predicted.

Lead author and PhD student Hideki Tamura explained: “Because humans can distinguish between the various materials that are around them such as metal, glass and wood with very high accuracy, we initially thought that the brain carries out complex information processing to achieve this task. However, our brains may actually only perform simple information processing using cues that summarize the information we need. This discovery is expected to be applied to material property reproduction technology based on the mechanism of our brains.”

Research team leader Professor Shigeki Nakauchi said: “We come across mirrors and glass all the time in our daily lives, but they are actually very peculiar materials in terms of material perception because they do not possess any color and merely distort whatever is around them. We are able to perceive and enjoy mirror-like and glass-like properties and the other various materials in our world by way of dynamic information, which initially seemed unrelated to this perception.”

This research suggests that humans use efficient cues when discriminating between materials. More specifically, humans can apply these cues to estimate or express the material state of an object using summarized information without needing to use all the information in, for example, a moving picture. The results of this research are therefore expected to be used in material property measurement systems and material reproduction technology that take insight from the mechanism of visual perception.

A U.S. appellate court has ruled against a self-described Satanist from Chicago who had filed a lawsuit seeking to remove the motto “In God We Trust” from U.S. currency.

The ruling, released May 31, found that “a reasonable observer would not perceive the motto on currency as a religious endorsement.”

Kenneth Mayle, who describes himself as a non-theistic Satanist, filed the original lawsuit in May 2017. A lower court had dismissed the suit, and Mayle appealed.

The 36-year-old told the Chicago Tribune that carrying and using money with the motto “In God We Trust” makes him feel compelled to take part in a “submissive ritual” by spreading a religious message with which he disagrees.

He does not like to use credit or debit cards due to late and overdraft fees, as well as the potential for security breaches, and says that he would ideally prefer to use cryptocurrency for all transactions.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the currency motto “is similar to other ways in which secular symbols give a nod to the nation’s religious heritage,” such as the line “one nation under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.

A similar suit received a ruling on May 29 from the 6th Circuit Court of U.S. Appeals.

In that suit, a group of atheists and humanists argued that the motto on the currency required them to “bear, affirm, and proselytize an objectionable message in a way that…violates their core religious beliefs.”

One Jewish plaintiff also argued that “participation in any activity that ultimately leads to the superfluous printing of G-d’s name on secular documents or to the destruction of G-d’s printed name is sinful.”

A lower court had dismissed the case, saying that cash-only transactions did not compel proselytization.

The court of appeals agreed with the lower court’s ruling. It said that plaintiffs had failed to “show a specific governmental intent to infringe upon, restrict, or suppress other religious beliefs” through the motto on U.S. currency.

Although the plaintiffs said they preferred to use cash over credit or debit cards, the court said that the existence of these alternatives meant that the plaintiffs were not forced “to choose between violating their religious beliefs or suffering a serious consequence” and therefore could not demonstrate a substantial burden on their free exercise of religion.

The phrase “In God We Trust” is the official motto of the United States. It first appeared on certain U.S. coins as early as 1864. A 1956 law required all U.S. currency to bear the printed phrase.

The motto has faced several lawsuits since 1970, which have been repeatedly rejected by courts.

I keep hearing that if Trump fires Mueller we’ll face a constitutional crisis.

Or if Mueller subpoenas Trump to testify and Trump defies the subpoena, it’s a constitutional crisis.

Or if Mueller comes up with substantial evidence that Trump is guilty of colluding with Russia or of obstructing justice but the House doesn’t move to impeach him, we’ll have a constitutional crisis.

I have news for you. We’re already in a constitutional crisis. For a year and a half the president of the United States has been carrying out a systemic attack on the institutions of our democracy.

A constitutional crisis does not occur suddenly like a coup that causes a system of government to collapse. It occurs gradually, as that system is slowly weakened.

The current crisis has been unfolding since the waning days of the 2016 campaign when Trump refused to say whether he’d be bound by the election results if Hillary won.

It continued through March 4, 2017 when Trump claimed, without evidence, that Obama had wiretapped his phones in the Trump Tower during the campaign.

It deepened in May 2017 when, by his own admission, Trump was thinking of “this Russia thing” when he decided to fire FBI Director James Comey, who had been leading the bureau’s investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, andthen admitted to Russian officials that firing Comey had relieved “great pressure” on him “because of Russia,” according to a document summarizing the meeting.

A constitutional crisis becomes especially dangerous when a president of the United States tells the public it cannot trust the government of the United States.

Over the last few weeks, Trump has done just this.

First he accuses the FBI of sending a spy to secretly infiltrate his 2016 campaign “for political purposes.” Then he “demands” that the FBI investigate the spying – resulting in the Justice Department sharing portions of the FBI investigation with Trump’s allies in Congress.

Trump blames the entire Mueller investigation on a conspiratorial “deep state” intent on removing him from office. He uses pardons to demonstrate to those already being investigated that they shouldn’t cooperate because he can pardon them, too.

He claims he has the absolute right to pardon himself and can thereby immunize himself from any outcome; and asserts he has the power under the Constitution to end the investigation whenever he wants.

The constitutional crisis worsens every time Trump berates judges who disagree with him, attacks intelligence agencies that won’t do his bidding, and calls journalists and news organizations that criticize him “enemies of the people,” and their reporting, “fake news.”

It deepens when he avoids news conferences and instead communicates with his followers through tweets and rallies.

And when he treats Americans who didn’t vote for him or who disapprove of him as his personal opponents, rather than as citizens to whom he is as constitutionally accountable as to his most loyal supporters.

It intensifies when he uses the presidency as a personal fiefdom to enrich himself and his family; unilaterally breaks treaties and starts trade wars with long-standing allies; and expresses admiration for some of the most murderous dictators in the world.

The crux of America’s current constitutional crisis is this: Our system of government was designed to constrain power, but Trump doesn’t want his power to be constrained.

Our system was conceived as a means of promoting the public interest, but Trump wants to promote only his own interest.

Our system was organized to bind presidents to the Constitution, but Trump doesn’t want to be bound by anything.

The crisis will therefore worsen as long as Trump can get away with it. A megalomaniac unconstrained by countervailing power becomes only more maniacal. He will fill whatever political void exists with his unbridled ego.

The only legal way to constrain Trump is to vote for a Congress this November that will stand up to him. And then, in November 2020, vote him and his regime out of office.

If he refuses to accept the results of that election, as he threatened to do if he lost the 2016 election, he will have to be forcefully removed from office.

Friends, we are no longer trying to avert a constitutional crisis. We are living one. The question is how to stop it from destroying what’s left of our democracy.

By Georgi Gotev

(EurActiv) — Denmark is the last country still to complete its national permit procedure for the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline designed to bring Russian gas offshore to Germany under the Baltic Sea, after Nord Stream 2 obtained a permit from the Swedish government yesterday (7 June).

The ruling by the Ministry of Enterprise and Innovation in Stockholm allows Nord Stream 2 to construct and operate its planned pipeline system in the Swedish Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The permit covers an approximately 510-kilometres-long route section in the Swedish EEZ.

Industry sources told EURACTIV that even if Denmark blocks it, construction can begin on an alternative route.

“This is an important milestone for the Nord Stream 2 project. We are pleased to have obtained the Swedish government’s approval to construct and operate the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline,” said Lars O Grönstedt, Senior Advisor at Nord Stream 2, quoted in an official press release. “We are now looking forward to continuing the productive cooperation and open dialogue with the Swedish authorities during the up-coming construction phase,” adds Nicklas Andersson, Permitting Manager Sweden at Nord Stream 2.

Nord Stream 2 AG already obtained the permits required for the construction and operation of the pipeline system in Germany and Finland earlier this year. Nord Stream 2 AG has received its Construction Permit in Russia and the operation permit is just a formality.

However, the Swedish Minister of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Mikael Damberg was quoted by the Russian agency TASS as saying that Sweden has a negative attitude towards Nord Stream 2, but it “just cannot reject this project”. Demberg said that Nord Stream 2 contradicts the goals of the EU’s Energy union, as it increases the Union’s dependence on Russian gas, and also reduces the role of Ukraine as a gas transit country.

Denmark still has to rule whether the pipeline can be built near its coast. The country has passed legislation that could block the project due to security concerns.

Denmark is reportedly under “fierce pressure” from Russia, but also from the countries opposing the project, to rule one way or another.

Plan B

A Danish veto, under the new legislation, however, would not block the project, EURACTIV was told, as the Nord Stream 2 company had a plan for an alternative route.

Nord Stream 2 is similar to Nord Stream, which was launched in November 2011, but in a different political climate, in the presence of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, the then French Prime Minister François Fillon and the then EU Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger.

The routes of Nord Stream and Nord Stream 2 are not identical. Industry sources said that the route for Nord Stream 2 in the Danish EEZ was chosen precisely because at the time, Denmark was supportive and had advised that it was the most appropriate.

1. We, the Leaders of the G7, have come together in Charlevoix, Quebec, Canada on June 8–9, 2018, guided by our shared values of freedom, democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights and our commitment to promote a rules-based international order. As advanced economies and leading democracies, we share a fundamental commitment to investing in our citizens and meeting their needs and to responding to global challenges. We collectively affirm our strong determination to achieve a clean environment, clean air and clean water. We are resolved to work together in creating a healthy, prosperous, sustainable and fair future for all.

Investing in Growth that Works for Everyone

2. We share the responsibility of working together to stimulate sustainable economic growth that benefits everyone and, in particular, those most at risk of being left behind. We welcome the contribution of technological change and global integration to global economic recovery and increased job creation. The global economic outlook continues to improve, but too few citizens have benefited from that economic growth. While resilience against risk has improved among emerging market economies, recent market movements remind us of potential vulnerabilities. We will continue monitoring market developments and using all policy tools to support strong, sustainable, balanced and inclusive growth that generates widespread prosperity. We reaffirm our existing exchange rate commitments. We commit to promoting smart, sustainable and high-quality investments, such as in infrastructure, to boost growth and productivity and create quality jobs. Economic growth is fundamental to raising living standards. We also recognize that economic output alone is insufficient for measuring success and acknowledge the importance of monitoring other societal and economic indicators that measure prosperity and well-being. We are committed to removing the barriers that keep our citizens, including women and marginalized individuals, from participating fully in the global economy. We endorse the Charlevoix Commitment on Equality and Economic Growth,which reinforces our commitment to eradicate poverty, advance gender equality, foster income equality, ensure better access to financial resources and create decent work and quality of life for all.
3. In order to ensure that everyone pays their fair share, we will exchange approaches and support international efforts to deliver fair, progressive, effective and efficient tax systems. We will continue to fight tax evasion and avoidance by promoting the global implementation of international standards and addressing base erosion and profit shifting. The impacts of the digitalization of the economy on the international tax system remain key outstanding issues. We welcome the OECD interim report analyzing the impact of digitalization of the economy on the international tax system. We are committed to work together to seek a consensus-based solution by 2020.
4. We acknowledge that free, fair and mutually beneficial trade and investment, while creating reciprocal benefits, are key engines for growth and job creation. We recommit to the conclusions on trade of the Hamburg G20 Summit, in particular, we underline the crucial role of a rules-based international trading system and continue to fight protectionism. We note the importance of bilateral, regional and plurilateral agreements being open, transparent, inclusive and WTO-consistent, and commit to working to ensure they complement the multilateral trade agreements. We commit to modernize the WTO to make it more fair as soon as possible. We strive to reduce tariff barriers, non-tariff barriers and subsidies.
5. We will work together to enforce existing international rules and develop new rules where needed to foster a truly level playing field, addressing in particular non-market oriented policies and practices, and inadequate protection of intellectual property rights, such as forced technology transfer or cyber-enabled theft. We call for the start of negotiations – this year – to develop stronger international rules on market-distorting industrial subsidies and trade-distorting actions by state-owned enterprises. We also call on all members of the Global Forum on Steel Excess Capacity to fully and promptly implement its recommendations. We stress the urgent need to avoid excess capacity in other sectors such as aluminum and high technology. We call on the International Working Group on Export Credits to develop a new set of guidelines for government-supported export credits, as soon as possible in 2019.
6. To support growth and equal participation that benefits everyone, and ensure our citizens lead healthy and productive lives, we commit to supporting strong, sustainable health systems that promote access to quality and affordable healthcare and to bringing greater attention to mental health. We support efforts to promote and protect women’s and adolescents’ health and well-being through evidence-based healthcare and health information. We recognize the World Health Organization’s vital role in health emergencies, including through the Contingency Fund for Emergencies and the World Bank’s Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility, and emphasize their need for further development and continued and sustainable financing. We recommit to support our 76 partners to strengthen their implementation of the International Health Regulations, including through their development of costed national action plans and the use of diverse sources of financing and multi-stakeholder resources. We will prioritize and coordinate our global efforts to fight against antimicrobial resistance, in a “one health” approach. We will accelerate our efforts to end tuberculosis, and its resistant forms. We reconfirm our resolve to work with partners to eradicate polio and effectively manage the post-polio transition. We affirm our support for a successful replenishment of the Global Fund in 2019.
7. Public finance, including official development assistance and domestic resource mobilization, is necessary to work towards the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals of the 2030 Agenda, but alone is insufficient to support the economic growth and sustainable development necessary to lift all populations from poverty. As a result, we have committed to the Charlevoix Commitment on Innovative Financing for Development to promote economic growth in developing economies and foster greater equality of opportunity within and between countries. We will continue to invest in quality infrastructure with open access. Given rising debt levels in low income countries and the importance of debt sustainability, we call for greater debt transparency not only from low income debtor countries, but also emerging sovereign lenders and private creditors. We support the ongoing work of the Paris Club, as the principal international forum for restructuring official bilateral debt, towards the broader inclusion of emerging creditors. We recognize the value in development and humanitarian assistance that promotes greater equality of opportunity, and gender equality, and prioritizes the most vulnerable, and will continue to work to develop innovative financing models to ensure that no one is left behind.

Preparing for Jobs of the Future

8. We are resolved to ensure that all workers have access to the skills and education necessary to adapt and prosper in the new world of work brought by innovation through emerging technologies. We will promote innovation through a culture of lifelong learning among current and future generations of workers. We will expand market-driven training and education, particularly for girls and women in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields. We recognize the need to remove barriers to women’s leadership and equal opportunity to participate in all aspects of the labour market, including by eliminating violence, discrimination and harassment within and beyond the workplace. We will explore innovative new approaches to apprenticeship and vocational learning, as well as opportunities to engage employers and improve access to workplace training.
9. We highlight the importance of working towards making social protection more effective and efficient and creating quality work environments for workers, including those in non-standard forms of work. Expanding communication and collaboration between governments and businesses, social partners, educational institutions and other relevant stakeholders will be essential for preparing workers to adapt and thrive in the new world of work. To realize the benefits of artificial intelligence (AI), we endorse the Charlevoix Common Vision for the Future of Artificial Intelligence. We recognize that a human-centric approach to AI has the potential to introduce new sources of economic growth, bring significant benefits to our societies and help address some of our most pressing challenges.

Advancing Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment

10. We recognize that gender equality is fundamental for the fulfillment of human rights and is a social and economic imperative. However, gender inequality persists despite decades of international commitments to eliminate these differences. We will continue to work to remove barriers to women’s participation and decision-making in social, economic and political spheres as well as increase the opportunities for all to participate equally in all aspects of the labour market. Our path forward will promote women’s full economic participation through working to reduce the gender wage gap, supporting women business leaders and entrepreneurs and recognizing the value of unpaid care work.
11. Equal access to quality education is vital to achieve the empowerment and equal opportunity of girls and women, especially in developing contexts and countries struggling with conflict. Through the Charlevoix Declaration on Quality Education for Girls, Adolescent Girls and Women in Developing Countries, we demonstrate our commitment to increase opportunities for at least 12 years of safe and quality education for all and to dismantle the barriers to girls’ and women’s quality education, particularly in emergencies and in conflict-affected and fragile states. We recognize that marginalized girls, such as those with a disability, face additional barriers in attaining access to education.
12. Advancing gender equality and ending violence against girls and women benefits all and is a shared responsibility in which everyone, including men and boys, has a critical role to play. We endorse the Charlevoix Commitment to End Sexual and Gender-Based Violence, Abuse and Harassment in Digital Contexts, and are resolved to end all forms of sexual and gender-based violence. We strive for a future where individuals’ human rights are equally protected both offline and online; and where everyone has equal opportunity to participate in political, social, economic and cultural endeavors.

Building a More Peaceful and Secure World

13. We share a responsibility to build a more peaceful and secure world, recognizing that respect for human rights, the rule of law and equality of opportunity are necessary for lasting security and to enable economic growth that works for everyone. The global security threats we face are complex and evolving and we commit to working together to counter terrorism. We welcome the outcome of the international conference on the fight against terrorist financing, held in Paris April 25-26, 2018. Foreign terrorist fighters must be held accountable for their actions. We are committed to addressing the use of the internet for terrorist purposes, including as a tool for recruitment, training, propaganda and financing, and by working with partners such as the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism. We underscore the importance of taking concrete measures to eradicate trafficking in persons, forced labour, child labour and all forms of slavery, including modern slavery.
14. Recognizing that countries that are more equal are also more stable, more peaceful and more democratic, we are resolved to strengthen the implementation of the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda. Gender-sensitive measures that include women’s participation and perspectives to prevent and eradicate terrorism are vital to effective and sustainable results, protection from sexual and gender-based violence, and preventing other human rights abuses and violations.
15. We commit to take concerted action in responding to foreign actors who seek to undermine our democratic societies and institutions, our electoral processes, our sovereignty and our security as outlined in the Charlevoix Commitment on Defending Democracy from Foreign Threats. We recognize that such threats, particularly those originating from state actors, are not just threats to G7 nations, but to international peace and security and the rules-based international order. We call on others to join us in addressing these growing threats by increasing the resilience and security of our institutions, economies and societies, and by taking concerted action to identify and hold to account those who would do us harm.
16. We continue to call on North Korea to completely, verifiably and irreversibly dismantle all of its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and ballistic missiles as well as its related programs and facilities. We acknowledge recent developments, including North Korea’s announcement of a moratorium on nuclear testing and ballistic missile launches, a commitment to denuclearization made in the April 27 Panmunjom Declaration – assuming full implementation – and the apparent closure of the Punggye-ri nuclear test site on May 24; but we reiterate the importance of full denuclearization. The dismantlement of all of its WMD and ballistic missiles will lead to a more positive future for all people on the Korean Peninsula and a chance of prosperity for the people of North Korea, who have suffered for too long. However, more must be done and we call on all states to maintain strong pressure, including through the full implementation of relevant UNSCRs, to urge North Korea to change its course and take decisive and irreversible steps. In this context, we once again call upon North Korea to respect the human rights of its people and resolve the abductions issue immediately
17. We urge Russia to cease its destabilizing behaviour to undermine democratic systems and its support of the Syrian regime. We condemn the attack using a military-grade nerve agent in Salisbury, United Kingdom. We share and agree with the United Kingdom’s assessment that it is highly likely that the Russian Federation was responsible for the attack, and that there is no plausible alternative explanation. We urge Russia to live up to its international obligations, as well as its responsibilities as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, to uphold international peace and security. Notwithstanding, we will continue to engage with Russia on addressing regional crises and global challenges, where it is in our interests. We reiterate our condemnation of the illegal annexation of Crimea and reaffirm our enduring support for Ukrainian sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity within its internationally-recognized borders. We maintain our commitment to assisting Ukraine in implementing its ambitious and necessary reform agenda. We recall that the continuation of sanctions is clearly linked to Russia’s failure to demonstrate complete implementation of its commitments in the Minsk Agreements and respect for Ukraine’s sovereignty and we fully support the efforts within the Normandy Format and of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe for a solution to the conflict in Eastern Ukraine. Should its actions so require, we also stand ready to take further restrictive measures in order to increase costs on Russia. We remain committed to support Russian civil society and to engage and invest in people-to-people contact.
18. We strongly condemn the murderous brutality of Daesh and its oppression of civilian populations under its control. As an international community, we remain committed to the eradication of Daesh and its hateful ideology. In Syria, we also condemn the repeated and morally reprehensible use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime and by Daesh. We call on the supporters of the regime to ensure compliance with its obligation to declare and dismantle remaining chemical weapons. We deplore the fact that Syria assumed the presidency of the Conference on Disarmament in May, given its consistent and flagrant disregard of international non-proliferation norms and agreements. We reaffirm our collective commitment to the Chemical Weapons Convention and call on all states to support the upcoming Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) Special Conference of States Parties and to work together to strengthen the ability of the OPCW to promote the implementation of the Convention. We call upon those who have yet to do so to join the International Partnership Against Impunity for the Use of Chemical Weapons. We call for credible, inclusive and non-sectarian governance in Syria, facilitated by free and fair elections held to the highest international standards of transparency and accountability, with all Syrians, including members of the diaspora, eligible to participate.
19. We remain concerned about the situation in the East and South China Seas and reiterate our strong opposition to any unilateral actions that could escalate tensions and undermine regional stability and the international rules-based order. We urge all parties to pursue demilitarization of disputed features. We are committed to taking a strong stance against human rights abuse, human trafficking and corruption across the globe, especially as it impacts vulnerable populations, and we call upon the international community to take strong action against these abuses all over the world. We welcome the recent commitments made by Myanmar and we pledge to coordinate efforts to build lasting peace and support democratic transition in Myanmar, particularly in the context of the ongoing Rohingya crisis, to allow safe and unhindered humanitarian access and the safe, voluntary and dignified return of refugees and displaced people. We are deeply concerned about the lack of respect for human rights and basic democratic principles in Venezuela, as well as the spiraling economic crisis and its humanitarian repercussions. We express our concern at the continuous deterioration of the situation in Yemen and renew our call for all parties to fully comply with international humanitarian law and human rights law.
20. Recognizing the threat Iran’s ballistic missile program poses to international peace and security, we call upon Iran to refrain from launches of ballistic missiles and all other activities which are inconsistent with UNSCR 2231 – including all annexes – and destabilizing for the region, and cease proliferation of missile technology. We are committed to permanently ensuring that Iran’s nuclear program remains peaceful, in line with its international obligations and commitments to never seek, develop or acquire a nuclear weapon. We condemn all financial support of terrorism including terrorist groups sponsored by Iran. We also call upon Iran to play a constructive role by contributing to efforts to counter terrorism and achieve political solutions, reconciliation and peace in the region.
21. We remain concerned about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, especially in the light of recent events. We support the resumption without delay of substantive peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians aimed at achieving a negotiated solution that ensures the peace and security for both parties. We stress the importance of addressing as soon as possible the dire and deteriorating humanitarian and security situation in the Gaza strip.
22. Africa’s security, stability, and sustainable development are high priorities for us, and we reiterate our support for African-led initiatives, including at a regional level. We reiterate our commitment to work in partnership with the African continent, supporting the African Union Agenda 2063 in order to realize Africa’s potential. We will promote African capabilities to better prevent, respond to, and manage crisis and conflicts; and to strengthen democratic institutions. We reiterate our commitment to the stabilization, unity and democracy of Libya, which is key for the stability of the Mediterranean region and of Europe. We support the efforts of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General Salamé in pursuing an inclusive political process founded on his Action Plan and we encourage all Libyan and regional actors to uphold their constructive engagement as outlined in the June 6, 2018 statement of the President of the Security Council on Libya. We support the efforts of the Presidency Council for Libya and the Libyan Government of National Accord to consolidate State institutions.

Working Together on Climate Change, Oceans and Clean Energy

23. A healthy planet and sustainable economic growth are mutually beneficial, and therefore, we are pursuing global efforts towards a sustainable and resilient future that creates jobs for our citizens. We firmly support the broad participation and leadership of young people, girls and women in promoting sustainable development. We collectively affirm our strong determination to achieve a clean environment, clean air, clean water and healthy soil. We commit to ongoing action to strengthen our collective energy security and demonstrate leadership in ensuring that our energy systems continue to drive sustainable economic growth. We recognise that each country may chart its own path to achieving a low-emission future. We look forward to adopting a common set of guidelines at UNFCCC COP 24.
24. Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the European Union reaffirm their strong commitment to implement the Paris Agreement, through ambitious climate action; in particular through reducing emissions while stimulating innovation, enhancing adaptive capacity, strengthening and financing resilience and reducing vulnerability; as well as ensuring a just transition, including increasing efforts to mobilize climate finance from a wide variety of sources. We discussed the key role of energy transitions through the development of market based clean energy technologies and the importance of carbon pricing, technology collaboration and innovation to continue advancing economic growth and protect the environment as part of sustainable, resilient and low-carbon energy systems; as well as financing adaptive capacity. We reaffirm the commitment that we have made to our citizens to reduce air and water pollution and our greenhouse gas emissions to reach a global carbon-neutral economy over the course of the second half of the century. We welcome the adoption by the UN General Assembly of a resolution titled Towards a Global Pact for the Environment and look forward to the presentation of a report by the Secretary General in the next General Assembly.
25. Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the European Union will promote the fight against climate change through collaborative partnerships and work with all relevant partners, in particular all levels of government; local, Indigenous, remote coastal and small island communities; as well as with the private sector, international organizations and civil society to identify and assess policy gaps, needs and best practices. We recognize the contribution of the One Planet conferences to this collective effort.
26. The United States believes sustainable economic growth and development depends on universal access to affordable and reliable energy resources. It commits to ongoing action to strengthen the world’s collective energy security, including through policies that facilitates open, diverse, transparent, liquid and secure global markets for all energy sources. The United States will continue to promote energy security and economic growth in a manner that improves the health of the world’s oceans and environment, while increasing public-private investments in energy infrastructure and technology that advances the ability of countries to produce, transport, and use all available energy sources based on each country’s national circumstances. The United States will endeavour to work closely with other countries to help them access and use fossil fuels more cleanly and efficiently and help deploy renewable and other clean energy sources, given the importance of energy access and security in their Nationally Determined Contributions. The United States believes in the key role of energy transitions through the development of market-based clean energy technologies and the importance of technology collaboration and innovation to continue advancing economic growth and protect the environment as part of sustainable, resilient, and clean energy systems. The United States reiterates its commitment to advancing sustainable economic growth, and underscores the importance of continued action to reduce air and water pollution.
27. Recognizing that healthy oceans and seas directly support the livelihoods, food security and economic prosperity of billions of people, we met with the heads of state or government of the Argentina, Bangladesh, Haiti, Jamaica, Kenya, Marshall Islands, Norway, Rwanda (Chair of the African Union), Senegal, Seychelles, South Africa, Vietnam, and the heads of the United Nations, the IMF, the World Bank and the OECD, to discuss concrete actions to protect the health of marine environments and ensure a sustainable use of marine resources as part of a renewed agenda to increase global biodiversity protection. We endorse the Charlevoix Blueprint for Healthy Oceans, Seas and Resilient Coastal Communities, and will improve oceans knowledge, promote sustainable oceans and fisheries, support resilient coasts and coastal communities and address ocean plastic waste and marine litter. Recognizing that plastics play an important role in our economy and daily lives but that the current approach to producing, using, managing and disposing of plastics and poses a significant threat to the marine environment, to livelihoods and potentially to human health, we the Leaders of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom and the European Union endorse the G7 Ocean Plastics Charter.

Conclusion

28. We share the responsibility of working together to stimulate sustainable economic growth that benefits everyone, in particular, those most at risk of being left behind. We would like to thank our citizens, civil society, the Gender Equality Advisory Council, the Formal G7 Engagement Groups and other partners for their meaningful input to Canada’s presidency. We welcome the offer of the President of France to host our next Summit in 2019 and his pledge to continue G7 leadership on our common agenda.

(RFE/RL) — European leaders are fighting back against U.S. President Donald Trump after the American leader threw a summit of the Group of Seven (G7) leading industrialized nations into disarray by withdrawing his endorsement of a statement he initially had accepted.

Late on June 9, Trump tweeted that based on “false statements” by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who hosted the G7 summit in Quebec, he had instructed U.S. representatives not to endorse the final communique, which the Canadian leader had said was agreed to by all G7 nations.

In recent weeks, trading partners of the United States have criticized new tariffs on steel and aluminum imports imposed by the Trump administration.

At a news conference after the summit, Trudeau reiterated his opposition to the U.S. tariffs, and vowed to “move forward with retaliatory measures” in July.

“I have made it very clear to the president that it is not something we relish doing, but it something that we absolutely will do,” he said. “Canadians, we’re polite, we’re reasonable, but we also will not be pushed around.”

As Trump flew from the summit to a planned meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in Singapore, he lashed out at Trudeau, saying he “acted so meek and mild during our G7 meetings only to give a news conference after I left saying that, ‘US Tariffs were kind of insulting’ and he ‘will not be pushed around.’”

“Very dishonest & weak. Our Tariffs are in response to his of [sic] 270% on dairy!” Trump wrote.

Trudeau’s office released a statement quoting the prime minister as saying that he said nothing at the G7 that he hasn’t told Trump in person and voiced publicly before.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said on June 10 that Trump’s revocation of support for the joint communique was “sobering and a little depressing.”

“It’s hard, it’s depressing this time, but that’s not the end” of the G7, she said in an interview with ARD public television, adding that the European Union is preparing countermeasures against U.S. tariffs.

German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas made a veiled barb at Trump, tweeting: “With one tweet, an unsettling amount of trust can be very quickly destroyed.”

“It is even more important that Europe stands together and even more aggressively represents its interests,” Maas added.

In Paris, a French presidency official said France and Europe stood by the G7 communique and anyone departing from the commitments made at the summit would be showing their “incoherence and inconsistency.”

“International cooperation cannot depend on being angry and on sound bites. Let’s be serious,” the official said.

But Trump’s economic adviser, Larry Kudlow, told CNN that Trudeau “stabbed us in the back.”

“There is a special place in Hell for any leader that engages in bad faith diplomacy with President Donald J Trump and then tries to stab him in the back on the way out the door,” White House trade adviser Peter Navarro told Fox News.

Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland later said that Canada “does not conduct its diplomacy through ad hominem attacks.”

“We don’t think that that is a useful or productive way to do business, and perhaps we refrain particularly from ad hominem attacks when it comes to our relationship with our allies,” she added.

The eight-page G7 communique issued earlier stated that “we stand ready to take further restrictive measures to increase costs on Russia” if its behavior makes it necessary.

It also demanded that Russia “cease its destabilizing behavior, to undermine democratic systems, and its support of the Syrian regime.”

The communique was issued after tumultuous summit that mainly had Washington squaring off against its longtime allies over Russia, trade, climate issues, and the Iran nuclear accord.

Russian President Vladimir Putin dismissed criticism by the G7 as “creative babbling” and said at a summit in China on June 10 that it was time for all sides to resume cooperation.

“I believe it’s necessary to stop this creative babbling and shift to concrete issues related to real cooperation,” Putin told reporters when asked to comment on the joint statement.

He added that the G7 countries had “again” failed to provide any evidence that Russia was behind the poisoning of a former Russian double agent and his daughter in Britain in March.

Because of the disputes, many observers were not certain a statement would be issued under all seven countries’ names. Still, the meeting did not appear to bring the sides much closer together.

The G7 consists of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Britain, and the United States.

Trump had shocked many of allies with repeated calls for Russia to be readmitted into the group, which was known as the G8 when Moscow was a member of the association of the world’s leading industrial nations.

Trump told journalists on June 9 that “it would be an asset to have Russia back in.”

In response, Putin said on June 10 that Russia did not choose to leave the group and would be happy to see its member countries in Moscow. He also said he’s ready to meet with Trump once the White House is ready for a summit.

European Union countries, which make up four of the group’s seven members, agreed ahead of the summit that “a return of Russia to the G7-format summits can’t happen until substantial progress has been made in connection with the problems with Ukraine,” German Chancellor Angela Merkel said as the summit began on June 8.

At the summit’s end, Trudeau said he told Trump that he was “not remotely interested” in seeing Russia return to the G7.

British Prime Minister Theresa May also welcomed that the G7 statement recognized the need to maintain sanctions on Russia.

The statement made no reference to Russia being invited back into the G7, but the leaders did say they would continue “to engage with Russia on addressing regional crises and global challenges, where it is in our interests.”

Russia was expelled from the group four years ago after annexing Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula and fueling a war in eastern Ukraine that has killed at least 10,300 people.

Trump was asked if he thought Russia’s control over Crimea should be recognized by the international community, but he avoided answering directly and instead blamed his predecessor, Barack Obama, for the situation.

“Crimea was let go during the Obama administration and, you know, Obama can say all he wants, but he allowed Russia to take Crimea,” Trump said.

“But, with that being said,” he added, “it’s been done a long time.”

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on June 9 said Moscow was not seeking to rejoin the group. He added that Russia was “working fine in other formats,” such as the G20.

Although Merkel said the “common view” in Europe was to continue to exclude Russia, Italy’s new prime minister, Giuseppe Conte, echoed Trump’s call for returning Russia to the “negotiating table” in a post on Twitter.

U.S. allies said they were stunned by Trump’s friendly gesture toward Russia, especially considering his move last month to cite “national security” reasons for threatening to impose tariffs on the steel imports of major U.S. allies.

Many U.S. lawmakers, both Republicans and Democrats, have also expressed concern about Trump’s departure from past U.S. views on trade, Russia, and the international order. Trump has been open on his desires for better relations with Moscow.

Republican Senator John McCain, who has been at loggerheads with Trump over many issues lately, tweeted his displeasure at the president’s actions in Quebec.

“To our allies: bipartisan majorities of Americans remain pro-free trade, pro-globalization & supportive of alliances based on 70 years of shared values. Americans stand with you, even if our president doesn’t,” he wrote.

The G7 leaders also said they were “committed to permanently ensuring that Iran’s nuclear program remains peaceful in line with its international obligations and commitments to never seek, develop, or acquire a nuclear weapon.”

“We condemn all financial support of terrorism including terrorist groups sponsored by Iran. We also call upon Iran to play a constructive role by contributing to efforts to counter terrorism and achieve political solutions, reconciliation, and peace in the region,” the statement added.

It did not specifically mention the 2015 nuclear accord, which provided Tehran with relief from sanctions in return for curbs on its nuclear program. Trump withdrew from the pact in May against the wishes of the allies and Russia and China.

Sri Lanka is making steady progress towards the goal of mine free status and remains hopeful of completing mine action by 2020, Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations in Geneva Ambassador A.L.A. Azeez said.

Addressing the forum on ‘individualized approach’ on the sidelines of the Intersessional Meeting of the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention on Friday in Geneva, Ambassador Azeez recounted how Sri Lanka achieved success in what was considered a perilous task in 2009.

Ambassador Azeez highlighted Sri Lanka’s engagement in demining activity as one which had its own complexity and uniqueness. The National Policy on Reconciliation and Co-existence, in place in Sri Lanka since 2017, both underpinned and nourished the ongoing programs of peace building and development in the country, he stressed. The Ambassador said the tremendous amount of demining work that was done on the ground, paving the way for the release of lands and resettlement of affected persons, makes the case of Sri Lanka distinct from other situations that experienced similar challenges.

He said the Government of Sri Lanka committed substantial funds to sustain the program throughout the years, with adequate provision of human resources as well, leading to the capacity building, predictability and sustainability of operation, and consolidation of the gains made. Ambassador Azeez said while Sri Lanka makes steady progress towards the goal of mine free status by 2020, the country would also be able to share its knowledge and expertise with others who are engaged in mine action program in different regions.

The Sri Lanka delegation to the Inter sessional Meeting that took place in Geneva from 7-8 June, was led by P. Suresh, Secretary to the Ministry of Resettlement, Rehabilitation, Northern Development and Hindu Religious Affairs and Director of the National Mine Action Centre.

Delivering a national statement at the Intersessional Meeting, he thanked the partner countries and partner organizations for the assistance provided for Sri Lanka Mine Action Programme, which he stated was expected to be completed by 2020.

The recent attacks on churches in Indonesia may spark renewed concern that religious differences are inevitably contentious if not leading outright to violence. However, history suggests that harmonious coexistence is the norm.

By Paul Hedges*

Leaving aside the almost unimaginable spectacle of parents taking, even training, their children to die for their ideology, the recent attacks in Surabaya, Indonesia raise the issue of conflict between religious communities. While few Muslims identify with these terrorists, it may nevertheless leave the impression that it is simply the exacerbation of an essential enmity between Christians and Muslims.

Such a thesis would accord with Samuel Huntington’s well-known “Clash of Civilisations” argument, which posited that civilisational boundaries, often marked by religious identities, would define the coming world order.

Conflict and Peace between Religions

To exemplify this type of thesis, especially that conflict between religions is prevalent, one may look beyond events in Indonesia, which play into a wider militant neo-jihadi assault on Christianity, to clashes between: Jews and Muslims in Israel-Palestine; Buddhists and Muslims in Thailand, Myanmar, and Sri Lanka; Hindus and Christians and Muslims in India; or, many other examples including intra-religious violence, for instance between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland.

The list of events where we see violence across inter-religious lines in both contemporary and global history seems almost endless. However, history suggests that this may not be the whole story, indeed peaceful and positive inter-religious relations may be the norm rather than the exception.

The well-known Constitution of Medina alongside the agreement from Prophet Muhammad with the monks of St Catherine’s Monastery are signs that peaceful and harmonious inter-religious relations were endorsed by the founder of Islam. His battles were not fought against other religions, but against those who had attacked and oppressed the young Islamic community.

We could equally show other examples from history, which would include the Buddha going on missions to prevent war during his life, or Francis of Assisi setting out on a peacebuilding mission during the height of the crusades to speak with the Muslim leader Salahuddin Ayubi, better known in the West as Saladin.

Everyday Coexistence as Norm

Critics may object, though, that despite high profile or even foundational initiatives for peace that the real history of religion is one of conflict and intolerance. The facts, they may say, speak more loudly than the ideals of peace and non-violence. Yet here, I suggest, we see in the lived experience of communities at the grassroots, the real evidence that inter-religious relations need not be one of conflict but can be about harmonious coexistence.

If one looks to places today where we see faultlines between the religions, we can also see evidence of a history of intercommunal harmony. For centuries, Christians and Muslims in parts of Indonesia have shared common shrines and pilgrimage sites, some of which still exist. While little known today, this is not an exception.

If one traverses South Eastern Europe, in places such as Macedonia, one will find shrines, mosques, and churches that form sacred loci again for both Christians and Muslims. In Northern India, meanwhile, there are also shrines and sites of pilgrimage as well as holy men who have been revered by Sikhs, Hindus, and Muslims.

Again, in Sri Lanka, shrines that honour both Hindu deities and have Buddhist significance are not unknown. Indeed, across the globe where we find inter-religious communities which have lived together across the centuries we find similar things. A sharing and accommodation of religious sites in local communities.

Outside of this we also find patterns of reciprocation and lived cooperation. In traditional Indonesian society, Christians and Muslims would have exchanged gifts and also partaken in work alongside the other community: Christians would have helped build mosques, and Muslims would have helped build churches. In places such as Morocco, Muslims have been the traditional keepers of Jewish graves, while at the end of Ramadan Jews used to prepare the food for Eid-al-Fitr.

Such reciprocity and inter-religious harmony has been patterned in similar ways in many places. Indeed, we may even see it as typical. For the ordinary followers of religions living alongside those of other religions has, in most parts of the world, for most of history, simply been the norm.

Religious Violence and Empire

Samuel Huntington suggested that “Islam has bloody borders”, while European Christians fought what are called the “wars of religion” and brought their religious traditions with colonial invasion and often at gunpoint to the rest of the world. However, what we speak of here are the expansion of empires and the machinations of rulers.

It is not surprising that the edges of imperial territories show the signs of war and conflict of religion as part of cultural, ethnic, economic, and expansionist policies. However, religion also spread at times through trade, books, and gentler flows of peoples across the globe.

Here, perhaps we see the real history of inter-religious relations. A history that is not conflictual and violent, but one marked by sharing, cooperation, reciprocity, and accommodation as people live out their religious identities in relation to people with other religious identities.

Managing Religion’s Ambivalence

In such a context, finding areas of common space and agreement is more normal than conflict. Indeed, as noted, this has precedent in the foundational ideas and key leaders of many religious traditions who stressed cooperation and peace over war and conflict.

Certainly, this is not to say that left to themselves religions will live in peace. They contain traditions and trends to both conflict and coexistence. We have no reason, though, to see the former as more normal or defining than the latter. Indeed, this ambivalent nature of the sacred, as Professor Scott Appleby has termed it, means that religious leaders, devotees, and others concerned with social harmony and positive inter-religious relations have a duty to ensure that the elements favouring coexistence and harmony are promoted and extolled.

Peaceful coexistence is not a denial of one’s religion, nor downplaying its importance, but learning from its vital sources for life in the twenty-first century.

*Paul Hedges is Associate Professor in Interreligious Studies for the Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore. He maintains a blog on Interreligious Studies and related issues at: www.logosdao.wordpress.com.

By Andrei Lankov*

(FPRI) — North Korea still is described routinely as the “world’s last Stalinist country” whose population is allegedly always on the brink of starvation. These descriptions are, however, outdated. Kim Jong-un’s North Korea, while still a grossly repressive and very poor place, can be described as neither “Stalinist” nor “destitute.” It is actually a post-socialist country where the radical, if semi-hidden, market-oriented reforms have brought about considerable economic growth.

While North Korean economic statistics remain classified, foreign observers agree that the Kim Jong-un years have been an era of the remarkable economic growth. South Korea’s central bank estimated that in 2016 North Korean GDP grew by 3.9%. However, this estimate is the most conservative of all available: many diplomats and ex-pats in Pyongyang believe that the actual growth rate is higher, perhaps close to 6-7%.

The results are easy to see. There are many more cars on the streets of Pyongyang and, to a much lesser extent, other major cities are going through a construction boom; electric bicycles are increasingly common; people are better dressed and better fed; and well-stocked supermarkets sell all kinds of goods, many of which are produced locally. The positive changes are not limited to Pyongyang even though the gap between Pyongyang and the countryside is significant.

These changes are not a sign that a Leninist centrally planned economy somehow began to produce what customers need. The North Korean economy is not a state socialist one any more. Actually, the Leninist model collapsed back in the 1990s, giving way to a rather hectic but essentially market-dominated economic system. Under Kim Jong-un, those spontaneously emerging markets belatedly received official recognition. As soon as Kim Jong-un took power in late 2011, he began to introduce reforms that were remarkably like what Deng Xiaoping did in China in the 1980s.

Under Kim Jong-un’s watch, agriculture switched to a household responsibility system, thinly disguised as a “work team responsibility system” (though each family registers itself as a work team). Famers are supposed to give to the state about one third of what they harvest and are free to keep the rest. Predictably, the food production has increased compared to before, and the country is close to food self-sufficiency now.

In industry, central planning was quietly downsized, so, in most cases, enterprises now sell what they produce and buy what they need at market prices. The North Korean economic journals extol the advantages of the new approach where prices are determined by supply and demand—even though official publications studiously avoid calling this system a “market” (an ideologically dirty word), but talk instead about “prices determined by supply and demand.” Interestingly, though, the ongoing reforms, while freely discussed in specialized publications, are seldom mentioned in major media.

Nowadays, North Korea has a large number of rich people, most of whom made money on the black (or, rather, “grey”) market in the 1990s and early 2000s. Since the 1990s, rich individuals began to establish their own factories, which were formally registered under the auspices of some government agency. Now, under Kim Jong-un, such schemes have official recognition: the laws were re-written to create loopholes allowing private investors to establish their own enterprises. The new rich are doing quite well, as the booming North Korean real estate market indicates: good apartments sell for a $100,000 or even more.

However, this does not mean that Kim Jong-un wants to emulate China and its “openness and reform” policy. North Korean leaders want reforms, but they do not want openness. If anything, Kim Jong-un used newly available money to increase control over the population and the borders. North Korea’s border with China, once remarkably porous and almost unguarded, is heavily patrolled now. Soldiers are rotated frequently, so they will not form close connections with locals. These changes are reflected by both a decline in number of North Korean refugees arriving to South Korea (from 2,500 around 2010 to less than 1,000 today) and an increase in bribes one has to pay to leave (from few hundreds to few thousands U.S. dollars).

It is increasingly dangerous to watch smuggled South Korean videos, and “fashion police” patrols are always ready to apprehend people with a politically wrong haircut. The internet is banned for all but the privileged few, and most computers used by North Koreans are now equipped with a locally developed variety of the Linux operational system. This variety has one remarkable feature: it does not let computer users open any media file that does not contain a built-in digital approval from the authorities—so one cannot use it to watch smuggled foreign movies or books.

The reason is simple. Unlike China, North Korea is a divided country. It has a far more successful twin: the per capita income gap between South and North Korea is estimated to be at least 15-fold. This affluence, combined with individual freedoms, potentially makes the South Korean way of life largely attractive to the North Korean populace. North Korean leaders have good reasons to fear easing their grip on population. If regular North Koreans learn too much about prosperity and freedoms of their South Korean brethren, and become less afraid of the government, they are much more likely to behave not like the Chinese under Deng, but rather like the East Germans in 1989.

The threat of the German scenario always has loomed large in the minds of North Korean decision makers. Under Kim Jong-il, Kim Jong-un’s father, this fear was the reason why the North Korean government stubbornly refused to reform itself. However, Kim Jong-un understood that he could not stay in power for long if he did not deliver economic growth. So, he started bold experiment: unlike China or Vietnam, North Korea would do reforms, but not openness. Kim Jong-un wants a market economy, but he also wants to keep a near-Stalinist level of state control and restrictiveness.

Will this strategy work? Will “reforms without openness” deliver the desired result: sustainable economic growth under the long-term control of the Kim family? No doubt, this model will be less efficient than the Chinese one. But could it be efficient enough?

Only time will tell, but Kim Jong-un hardly has other options. Openness and liberalization, even on a modest, Chinese level are likely to result in the regime collapse. A stubborn attempt to ignore and even discourage the spontaneous growth of market economy, by contrast, would merely increase the yawning gap between North Korea and its neighbor (also making the system unstable in the longer run). So, Supreme leader Kim Jong-un has little choice but to put his faith in “reforms without openness.”

About the author:
*Andrei Lankov is a North Korea watcher and historian of North Korea.

Source:
This article was published by FPRI.

By J Nastranis

For the first time ever, the UN Security Council has put human traffickers on an international sanctions list by imposing sanctions on six leaders operating networks in Libya. Four are Libyans, including the head of a regional coast guard unit, and two Eritrean nationals.

By resolution 1970 (2011) and resolution 1973 (2011), the Security Council decided to impose individual targeted sanctions (a travel ban on individuals and an assets freeze on individuals and entities, as listed in the Annexes to the resolutions or designated by the Council’s special Committee).

The 1970 Sanctions List currently contains the names of 26 individuals and two entities. The 1970 Sanctions list was last updated on June 7, 2018.

The Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1970 (2011) works with INTERPOL to produce INTERPOL-United Nations Security Council Special Notices for listed individuals and entities. These notices promote information sharing and implementation of the measures among Member States.

The unprecedented sanctions follow widespread outrage at the end of 2017 after CNN aired footage showing the auctioning of migrant men as slaves in Libya.

“The targeted sanctions are perhaps the first step towards ending impunity of human trafficking,” said Professor Mirjam van Reisen. She and Munyaradzi Mawere have edited Human Trafficking and Trauma in the Digital Era: The Ongoing Tragedy of the Trade in Refugees from Eritrea.

“In a next step the UN Security Council must recognise the exterritorial criminal engagement of the Eritrean Regime. The UN SC should also take its responsibility to consider the Report of the UN Special Inquiry on Eritrea which concluded that within the country, crimes against humanity are committed and are ongoing,” she told IDN.

The sanctions involving a global travel ban and an assets freeze are the result of an internationally backed proposal by the Netherlands, a non-permanent member of the Security Council. It has contributed significantly to exposing the illicit Eritrean involvement abroad.

Earlier this year, Dutch Foreign Minister Halbe Zijlstra expelled Eritrea’s top diplomat in the country after warning him to put an end to the African country’s practice of enforcing a so-called “diaspora tax” on Eritreans.

Tekeste Ghebremedhin Zemuy, Eritrea’s charge d’affaires in the Netherlands, “has been declared persona non grata,” Zijlstra said in a letter to the president of the Dutch parliament.

The Dutch proposal to the Security Council to impose international sanctions was reportedly presented on May 1, 2018 but was held up by Russia, which sought to examine the evidence against the six men.

The proposal drew to no insignificant extent on the book by Professor Van Reisen and Mawere, which contains the names of several human traffickers involved in criminal networking.

Van Reisen and Mawere stress: “Crimes against Humanity are ongoing in Eritrea. Human trafficking is organised from within Eritrea and the lines between human trafficking and smuggling are blurred. Refugees believe that traffickers from within Eritrea are connected to the broader network operating outside Eritrea, which involves perpetrators all along the routes. Many who flee stay within the region, but feel that they are in constant danger.”

According to Van Reisen and Mawere, the human trafficking network leading to Tripoli and the Central Mediterranean route began in 2009, when many Eritreans were abducted and held in captivity in Sinai. There they were tortured and had ransoms extorted from them by calls to relatives and friends over mobile phone.

Some have been persecuted, such as the Eritrean trafficker Medhanie Yehdego Mered, known among refugees as ‘The General’. But in a tragic mistake the wrong person was taken to court.

According to The Guardian and a Swedish documentary, the real Medhanie was recently confirmed to be operating with a Ugandan passport from Kampala. Another Eritrean trafficker said to have a central role is Angosom Teame Akolom, also known as Angosom Wajehey or Angosom Kidane.

Angosom is alleged to be a key player in human trafficking from Eritrea among others to Egypt and Sinai. He is reported to have been a member or the head of the Eritrean Intelligence Agency in Asmara.

Van Reisen and one of the researchers, Meron Estefanos, concluded that the trafficking networks operated with knowledge of the Eritrean regime. In the book, Van Reisen and Estefanos wrote: “Linked across the region between Eritrea, Ethiopia, Sudan, Egypt and Libya, the Eritrean refugees are traded as priced commodities: the most conservative estimate of the total value of the human trafficking in trade in Eritreans is over 1 billion USD.”

According to the researchers, the financial gains are controlled through an international web of informal financial agents operating in Asmara, Khartoum, Israel, and Libya.

An Eritrean who made the journey told the researchers:

“In Khartoum, I went to an Eritrean called Zeki. I paid 1,600 USD from Khartoum to Libya. I went to Asmara Market in Khartoum. I paid to an Eritrean man, Welid, USD 2,200 USD for the crossing on the boat. They split it, they pay the Sudan people and Libya people and they keep the rest.” (Interview by Van Reisen).

Van Reisen and Estefanos spoke to an Eritrean, named as Abderaza or Abdurazak, who has been in charge of developing the route from Eritrea to Libya since 2005 or 2006:

“The alleged head of the human trafficking organisation in Libya (…) is now a wealthy man. (…) According to various sources, this Eritrean started his involvement in smuggling and human trafficking in Libya in 2005. He has residences in Libya and Dubai. Other Eritreans, working for him (…) were involved in the day-to-day organisation and collection of the payments.”

The trafficker was also identified in a report by the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), an eight-country trade bloc in Africa, which includes governments from the Horn of Africa, Nile Valley and the African Great Lakes. Its headquarters are in Djibouti City.

The Eritrean ‘top traffickers’ work with Libyans to arrange transport and accommodation. The book identifies the role of the Eritrean embassy in Libya:

“A refugee mentioned that he saw that a representative of the Eritrean Embassy in Tripoli assisted specific refugees who had been captured by the Libyan authorities while moving across Libya to Europe (…).”

A similar allegation was made in the IGAD report, which stated:

“Nevertheless, one NGO official based in the region for a significant amount of time alleges that some remaining diplomatic personnel profit from the irregular migration routes, by charging ‘fees’ to negotiate the release of people from detention centres. Two eyewitnesses appeared to corroborate these allegations when they reported that they have seen high-profile smugglers at the Eritrean embassy in Tripoli.” (cited in Van Reisen and Mawere, p. 176)

Eritrean refugees are trafficked by a Human Trafficking network led by these Eritrean traffickers. This sad reality is now confirmed by the resolution adopted by the UN Security Council, which blacklists two Eritrean traffickers and four Libyans.

Note: This article draws on Martin Plaut’s report in the Eritrea Hub.

Catalan independence referendum, held in late-2017, had thrown Spain and Catalonia into severe political crisis and has created uncertainly for the foreign investors inside Catalonia.

What fate would the Catalans have embraced had Catalonia broke away from Spain after referendum?

Catalans from all walks of life would have suffered severe problems had the pro-independence camp got what they wished for in the referendum.

Here’s some food for thought for the Catalans who voted in the referendum and who didn’t, and for the ones who had been a keen spectator from Europe and elsewhere.

State Structures

Inception of an independent state requires the setting up of the essential state structures, including central bank, tax authority, judicial system, social security, a diplomatic service, a central bank and even an army.

Though most of these state structures/elements are available to Catalonia as an Spanish state/province, there are obvious concerns whether these elements are self-sufficient and mature enough to take the responsibilities of a newly born state.

Chaos

Had Catalonia become a sovereign state, a greater political uncertainty would have arose. There would be political chaos between the ones who opted for independence and the ones who didn’t.

The ones who sought to remain with Spain, or atleast didn’t actively support pro-independence campaigns, could have ended up facing rage and infuriated gestures from the opposite camp immediately after independence (had it been achieved).

Debt, currency, exodus of businesses

Moreover, Catalans would then have to assume a significant part of Spain’s debt. They would have to find a currency other than the Euro, as Spain would veto Catalan membership in the Euro Zone.

Without a confirmed currency in the market and with political uncertainty, there would have been a likely evacuation of multinational and Spanish companies from Catalonia to other parts in Spain. Already some multinational and Spanish companies either left or declared to leave Catalonia immediately after last independence referendum.

Access to EU market

If the membership to the European Union (EU) was delayed after Catalonia’s independence, Catalan products would have lost the privilege of unrestricted access to the EU market.

This newly independent state would have lost the leverages of entering into the EU member states’ markets as a free trade zone – a leverage its commercial products enjoy now as Spanish products.

Duties on Catalan goods and services would have been imposed not only by Spain, but also by other EU member states. Moreover, in times of economic disasters, Catalonia could not have called upon the help of the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) and the European Central Bank (ECB).

By Kanak Gokarn

The Russia-China partnership has so far defied easy categorisation. Two formerly adversarial countries now enjoy a steady yet flexible relationship. Their growing engagement since the events in Ukraine in 2014 has revolved around the sale of military equipment, Russian oil sales to China, and increased Chinese financing for Russia amidst Western sanctions. Moscow and Beijing  generally agree on the shortcomings of an international order dominated by the United States and its allies. Their relationship has caused a lot of concern, especially for the United States’ as was evident in its latest National Security Strategy (NSS). However, there are certain underlying tensions within the relationship that place constraints on their bilateral ties. These relate to each side’s national interests as well as their engagement with the international order. It must be said that the two sides have been adept at managing these tensions over the years, but they may affect the trajectory of the relationship in the long run.

The driver of these anxieties is the imbalance in the relationship. While both countries are significant actors in the international arena, Russia’s anxieties in particular stem from demographics as well as economics. China’s population and GDP are almost ten times those of Russia. Russia’s exports to China are primarily raw materials and hydrocarbons. Many analyses point to the tensions inherent to this buyer-seller relationship. As Russia becomes increasingly dependent on China for investments and as a market, the latter’s power to negotiate favourable deals will only increase. Thus, Russia will remain wary of overdependence on one country, particularly one with whom many of its interests overlap. Russia’s tendency to balance various interests and preserve its strategic autonomy while expanding its influence will come into play. This would increase the likelihood of some degree of rapprochement with Europe, especially given President Trump’s recent actions that have pushed Europe and Russia closer together. Whereas since China’s priority is its economic development, Western countries are more attractive partners, even if Beijing does benefit from Russian oil.

In Ukraine, an area Russia considers being integral to its security, China refrained from directly criticizing or supporting Russia’s actions. It abstained in the Security Council vote that would have declared the Crimean referendum illegal, while issuing instructions to its domestic media outlets to refrain from connecting the issue to its own separatist problems. While many Western countries responded to the violation of Ukrainian sovereignty by imposing sanctions, China criticized their usage but ultimately complied with them.

Similarly, in the South China Sea, an area which lies within China’s ‘sphere of interest’ but does not concern Russia directly, the latter has pursued its own interests. China’s calibrated actions in the region are unlikely to invite the level of backlash Russia’s actions in Crimea did and the two have conducted joint exercises in the region. But as Russia seeks to expand its footprint in the Pacific, evident in its modernisation of its Pacific fleet, it may be drawn into the region. It has engaged in its natural tendency to balance various interests without giving the appearance of capitulating to any one power by engaging with Vietnam. Vietnam is wary of Chinese activities in the region owing to its boundaries being threatened, but Russia has cooperated with Hanoi militarily as well as in the hydrocarbon sector.

The pair’s actions in Central Asia, where both desire significant stakes, will be important in the coming years. Russia sees it an area that is key to its expanding influence. Although most Central Asian countries recognize their historic ties with Russia and the latter’s economic power and security interests in the region, some have been less than enthusiastic about participating in Russia-led projects such as the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) and the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO). Russia’s introduction of stricter immigration controls for the region has also proven to be a sore spot. China instead prefers to offer economic growth as an incentive. The region is key for China’s ‘Go West’ policy as well as a flagship project, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), to showcase its influence in Asia, but its benefits for the region are limited as Chinese firms prefer to employ Chinese workers. This form of engagement does not challenge Russia’s role as a potential security guarantor in Central and West Asia.

These tendencies—China’s pragmatism and its recognition of the importance of the West, and Russia’s balancing act and its aversion to outside encroachment in its ‘sphere of influence’—will only exacerbate the imbalance. Russia’s geopolitical weight has certain benefits for China, and China is emerging as a key economic partner for Russia. But their relentless pursuit of their national interests and their respective relations with the West might ultimately be more important than their relationship with each other, especially Russia’s ties with Europe and China’s ties with both Europe and America.

Chinese policymakers have expressed apprehension about Russia’s unpredictability, following its actions in Crimea and later Syria. The convergence between China and Russia is over their opposition to the US-led system, but they do not yet define what their roles are to be in their conception of international order. American policies under President Trump may be pushing them closer together at the moment, but this may be more out of expedience than a desire to build any sort of formal alliance. In any case, their relationship is a product of the current international context, so it is reasonable to assume a change in context could lead the two to re-evaluate their relations.

Nigeria’s President Muhammadu Buhari is on a two-day working visit to the Kingdom of Morocco.The visit is at the invitation of King Mohammed VI of Morocco. The two leaders would discuss bilateral matters during the visit, which follows the successful December 2016 official visit of King Mohammed VI to Nigeria.

Following the official welcoming ceremony in honor of the Nigerian President, King Mohammed VI and H.E. Muhammadu Buhari, presided over the signing ceremony of three cooperation agreements, including an agreement on the strategic project of the Nigeria-Morocco gas pipeline.

On this occasion, Farouk Garba Said, General Manager of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), and Amina Benkhadra, Director General of the Moroccan Office for Hydrocarbons and Mining, highlighted in an address the content of the Morocco-Nigeria joint declaration on the implementation of the next phase of the Regional Gas Pipeline strategic project connecting gas resources from Nigeria to West African countries and Morocco.

Thus, they pointed out that the Nigeria-Morocco gas pipeline project was conceived during the State visit of King Mohammed VI to Nigeria in December 2016, noting that a gas pipeline cooperation agreement was signed in Rabat on May 15, 2017, which commits both parties, NNPC and ONHYM, to jointly fund a feasibility study on the Nigeria-Morocco Pipeline Project.

“The Nigerian and Moroccan parties have worked effectively and constructively to ensure that the feasibility study for the pipeline, which is the first phase of this strategic project, is carried out by the contractor in a professional manner and in accordance with best practices,” they said, noting that “several routes have been evaluated so far. The first is an offshore route, the second is an onshore route along the coast, while the third one is a mixed route.”

The two officials said that “for economic, political, legal and security reasons, the choice was made on a combined onshore / offshore route.”

“The pipeline is approximately 5,660 km long and its CAPEX has been evaluated,” they said, noting that construction will be phased and meet the growing needs of the countries and Europe over the next 25 years.

Garba Said and Benkhadra shed light, on this occasion, on the many contributions of this strategic project, including the regional collaboration between Morocco, Nigeria, Mauritania and the ECOWAS countries in order to promote trade and development to serve the mutual interest of the countries, the integration of the economies of the sub-region in line with the NEPAD objectives, the reduction of gas flaring and the diversification of energy sources, the contribution to combating desertification by using gas as a reliable and sustainable form of energy in the sub-region and creating wealth and reducing poverty through the promotion of economic growth opportunities in the sub-region.

They added that both parties have seized the opportunity of the Summit between His Majesty the King and H.E. President Muhammadu Buhari to move on to the next step of this ambitious project, where the countries crossed by the pipeline and the ECOWAS will sign Memorandums of Understanding, in addition to the validation of the volumes available for Europe by the stakeholders in Nigeria and by the NNPC and the beginning of discussions with the Turtle gas field operators off the coast of Senegal and Mauritania, and approaching European customers who are the most important potential off-takers.

The actions planned include the estimates of investment and operating costs, the completion of the economic analysis on the basis of volumes and the finalized construction hypotheses and the beginning of discussions with international banks to test their willingness to fund this project, in addition to the preparation of preliminary documents.

Farouk Garba and Amina Benkhadra also stressed that the two Heads of State insisted on the need to take into account the ecological and environmental dimension in the various stages of the project.

Given its strategic importance and benefits, not only for Nigeria and Morocco, but also for the countries crossed by the pipeline, NNPC and ONHYM confirm their joint commitment to carry out this project, they said.

The first agreement is a joint declaration between the Kingdom of Morocco and the Federal Republic of Nigeria on the completion of the next phase of the Regional Gas Pipeline strategic project connecting gas resources from Nigeria to West African countries and Morocco, which was signed by Amina Benkhadra and Farouk Garba Said.

The second document signed is a Memorandum of Understanding between the OCP Group and the Nigeria Sovereign Investment Authority for the development of an industrial platform in Nigeria for the production of ammonia and related products. This agreement was signed by Mostapha Terrab, CEO of OCP Group, and Uche Orji, chief executive officer of the Nigeria Sovereign Investment Authority.

The third agreement is a cooperation agreement in the field of agricultural vocational training and technical supervision between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Rural Development, Water and Forests, and the Nigerian Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. It was signed by Aziz Akhannouch, Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries, Rural Development, Water and Forests, and Audu Ogbeh, Nigerian Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development.

Morocco and Nigeria are going through one of the best moments of their relationship. The ties that link them, as well as the values and principles they share, make it stronger every day. The two countries are witnessing a historical moment characterized by both countries’ political willingness to further strengthen their ties and deepen their strategic dialogue under a renewed perspective. The current regional context demands a revitalization of the co-operation that already exists between the two countries countries.

King Mohammed VI’s last visit to Abuja confirmed the close friendship between people and governments. Over the past year, officials from both countries have undertaken main efforts to consolidate their bilateral relationship: Capitalize and continue strengthening their shared values and institutionalized co-operation mechanisms; achieve a more articulated mobility between the two countries; and increase bilateral relations.

The bilateral relationship between Morocco and Nigeria lays upon mechanisms to deepen their dialogue at the highest level. The leaders of the two countries will keep working constructively to further strengthen relations between Morocco and Nigeria, achieve mutual benefits and contribute to reaching their shared goal: to make Africa the most prosperous and competitive continent in the world.

Dialogue between the two African leaders will undoubtedly enhance collaboration between their governments to advance their shared objectives, while ensuring that their bilateral relationship continues to be at its best, with a broader agenda than ever. This vital junction for Morocco-Nigeria relations will translate into more and better opportunities for the two countries.

This partnership between the two nations will take the bilateral ties to a new high and will sound the clarion call to form an all-directional, multi-layered and wide-ranging cooperation. This pragmatic cooperation in various fields between the two countries will feature fruitful achievements and exemplary highlights.

Morocco will continue to be present in Africa and reinforce south-south cooperation to contribute to the development of the continent. It is worth reminding King Mohammed’s vision for Africa that was well summarized in a statement he made at the Moroccan-Ivorian Economic Forum, held in Abidjan on February 24 2014, when he laid out a compelling vision for Africa’s development – He said that “This objective [prosperity for future generations] will even be more readily attainable when Africa overcomes its Afro-pessimism and unlocks its intellectual and material potential as well as that of all African peoples. Just imagine what our continent will look like, once it frees itself of its constraints and burdens!” Certainly, the current Nigerian President visit to Morocco will grant bright prospects of Morocco-Nigeria bilateral relations.

There is a lot of tattle going on about why the Australian National University rebuffed, after a series of talks, the offer for the establishment of a specific bachelors degree that would feature Western Civilisation as its content. It would have been managed under the auspices of the Ramsay Centre for Western Civilisation. Besides, universities have been directing their attention to meaningless, tarted guff for decades, whether it be a bachelors degree in surfing, or the various toilet roll supplements that degrees in media and communication provide.

This, however, was deemed different. It’s not popular to talk about Western Civilisation these days, notably in capitals, and certainly not in an environment where sexual politics and identity platforms count. The term suggests dead white men of scolding gravitas, even if a few of them were unnervingly bright and ahead of their time. But in Australia, the issue seems to be that much touchier, and uglier. Education is periodically packaged as a diorama for culture wars, and the commanders and grunts are uncompromising in their ideological positions.

In a country given over to the ad hominem stab, and the physical, as opposed to verbal putdown, victories are won through beating contenders into oblivion. The issues here are motivations, political agendas, and visions.

The effort to set up a funding stream for a Western Civilisation degree was imperilled from the start by the two front men in the endeavour, notably former Australian prime ministers Tony Abbott and John Howard. Both are members of the Ramsay Centre, the latter being its current chair. The very fact that these men had become advocates for the enterprise suggested a program and a platform beyond an offer for money and mere cultivation. On the table was essentially a program of inculcation to be controlled by the Centre, a form of soft power a grade above the norm.

There is much irony in this. Both Abbott and Howard were the conservative stalwarts who have done wonders to convert Australia into an arid world of accountants and price watchers, rendering the country a collective of aspirational voters crushed by mortgages who salivate, or despair, at the next economic forecast. Such principles have little to do with the civilizational purpose of Athens and its peripatetic walk and certainly nothing to do with the philosophe punchers who made up the Encyclopaedists. As for talk of liberty, Abbott’s meditations soon veer into the territory of the Vatican, whose values he cherishes with parochial dedication.

Australia’s perfected political suicide Abbott arguably lobbed a grenade of considerable proportion when promoting the merits of the Ramsay program in a piece for Australia’s foremost conservative magazine, Quadrant. In its pages, his praise for late health mogul raises an assortment of questions.

He writes about the acquisitive Cecil Rhodes, a person distinctly out of favour with anti-imperialists and not indifferent to looting for empire, with infantile enthusiasm. He then charts Ramsay’s vision about a syllabus that would “foster undergraduate courses in the Western canon at three leading Australian universities with scholarships” to contend with “life’s biggest issues and history’s greatest challenges” and so forth. (Whether this is Abbott talking, or Ramsay, is hard to say.)

Then Abbott starts laying his own booby traps. “The key to understanding the Ramsay Centre for Western Civilisation is that it’s not merely about Western civilisation but in favour of it.” This made it “distinctive”. “This is an important national project.” The only thing to fear here was the dictum of John O’Sullivan, current international editor of Quadrant: “every organisation that’s not explicitly right-wing, over time becomes left-wing.”

In the schemes of negotiation, this did not play well. Australia’s national university was essentially being told that autonomy over the program – selection of staff, selection of students, and the program itself – would not be exercised by autonomous academics and officials within it, but by those without. Take the cash, but accept the strings. ANU Vice-Chancellor Brian Schmidt subsequently claimed that “academic autonomy” was at risk, terminating the conversation.

A group of academics at the University of Sydney, having gotten wind of negotiations being conducted between the Centre and their own Vice-Chancellor Michael Spence, claimed any collaboration with the Ramsay Centre “a violation of our crucial role in promoting a society of diversity, inclusiveness and mutual respect”. Their open letter deemed the enterprise to be promoting a “conservative, culturally essentialist, and Eurocentric vision” mired in “chauvinistic, Western essentialism.” Besides, subjects on western civilisation were already being studied “intensively” at the institution.

There are, of course, other hypocrisies when it comes to money, donations and the tertiary sector. Universities, when they are teased of their component parts, are fractious creatures, divided to fail rather than prosper and bound to harm that most precious resource of all: the student. If the open letter from the University of Sydney academics was right in their claim that the Ramsay Centre could be successful in creating “a cadre of leaders”, that would have been a near miracle. What universities tend to do now is create gluttonous, beige products that pride management and the harnessing of specialist skills over notions of any Renaissance man.

As for the structure of the university itself, management, in whatever curious cloaking of convenience they choose to pick at any given time, see themselves as head boys and girls keeping the academic workers in check, trying to turn the modern teaching institution into a technical ant hill; the workers, generally weak, loathsomely middle class and in search of misplaced spines, tend to be compliant. Rents, mortgages and quotients of weakness need to be paid.

When a questionable money supply finds its way to the university, the issue of compromise varies. The Ramsay Centre’s mistake here was to be obvious, overt, rather than covert and clandestine. Soft power funds can be received but never described as such. Funding for Australian universities, for instance, can be traced to various states officially out of the good books of Canberra: Iran and Turkey, for instance.

Qatar and Saudi Arabia have also taken the additional steps of attempting to control the way Islam and Middle Eastern studies are taught in Western universities. Then comes that most discomforting of realities: the role played by philanthropic funding and donations to the profusion of China Centres that dot the research and education landscape. Forget the Enlightenment; this is business.