The concepts of hybrid warfare or asymmetric warfare are not new. A Cambridge University published research states that it “goes back at least as far as the Peloponnesian War in the fifth century BC.” [1] Although, these concepts have taken new prominence in recent years, with bold, aggressive and often successful actions by resurgent and revanchist Russia.

According to the Cipher Brief, “Through hybrid warfare and the Gerasimov Doctrine, Russia is increasingly blurring the lines between war and peace, business and crime.” It goes on, quoting Douglas Farah: “General Valery Gerasimov, the Chief of Staff of the Russian Federation’s military, developed The Gerasimov Doctrine in recent years. The doctrine posits that the rules of war have changed, that there is a “blurring of the lines between war and peace,” and that “nonmilitary means of achieving military and strategic goals has grown and, in many cases, exceeded the power of weapons in their effectiveness.” [2]

Historically, Russian and Soviet governments have admitted to have used Armenian Diaspora as its lobby and agents of influence in countries around the world, particularly in the United States. Mainly for that reason ethnic Armenian NKVD and later KGB agents were heading and overseeing delicate foreign spying activities in countries ranging from Iran to Turkey to the U.S. One of the most prolific Soviet Armenian spies, Gevork Vartanian, who is celebrated in both Russia (with a special commemorative webpage on the official website of SVR – Russia’s foreign intelligence service that is the legal successor to the KGB) [3] and Armenia [4], has monuments and scholarships named after him in there, even commemorative stamps were issued for six Soviet Armenian KGB spies, many of whom conducted their spy operations on U.S. soil. The Armenian Defense Ministry went further and even named a medal after Gevork Vartanian. Curiously, despite most of late spy Vartanian’s activities still classified; he never lost an opportunity to boast being trusted by the CIA and its upper echelons, including the director of the agency admiral Turner in the 1970s and 1980s, and recruiting assets on U.S. soil. [5]

In an interview with a prominent Russian military historian, Gevork Vartanian admitted: “When the known to me six foreign languages were not enough, I used a “golden key” – Armenian language.”

The interviewer, himself a Lt. Colonel of Russian intelligence, continued: “For the longest time I could not decipher the phrase “used golden key.” Lastly, I understood: Vartanian used Armenian language as a key method of communication in countries, where there is a strong Armenian Diaspora, and where its representatives are influential people, who have access to politicians and oligarchs, or are themselves such people. Through them one can get information that constitutes military, economic or state secret. From political ethnography it was known to me that countries, where Armenians have weight in governing positions are USA, France, England, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Argentina; also Hong Kong and Singapore.” [6]

Living in New York and Washington DC, Gevork Vartanian and his wife had access to many prominent Armenian Diaspora members as they recollected information, potentially through the members and events by the Armenian General Benevolent Union (AGBU, founded in 1906), Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA, founded in 1918) and Armenian Assembly of America (AAA, founded in 1972). Considering that Vartanian’s cover story was that he and his wife, also a spy, were from Iran, it made it easy to connect to many Armenian-Americans whose roots were also from Iran.

As described in a Times of Israel article, Armenian diaspora and lobby in the U.S. seems to harbor warm feelings not only to Russia, but also to Iran: “The established Armenian-American community seems to take Armenia’s relationship with Iran as a given. A September 2014 story in Asbarez, the Los Angeles-based Armenian-American newspaper of record … states disapprovingly that this revelation implicates “Baku’s involvement in the spying mission.” The report goes on to call out the Azerbaijan’s government for its “hostility against the Islamic Republic.” One would think that an Armenian-American newspaper would applaud efforts to undermine Iran’s nuclear program. Instead, the newspaper condemns Azerbaijan “for aiding an alleged espionage effort against Tehran.” [7]

As the modern-day Russian interference probe led by the special counsel Robert Mueller is uncovering more evidence, clues, facts, and indictments, a certain pattern in modern Russian strategic thinking and application of The Gerasimov Doctrine is now in plain view. First, the biggest difference in the usage of agents of influence in the West between the Soviet-era Russian efforts and today is the sophisticated use of technology, including active usage of Internet and social media such as Twitter for direct and public influencing of key thinkers and decision makers, and Facebook for influencing of the masses.

Second, is the reliance on journalists and reporters, by improving formerly clumsy pro-Russian media to look and feel like more sophisticated Western Media. Prime example of this strategy is Russia Today (RT) headed by Margarita Simonyan, and its attractive-looking speaking representatives-heads like Gayane Chichakyan who attends daily press briefings at the State Department and would constantly provoke the State’s spokespersons. Although, there are numerous less obvious examples (incidentally, both RT ladies are ethnically Armenian, as are many other “Russian” agents of influence). Third, is establishing business relations with top politicians, preferably as an employee inside their company to have the most access and trust.

Certainly, some of the more common methods are also employed – such as by RT’s Margarita Simonyan paying now-indicted Gen. Michael Flynn to fly to Moscow for a dinner honoring RT while sitting next to Vladimir Putin. [8]

While these photos have been thoroughly dissected in the media, and Flynn-Simonyan connection established, one other influential guest of honor was never identified – Artur Chilingarov, ethnically Armenian Vice Speaker of Russian Duma whom Putin bestowed “Hero of Russia” order. He can be seen directly behind Putin, drinking, in the now iconic photo. [9] One can see Mr. Chilingarov on a photo stock provided by ‘alamy’ with Putin from 2007. [10]

A foreign agent turned into an independent reporter, Emil Sanamyan, a dual U.S. and Armenian citizen, has been an active Twitter warrior for years, freelancing as a multilingual reporter and expert for several publications, both Armenian-funded and otherwise, ranging from the Armenian Reporter to the Jane’s defense publication, on the U.S., NATO, Russia, Armenia, and the Caucasus Region, with a focus on military, defense, geopolitical and strategic relations. While billing himself as a reporter, he held numerous political positions such as the Executive Director of the Americans for Artsakh (AFA), a political action lobbying organization for the Armenian government and its Russian-backed military in 2006-2007. That organization was established to bring legitimacy to the war crimes and illegal occupation by the Russian-backed Armenian military that has been ruthlessly perpetrated (long before Ukraine and Georgia, the Russian government has used Armenian soldiers to occupy Azerbaijan’s sovereign territory, arrest development and derail a Pro-Western course of Azerbaijan). From 2000 until 2006, Sanamyan was a Research Officer at the Armenian Assembly of America (AAA), the preeminent Armenian lobbying group in Washington DC. More importantly, from 1998 to 2000 he worked in the so-called “Office of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic in the United States” (ONKR), which is a Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) lobbying group officially registered with the U.S. Department of Justice as a foreign agent (it should be noted that for some time the ONKR office was housed inside AAA’s office in Washington DC).

In that foreign agent office, Emil Sanamyan was in charge of information warfare and propaganda as “Director of the NKR Public Affairs Office” as his job title was memorialized in a 2013 book by Routledge. [11]

In a 2009 statement, Vardan Barseghian, the self-styled “NKR Deputy Foreign Minister” – basically, a high-level Armenian diplomat who was a registered foreign agent in the U.S. – singled out Emil Sanamyan by thanking him in his article “Defending Artsakh’s Interests in the United States,” and boasted about the fact that as Armenian foreign agents in the U.S., “We engaged with the State Department, Congress, policy and academic circles, media and the Armenian-American community.” [12]

Another “alumni” of the FARA-registered foreign agent of ONKR has been Aram Avetisyan – with a diplomatic rank of “counselor” as he was listed on his business card. Long after FARA-registered ONKR moved out from AAA’s office, he continued to feel at home over there and conducted meetings with AAA’s top leadership, such as in December 2015. [13]

In spite of that, as of September 2016 Aram Avetisyan was able to become an employee of the Voice of America – the U.S. government news agency that is funded by Congress and officially represents the views of the U.S. government in the countries to which it broadcasts. All aformentioned years of work as a foreign agent within ONKR do not appear on his resume. [14]

All of these jobs that Sanamyan, Avetisyan, and others held, spanning many years, required ongoing and close coordination with the Armenian government, as well as trips to the region (in the case of Sanamyan – even his lavish wedding was held in the Armenian-occupied territories of Azerbaijan). The Armenian government, of course, has a unique and a highly unusual formal relationship with Russian government on coordination of foreign policy vis-à-vis the U.S. as analyzed in a recent article published by Foreign Policy News. [15]

Meanwhile, Armenian government since its formal independence from Soviet Russia and until today, remains as aptly dubbed by Putin’s officials, the Russian outpost in the Caucasus. The current hopes of Western countries that Armenia would pivot away from Russia after the velvet revolution that installed Nikol Pashinyan as the new Prime-Minister of Armenia and ousted military dictatorship of Serzh Sargsyan – the latter was, nevertheless, able to meet with President Trump thanks to the efforts of his lobby [16] – appears to be wishful thinking. Vladimir Putin was the first to congratulate Pashinyan with the new position [17], while Pashinyan declared: “We consider Russia as a strategic ally; our movement does not create threats for this. If I am elected [as the prime minister], Armenia will remain a member of the Eurasian Economic Union and the Collective Security Treaty Organization.” [18]

Intriguingly, Mr. Sanamyan, himself a Russian speaker and born in the Soviet Union, is married to Oksana Chernyaeva, an ethnic Russian. In 2017, the couple purchased a home in Bethesda and in earlier years had acquired houses in Arlington and Alexandria. Oksana’s biography includes studies of high school in Sweden (hence, she speaks Swedish, in addition to Spanish, English and, of course, her native Russian), getting her undergraduate in business at Cass in London, UK (a city of choice for Russian oligarchy), and her master’s degree in project management from George Washington University. As Cass’ alumni, Oksana’s financial contribution to the university landed her in a “Major Donors and Sponsors” annual report for 2012. [19]

While a student, Oksana collaborated on a research book led by an Iranian-born professor entitled: “Economic Sanctions: Examining their philosophy and efficacy.” [20] Unsurprisingly, the carefully-written research geared at academics opines that U.S. sanctions against Iran have been ineffective and thus perhaps unnecessary.

However, it is not so much Oksana’s education and fluency in languages that make an impression to the reader, as her work history, since she worked for some of the largest U.S. military and government contractors – apart from a four year stretch with an obscure construction company named Georgetown Restoration Inc. – such as at the Lockheed Martin, the construction giant AECOM, and currently at Lend Lease Construction (formerly known as Bovis Lend Lease), one of the largest international construction companies in the world.

The latter group became famous in the U.S. for two things: largest construction fraud settlement in New York City’s history and ripping off minority-owned businesses, for which it was fined US$56 million [21], and for this distinction: “Lend Lease is one of Donald Trump’s favorite building partners, responsible for the Trump Tower buildings in New York, Washington and Chicago”. [22]

The last construction project that Lend Lease managed for Mr. Trump was the Trump Hotel in Washington DC – where multiple subcontractors alleged not to be paid and filed multiple complaints that are worth over five million USD in 2016. [23] Lend Lease was even named as a defendant on a lawsuit by Freestate Electrical, a subcontractor in the Trump Hotel. [24]

While such a resume [25] is not entirely unusual in Washington DC – apart from the fact that both husband and wife as naturalized citizens from Soviet Russia have an ability, are keen to stay close to the U.S. defense establishment – there is another job that does raise some eyebrows: as a Senior Project Manager at Trump Old Post Office LLC for two years from May 2014 through May 2016. She even had an email address (…@trumporg.com). [26]

The Trump Old Post Office LLC is part of the Trump Organization. President Donald J. Trump was an officer of the limited liability company until 2/3/2017, when he resigned, and Donald Trump Jr., his son, became president of the LLC. [27] In terms of beneficiary membership, Trump Old Post Office LLC also includes Ivanka Trump and Eric Trump. [28]

Working for Trump in that senior capacity Oksana became a trusted manager with access to the Trump family. Leaving Trump Old Post Office LLC for Lend Lease in May 2016 was mostly a formality – since Lend Lease was the general contractor for the Trump Hotel in Washington DC (owned by Trump Old Post Office LLC), which opened in September 2016. The hotel, of course, became part of the presidential campaign’s theme – an example of how inefficient the U. S. government is; indeed a real estate developer came in and saved the days by opening the hotel ahead of time, before anticipated schedule and under budget.

Armenian lobby’s connections with Trump campaign are numerous. From Facebook [29] and Twitter [30] pages, established by supporters with names like ArmeniansForTrump, to appeals from registered Republican and highly opinionated Armenian newspaper editor Harut Sassounian (republished on ANCA’s website). [31]

ANCA’s Aram Hamparian warmly congratulated Trump on his election of November 9, 2016: “We congratulate Donald Trump on his victory, commend Secretary Clinton on a hard-fought campaign, and thank Armenian American voters who went to the polls in record numbers to back federal, state, and local candidates who champion issues of special concern to our community. We look forward to getting to work right away in engaging with the Trump Administration and the incoming Congress to make progress on the full range of the Armenian American community’s public policy priorities.” [32]

Another Armenian political operative deep inside the Trump White House that deserves a special mention – Andy Surabian, who is described as “Steve Bannon’s political adviser in the Trump administration and a campaign veteran, has decided to leave the White House. He will become a senior adviser to “Great America Alliance,” the allied group to “Great America PAC” – is a major pro-Trump super-PAC” [33], Steve Bannon provided a more colorful, if disconcerting, description on him: “During the campaign, Bannon would describe Surabian and his war room team with words like: “They’re f***ing killers. … These are my psychos who do all this s***. They don’t sleep. They don’t care.”” [34]

Perhaps the most influential and high-ranking Armenian Diaspora member and registered lobbyist associated with the Trump campaign was Keith Nahigian, who was tapped to head Trump’s transition team in 2017. [35] Before jumping on the Trump bandwagon in 2016 as a senior adviser to candidate Trump, Keith and his brother Ken have been working closely with former co-chairman of the Congressional Armenian Caucus, Congressman Robert Dold. [36]

The Armenian lobby with access to President Trump also includes flamboyant representatives like Danny Tarkanian who ran for U.S. Senate and then Congress from Nevada – someone who emphasizes being endorsed simultaneously by Donald Trump and ANCA. [37]

Of course the mentioning of Armenian lobby network would certainly be incomplete without including the colorful, and extremely odd, Kim Kardashian – the home-porn-turned-Twitter lobbyist who has met Trump on numerous occasions [38] – most recently in May 2018. [39]

While some are unconscious actors that serve as “candy” to deflect attention, others do the real work behind the scenes. These extensive and deep links to the incumbent inexperienced president and his campaign create potential national security implications and deserve scrutiny to ensure that Putin’s ongoing meddling into the U. S. Homeland would crumble and miserably fail.

Sources and references:
[1] http://assets.cambridge.org/97811070/26087/excerpt/9781107026087_excerpt.pdf
[2] https://www.thecipherbrief.com/the-gerasimov-doctrine
[3] http://svr.gov.ru/smi/2006/chelrab20060520.htm
[4] http://tass.ru/obschestvo/1193274
[5] http://www.lgz.ru/article/-32-33-6609-23-08-2017/potomstvennyy-razvedchiknelegal/
[6] http://nvo.ng.ru/spforces/2017-08-04/12_959_vartanyan.html
[7] http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/armenian-american-lobby-is-powerful-despite-overt-support-of-iran-russia-and-opposition-to-israel-azerbaijan/
[8] http://euromaidanpress.com/2016/09/07/green-party-jill-stein-insults-russia-human-rights-environmental-justice-struggle-97257/
[9] http://www.newsweek.com/flynn-putin-dinner-russian-leader-had-no-idea-who-us-general-was-says-rt-chief-729956
[10] https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-russian-president-vladimir-putin-in-the-foreground-and-state-duma-22928131.html
[11] https://books.google.com/books?id=FTaMAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA47
[12] http://www.nkr.am/en/speeches-articles-and-interviews/39/
[13] https://armenian-assembly.org/2015/12/09/armenian-assembly-of-america-meet-with-nkr/
[14] https://www.linkedin.com/in/aram-avetisyan-b46584b0
[15] http://foreignpolicynews.org/2018/05/30/russian-meddling-in-the-2016-election-with-armenian-lobbys-support/
[16] https://ditord.com/2017/09/20/serzh-sargsians-photo-with-donald-and-melania-trump/
[17] https://themoscowtimes.com/news/putin-congratulates-armenias-opposition-leader-turned-prime-minister-nikol-pashinyan-61392
[18] http://tass.com/world/1002601
[19] https://www.cass.city.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/180383/Cass-Annual-Donor-Report_2012.pdf
[20] https://books.google.com/books?id=R6GqyV-Nc1AC&pg=PR13
[21] https://commercialobserver.com/2012/04/construction-firm-charged-with-fraud-ripping-off-minority-owned-businesses/
https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/lendlease-group
[22] https://corporatewatch.org/lendlease-development-creeps/
[23] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/digger/wp/2017/01/06/third-lien-on-trump-hotel-brings-alleged-unpaid-bills-to-over-5-million/?utm_term=.2ab2e8985357
[24] http://fortune.com/2017/01/25/donald-trump-dc-hotel-lawsuit-contractor/
[25] https://alumnius.net/cass_business_school-9945-year-1969-2003#
[26] Several emails from her can be seen here: Oksana Chernyaeva LEED AP, PMP, Senior Project Manager – Trump Old Post Office, LLC. The Old Post Office Building – 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW – Washington, DC 20004 – Mobile: 202.386.4924 – E-mail: ochernyaeva@trumporg.com
[27] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3455479-Trump-Old-Post-Office-LLC.html
[28] http://www.jurist.org/paperchase/2017/03/us-agency-trump-hotel-in-old-post-office-does-not-violate-government-lease.php
[29] https://www.facebook.com/groups/ArmeniansForTrump/
[30] https://twitter.com/armenians4trump?lang=en
[31] https://anca.org/armenians-should-reach-out-to-trump-through-republican-friends-in-congress/
[32] i. https://anca.org/press-release/elections-bring-broad-bipartisan-victories-2016-anca-endorsed-u-s-senate-house-candidates/
ii. https://news.am/eng/news/356418.html
iii. http://asbarez.com/156942/elections-bring-broad-bipartisan-victories-for-anca-endorsed-candidates-2/
[33] https://www.axios.com/bannons-political-adviser-leaving-white-house-to-join-pro-trump-group-1513305315-dab5eb87-701b-4f01-a34a-4f93ad4d5dbe.html
[34] https://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/politico-power-list/andy-surabian/
[35] https://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2017/01/18/former-registered-lobbyist-ken-nahigian-to-head-trump-transition-team/
[36] http://hayernaysor.am/en/archives/192478
[37] https://dannytarkanian.com/tag/trump/
[38] https://www.syracuse.com/us-news/index.ssf/2018/05/trump_kim_kardashian_pardon_prison_reform.html
[39] https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/967312/Kim-Kardashian-pictured-with-Donald-Trump-after-White-House-meeting-on-prison-reform

Introduction

For last few years, local scholars have been arguing about the gained popularity of Chubak Aji (IMM, 2015). His speeches and statements raise public disputes and even bring controversial discussions. Therefore, this research paper focuses on question: “To what extend are Chubak Aji Jalilov’s view is supported by ordinary people in the Kyrgyz Republic? The analysis reveals that Chubak Aji’s calls against the government and the Constitution are justified by the sympathizers due to the interpretation of his ideas through Quran.

Advocates have shown the substantial level of support in Chubak Aji’s activities. Overall, the paper has found out that the sympathizers follow the religious scholars’ teachings and are not in favor of the elements of the secular system of government in the Kyrgyz Republic.

The primary concerning point in this paper is that Chubak Aji is actively participating in social and political life of Kyrgyzstan and promoting controversial and religious debates among the government officials and the population (IMM, 2015). On the one hand, there are people who highly discourage Chubak Aji’s activities since they are considered as anti-secular and unacceptable for multi-ethnic society of Kyrgyzstan.

For instance, regarding this point Elaman Karymshakov says that, “Chubak Aji proposed to legalize polygamy in the Kyrgyz Republic. The human rights activist underlines that not only does he himself violate the law; he also calls others to do this. Human rights organization “Kylym Shami” will apply to the city prosecutor’s office to give legal assessment on his actions”(2017, p.8). It can be comprehended from this point that his proposal resulted in the strong resonance and the hot discussion between politicians and citizens of the state. In addition, Sharie Ryder argues that “C. Jalilov wants to show that he wanted to spit on secular laws and women’s rights, spit on the Criminal Code and the Constitution. Jalilov wants to show that in Kyrgyzstan, the Constitution is not first, but the Koran”(S.Ryder, 2017). In other words, the scholars believe that his controversial ideas impose a threat towards the legal system and secularity of the state and, in the long-run, Quran will play the predominant role and substitute the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic.

Furthermore, Kabar National Agency notes that, “According to C.Jalilov’s call not to celebrate Nooruz, the State Commission for Religious Affairs of the KR sent a request to the Chairman of the “Aalam Council”. The State Commission recalls that the holiday “Nooruz” is included in the list of official holidays according to the Labor Code of the Kyrgyz Republic”(Kabar, 2018). The recent proposal by the scholar related to Nooruz national holiday is causing a lot if controversies in the government, since the officials notice some discriminative character in his calls which is against moral values of the social groups and other nations in the Kyrgyz Republic. Even though Kyrgyzstan is considered to be secular, the statements by Chubak Aji are highly religious and contradictory to the state’s governmental systems and forms.

On the other hand, there are political and religious activists who support his ideas and activities in the state. According to the director of “Aalymdar association” Mars Ibraev, “Chubak Aji is only conveying the verses in Quran and it is not sinful to marry more than once according to Sharia law. It is better for women to get married here rather than being suffered in foreign states”(E.Karymshakov, 2017). The sympathizers of Chubak Aji’s activities underline that a lot of Kyrgyz women leave their homeland and, consequently, decrease the number of Kyrgyz nationality in the country. Their main explanation for the scholar’s proposal is that polygamy keeps women to be taken care of and provided for in the territory of Kyrgyzstan. Moreover, Jyldyz Sultanova says that “He has done the right thing. According to Sharia law, men do not have to ask permission from their first wives to get married again”(S.Ryder, 2017).

Human rights activists, politicians and citizens of Kyrgyzstan have different ideological perceptions and standpoints and it can be noted that Chubak Aji has sympathizers and opponents in the state. The point is that these two-sided perceptions of individuals can cause a division in the society, since the supporters of Chubak Aji and defenders of secular system convey completely varied massages.

Opponents believe that his proposals are jeopardizing the normative legal act and moral values of the population and sympathizers encourage him due to the mentioned verses about polygamy in Quran and potentials for the improvement of women’s standards of living.

Why should a reader be interested in the scholar’s activities?

This paper discusses one of actual topic in Kyrgyzstan, which is connected with the influence of religious figures to political system of Kyrgyzstan. Chubak Aji has been raising unprecedented topics in the Kyrgyz politics and society. It is a great challenge for Kyrgyz government to respond for statement of Chubak Aji when the radicalization of the society is criticized by social scientists in Central Asia.

The government response for radical statements, which are connected with the celebration of national holiday, polygamy issue, early marriage and others, are carefully observed by ordinary citizens. People analyze how far religious leaders can intervene; social and political life and is Kyrgyz government able to react. As an example one can refer to Uran Botobekov’s view who argues that “A parliamentary committee was considering a draft bill to extend lunch breaks on Fridays — up to two hours — to better allow Muslims to perform Friday prayers. Among the lobbyists for this proposed legislation were the country’s Islamic leaders, including Chubak Jalilov.

On June 6, the relevant Parliament committee declined to pass the draft; naturally, the Islamic leaders who had lobbied for the bill were dissatisfied”(U.Botobekov, 2016). The dissatisfaction led the ex-mufti to criticize the political system of Kyrgyzstan, leading to the opposition between the government and the Muslim community. The occurrence clearly shows that Chubak Aji challenged political order and the legislation in the parliamentary system of Kyrgyzstan. Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic clearly indicates that Kyrgyzstan is the secular state and the practice of marrying more than one woman is restricted (S.Ryder, 2017).

Furthermore, the religious scholar possesses a vast amount of audience on social media networks. According to the International Mass media Agency, “The sermon well-known theologian, Chubak Jalilov is very popular in the Muslim world. The number of subscribers to its channels in social networks has up to 300 thousand people. The former mufti Chubak Aji is known for the fact that theological education in Saudi Arabia and is a strong supporter of the Salafi (Wahhabi) ideas”(IMM, 2015). In fact, based on the preliminary research, the paper has found out that Chubak Aji’s training lessons and speeches are actively manifested on YouTube channel “Nassat Media” where the number of subscribers is 214,816 people so far (personal research, May 28, 2018). While watching his training lessons and teachings, it is worth mentioning that he has a charismatic personality, since he brilliantly attracts the audience and he definitely possesses a high profile within the Muslim community in Kyrgyzstan. Social media is right now one of the significant tools of psychological propaganda and influence. It is undeniable that thousands of people are able to influence their other peers, relatives and friends.

Therefore, the paper will accentuate at the revelation of valid explanations for why the supporters choose him in the first place. Most social scientists and local experts have been discussing actively this religious figure. If some of them argue connecting it with the growth of religious people due to external influence from Islamic countries, others also explain it with the decline of education(IMM, 2015). In this respect, paper will have actuality to discuss about the sympathizer’s incentives and motives in endorsing the religious scholar.

The methodology of the research will be based upon primary and secondary source literature including, journal articles, statistical data, reports. In order to make a better analysis, this paper is concentrated on the interviewing of sympathizers of C.Jalilov. So the focus group will consist of four people of different generations: two respondents at the age of around twenty and two people who are over forty years old.

The primary questions that will be asked during the survey are:

1) How often do you read Chubak Aji’s articles or watch his video lessons? 2) Who do you prefer: Chubak Aji or Fethullah Gulen? And why?

3) What makes Chubak Aji significant in following Islam?

4) Do you support his controversial ideas about polygamy and restrictions against Nooruz national holiday? Why?

The arguments and important ideas of the human rights activists and political activists are manifested in the beginning paragraphs of the paper. The problem statement and the significance of paper are concentrated on the revelation of contradictory points of individuals who are in favor and against the proposal of Chubak Aji. Hence, these paragraphs have been compiled by secondary source analysis. The following paragraphs are primarily focused on the results obtained during the interview of the sympathizers of Chubak Aji.

Firstly, a reader will be able to be informed about the level of reference to Chubak Aji’s video posts in “Nasaat Media” and the scholarly works of the activist. Secondly, the paper will attempt to investigate the level of preference between Chubak Aji and Fethullah Gulen and reveal the answers about why the particular scholar is deemed to be more significant. Furthermore, the research paper provides with specific points about the reasons for why the advocates encourage the deeds of the scholar. In other words, it will portrait some respondents’ explanations concerning personal qualities and qualifications of Chubak Aji that make him stand out from other religious scholars and activists in the state. Later on, the readers will be able to discover about the sympathizers’ attitudes towards Chubak Aji’s anti-governmental and religious statements related to the objection of the national holiday “Nooruz” and the proposal about the legalization of polygamy in Kyrgyzstan.

Frequency of approaching to Chubak Aji’s teachings

The interviewing of sympathizers during the survey has manifested that videos on social media by Chubak Aji play a prevailing role than his books and articles nowadays. The popularity of his editions resulted in the active involvement of people in the Internet. As a matter of fact, one of the supporters of the scholar Nurzada Asanova says that “She is waiting for new releases of video on “Nasaat-Media” every week. She watches them because they are very inspirational and give recommendations on how to live in a right way”(N.Asanova, personal communication, May 1, 2018). The survey has investigated that videos by Chubak Aji are deemed to be popular due to their educational nature.

Furthermore, Semetei Sulaiman uuli highlights that, “He does not miss Chubak Aji’s new videos since they are very interesting and debatable. He follows his lessons because of the charismatic nature of the scholar and persuasive public speaking skills”(Semetei Sulaiman uulu, personal communication, May 1, 2018). So, it should be highlighted that the scholar’s prominent charisma and confidence resulted in the growth of his followers in the Internet. At the same time, parents play an important role in attracting the children towards the scholar’s articles and teachings. For instance, Zhadyrayim Akunova argues that “She permanently watches his video lessons. When she studied at school, she used to read C.Jalilov’s books several times since her mother recommended. Right now she follows his channel and loves watching them. They are great because the channel manifests videos based on the real stories of people and prophets in Islam. Also the video shows right deeds that people ought to follow. These deeds are really effective in increasing the level of morality of people. In addition, the channel has videos in Russian language which are very comfortable to watch”(Z. Akunova, personal communication, May 1, 2018). Hence, the reader can be informed that the videos are seen on a daily basis by the sympathizers. The interesting instructions, sophisticated communication skills of the scholar and the concentration on moral values keep them continue watching.

Chubak Aji Jalilov or FethullahGulen

Through interviewing Chubak Aji’s advocates, the paper has found that Chubak Aji plays a more prevailing role in people’s lives than other religious scholars. It should be mentioned that some respondents have relatively less knowledge about Fethullah Gullen’s mission and activities. Some have chosen neutral positions while talking about two scholars. For instance, two advocates N. Asanova and S. Rysbaiuulu argue that they rely on Chubak Aji’s view more and they have not heard about F. Gullen (May 1, 2018, personal communication).

On the other side, Meerim Akunova notes that, “It is a controversial question, as long as she does not have adequate information about F.Gulen, it is hard to say objectively. Chubak Aji is a local scholar from Kyrgyzstan so he is closer to Kyrgyz people. For instance we can refer to his challenge to government officials concerning religious rights. But F.Gulen – he is well known for construction of educational institutions across the world. His contribution towards the development of education in Kyrgyzstan is crucial and admirable. But this question remains open” (M. Akunova, personal communication, May 5, 2018). Correspondingly, Chubak Aji’s sympathizers are less informed about F. Gulen but know that his activities are connected with spreading quality education in the world.

At the same time, Zhadyrayim Akunova argues that, “Chubak Aji is a Kyrgyz scholar and lives in Kyrgyzstan, so she knows about him more. He is living in the USA now and influential in Turkey as Chubak Aji here in Kyrgyzstan. She read F. Gullen’s books which were about the prophet. She cannot say for sure whom she prefers, since every scholar attempts to deliver his own message and everyone has his unique style”’ (Z. Akunova, personal communication, May 1, 2018). The main difference between two scholars is that Chubak Aji is actively involving in religious and governmental affairs of Kyrgyzstan, but F. Gulen is known for his focus on spreading educational institutions. Hence, the paper has explored that the fact that Chubak Aji is from Kyrgyzstan raises the level of awareness about the scholar and people have more tendency to argue about him.

Significance of Chubak Aji Jalilov

What makes C. Jalilov significant? Why do you support the scholar? What are the reasons that explain his success? These questions were raised while conducting the interview about the significance of him. The first explanation is that C. Jalilov is deemed to be good at legal issues and frameworks of Islam. His graduation from the University of Saudi Arabia “Um-al-Quro” contributed to his sophisticated knowledge in Abd-Al-Wahab’s teachings and jurisprudence (Muslimbiz, 2018).

One of the supporters Nurzada Asanova has shared with the author by saying that, “He knows legal conditions of religion and how to implement these laws in a proper way. If there is a conflict between a husband and a wife, Chubak Aji helps to settle these issues peacefully. I also rely on his teachings while raising my children. Other scholars cannot adequately say what to do in human problems but he has this ability to assure and that makes him significant”(Nurzada Asanova, personal communication, May 1, 2018). The interview has manifested that the scholar’s religious education overseas resulted in the support of people in Kyrgyzstan. Moreover, his effective recommendations concerning family issues to parents attract the senior people.

The next interesting point about the significance of the scholars is reflected in Chubak Aji’s open personality and braveness. According to Zhadyrayim Akunova, “When he was a mufti, he had to obey the government regulations, but he had the ability to encourage Muslims. He could ideally identify the first date of Ramadan by looking at the moon the day before the beginning. Before and after his ruling, other muftis set the time incorrectly due to the governments’ decisions. But he is the only bravest mufti who could identify correctly”(Z.Akunova, personal communication, May 1, 2018 ). A reader can comprehend that he stands out from other religious scholars with a communication without boundaries and fears. Moreover, he possesses an ability to interpret quite serious issues into humorous words and that’s the core personality of the orator (M. Akunova, personal communication, May 5, 2018). Hence, the scholar appeals his audience due to his great personal qualities which are: literacy, individuality, charisma, courageousness and a good sense of humor.

His educational background also invokes sympathizers to rely on him (Semetei Sulaiman iuulu, personal communication, May 1, 2018). At the same time, parents and senior people support the scholar by virtue of his legal knowledge of Islam.

Supporters’ attitude towards C. Jalilov’s ideas and proposals

In conducting the survey about the scholar’s ideas, the paper proposed questions related to the national holiday and polygamy. Based on the obtained answers, it should be noted that the attitudes of the respondents are supportive. For instance, Nurzada Asanova argues that “She endorses his proposal about legalization of polygamy, since this is written in Quran. C. Jalilov delivers the words from the holy book towards the population. It’s up to a person whether he will live with two or more spouses. The more important things is that whether a husband can feed his family members or not (Nurzada Asanova, personal communication, May 1, 2018). So, the information manifests that sympathizers support Chubak Aji, because he only interprets some messages from Quran and if a person is Muslim, so he or she needs to respect the laws in the book.

Similarly, Zhadyrayim Akunova and Semetei Sulaiman uulu agree that, “They are not able to object to Quran. Our law is Quran and it says that under certain circumstances polygamy is allowed.”(Z. Akunova, S. Sulaiman uulu ,personal communication, May 1). These thoughts of the sympathizers show that religious norms and teachings are prioritized over the official laws ratified by the Constitution.

Furthermore, Meerim Akunova explains that (M. Akunova, personal communication, May 5) , “Legalization of polygamy in Kyrgyzstan is considered to be insulting. But if we take into account some life factors and breeding, than polygamy can be encouraged. If some specific life circumstances require to marry twice, the actions of a husband can be justified” (M. Akuniva, personal information, May 5). Hence, the investigation has found out that all the respondents have positive viewpoints concerning the proposal of polygamy in Kyrgyzstan by Chubak Aji. The main reason of their support is that Quran mentions the allowance of polygamy under particular cases and the sympathizers tend to follow the verses in the book.

Regarding Chubak Aji’s recent call not to celebrate Nooruz national holiday, advocates came up with content answers. The study has revealed that the sympathizers celebrate only the religious holidays and the official holidays ratified by the Constitution are deemed to be pointless and sinful. As a matter of fact, Zhadyrayim Akunova argues that she accepts only three holiday, which are Kurban Ait, Orozo Ait and every Friday and she does not celebrate Nooruz and perceives only holidays which are written in Quran (May 1, 2018, personal information). Correspondingly, Semetei Sulaiman uulu has similar points about Nooruz holiday, since he highly encourages Chubak Aji’s calls and believes that it would be great if the state canceled the national holiday(May 1, 2018, personal communication). So, the survey manifests that the sympathizers agree with the scholar’s statement about Nooruz and the religious holidays are perceived to be the number one priority.

According to Meerim Akunova, “I am absolutely on Chubak Aji’s side. As long the history shows, Nooruz is the celebration of pagans, not Muslim people. Only superstitious individuals perceive Nooruz as a holiday. This is the same as believing in black cats. The superstition that is passed on orally” (May 5, 2018, personal communication). In other words, the national holiday is considered to be the symbol of paganism by the viewpoints of sympathizers. They show very distant attitude towards the national holiday, as it is regarded as the holiday of non-Muslims. Hence, it should be noted that the respondents fully support the scholar’s idea about the rejection of Nooruz.

Conclusion

The main purpose of the paper was to analyze Chubak Aji’s sympathizers and to what extend he is influential to ordinary citizen’s opinion. As respondents answered Chubak Aji plays more prevailing role in people’s lives than other religious scholars in Kyrgyzstan. His popularity in one hand is connected with his active use of social media, where he shares information about his Islamic view and answers such as what is right and what is wrong? What is important in this life? What are Islamic moral values?

The research has investigated that the scholar’s charismatic personality, braveness, confidence and persuasive public skills serve as the main components of his success and resulted in the growth of sympathizers in social media networks. Overall, it can be concluded that the scholar’s teachings are seen in a regular way.

Furthermore, as his latest statements manifest that Chubak Aji openly challenged the Kyrgyz government with his view regarding national holidays, traditional values of Kyrgyz people and the role of women in the society. Most human rights advocates criticized Chubak Aji and asked government to respond properly, because his statements and activities violated women rights. However, the advocates support his statements due to the reference of polygamy in Quran and the obtained results about this argument were non-contradictory. Regarding the elimination of Nooruz national holiday, sympathizers are found to be on Chibak Aji’s side, since they believe that this holiday originated from pagans and non-Muslim people. The point is that the constitution manifests that women and men have equal rights and it forbids polygamy in our secular country. Therefore, when Chubak Aji raised this issue, it was not only about his second marriage, but also it was about his attitude as a religious leader, who has hundreds of followers and sympathizers.

Last but not least, the paper has found out that Chubak Aji’s sophisticated knowledge in jurisprudence contributed towards involvement of senior individuals of the state. As a result, Nurzada Asanova highlights his good instructions regarding the family law that helps to raise her children and keep a stable relationship. In a comparison of the popularity of F. Gullen and Chubak Aji, the interview portraits that people have less knowledge about F. Gullen. The location and the nationality of Chubak Aji raise the level of preference of sympathizers while discussing about two activists. However, Meerim Akunova and Zhadyrayim Akunova mentioned F. Gullen’s effort and contribution to the spread of Turkish values and successful educational institutions all over the world.

*Cholpon Kainazarova, is a student at the International Alatoo University in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan.

Bibliography
The International Mass Media Agency, “Kyrgyzstan is still a secular country, but how to deal with religious obscurantism?”, 2017, https://intmassmedia.com/2017/07/22/kyrgyzstan-is-still-a-secular-country-but-how-to- deal-with-religious-obscurantism/
ElamanKarymshakov, “ЧубакAжынынмаселесикайраданкызылчекетүшүргөндө”, 2017, https://sputnik.kg/society/20171128/1036556260/kop-ayalduuluktun-myjzamduu-zhana-dinij-zhaktary.html
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-42150072
Muslimbiz, “Биография ЧубакажыЖалилов”, 2017, http://muslimbiz.kg/aalam/ustazyi/chubiak-azhyi- zhalilov/biografiya-chubak-azhyi-zhalilov/
Nurzada Asanova, May 1, 2018, interview conducted by the author Zhadyrayim Akunova, May 1, 2018, interview conducted by the author Semetei Sulaiman uulu, May 1, 2018, interview conducted by the author Meerim Akunova, May 5, 2018, interview conducted by the author

When President Reagan met with Mikhail Gorbachev in Reykjavik, Iceland, on October 11, 1987, it helped put into motion events that would dramatically change the global system. A line of communication was fully opened with an enemy of decades and substantive issues were on the table. Though the summit was initially reported as a failure, with the two sides unable to sign a final agreement, history now shows us that it was actually a great success that paved the way to the eventual end of the Cold War and a reduction in the threat of a nuclear war.

A year later Gorbachev and Reagan met in Washington to continue the dialogue that had been started and the rest is history. Success began as a “failure.”

We are now facing a similar situation with President Trump’s historic meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in Singapore. As with the Reagan/Gorbachev meetings, detractors on all sides seem determined to undermine and belittle the opening of a door to diplomacy and peace.

The neocons demand that North Korea give up all its bargaining chips up front in return for vague promises of better relations with the US. Yet in the post-Libya era no serious person would jump at such an offer. Their biggest fear is that peace may break out and they are doing everything to prevent that from happening. Conflict is their livelihood.

I also find it disheartening that many Democrat opponents of President Trump who rightly cheered President Obama’s efforts to reach a deal with Iran are now condemning Trump for opening the door to diplomacy with North Korea. Did they genuinely support President Obama’s diplomatic efforts with Iran, or did they just prefer the person who happened to occupy the Oval Office at the time?

The issue is about policy versus politics and I am afraid too many Americans of all political stripes are confusing the two. Many Americans, it seems, would prefer that we continue down the path to a potentially nuclear conflict on the Korean peninsula because they do not like the current US president. Does that make any sense? Has politics come to over-rule our common sense to the point we would go against our own interests and even our own lives? Let’s hope not!

The truth is, talking is always better than threatening. Just like trading is always better than sanctioning. Detractors on both sides miss the point while they desperately try to make political points. The current thaw with North Korea began with that country’s participation in the Olympic games in South Korea. From that point, North and South Korea came to see each other as neighbors rather than enemies. That process will continue regardless of what comes from the Trump/Kim summit and it is a process we should cheer.

Hopefully this historic Trump/Kim meeting is the beginning of a dialogue that will continue to dial back the tensions. Hopefully we can soon remove the 30,000 US troops that have been stationed in South Korea for seven decades. One thing Washington must do, however: stay out of the way as much as possible so as to allow the two Koreas to continue their peace process.

This article was published by RonPaul Institute.

After prolonged agitation against the operation of Sterlite Copper plant in Tuticorin in Tamil Nadu state (India) by determined group of people and with the protest turning into violent act resulting in police firing and death of 13 persons, Tamil Nadu Government ordered closure of Sterlite Copper plant in Tuticorin. Subsequently, the Tamil Nadu Government has repeatedly stated that the factory has been permanently sealed and closure order is permanent. This decision is viewed as knee jerk reaction by many discerning observers.

After careful consideration and study of various inter related factors, one gets an impression that the Tamil Nadu Government has not carefully assessed the technical aspects in a scientific manner and the pros and cons of its decision to close the Sterlite Copper unit permanently, which has an investment of over Rs.3000 crore and employ several thousands of persons.

It appears that the Tamil Nadu government decided to close the unit to buy peace with the protestors and agitators, who claim themselves to be activists or environmentalists or politicians with one unable to distinguish between them.

Views and counter views

While the protesters have been asserting that Sterlite Copper project is source of environmental pollution in Tuticorin, the company has vehemently denied this and has provided substantial data and information in support of its stand. While the views of the protestors received wide and repeated media publicity, the explanation given by the company was not reported in many section of media or reported partly and selectively. As a result, the explanation of the company has not been heard by most section of people.

In 2013, National Green Tribunal, after detailed investigation, has categorically judged that the cause of pollution in Tuticorin has not been due to operation of Sterlite Copper and therefore, it has allowed the unit to continue operation.

It appears that the primary accusation by the agitators against Sterlite Copper is the alleged emission of sulphur dioxide gas beyond the stipulated level. Sterlite Copper says that it has not been so.

There are four power projects in Tuticorin where coal is used as fuel for the power plant and these power plants do not have flue gas desulphurization facility, to prevent letting out the sulphur dioxide gas beyond stipulated level, if any. There is also one more sulphuric acid plant operating in Tuticorin. Sterlite Copper’s plant has desulphurization facility in its sulphuric acid unit, which would ensure that no sulphur dioxide gas would be let out beyond the stipulated level. Nobody is investigating whether sulphur emission, if any, could have happened due to any other source in Tuticorin area.

Other accusation against Sterlite Copper operations is that its operation cause cancer disease and asthma etc. in the local regions. There is no authenticated proof for this complaint. Such diseases are prevalent everywhere in India, where there is no copper smelter plant in operation.

There are two other copper smelter units in India and more than one hundred sulphuric acid units in India in operation, where such accusations have not been made and all of them have similar design parameters and operations.

Closure order on flimsy ground

It should be noted that the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board in its recent order to close down unit has not accused the unit of letting out sulphur dioxide beyond stipulated level nor has it said that the operation of the unit was causing cancer etc.

Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board states some other reasons to justify it’s closure decision, which certainly does not call for permanent closure of the unit. Sterlite Copper company has challenged the decision of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and the matter is now before judiciary.

Impact of the closure

With the closure of Sterlite Copper unit, price of sulphuric acid in Tamil Nadu and nearby region has increased by 150 % due to supply shortage. Sterlite Copper produces around 40% of the Indian production of copper. With the closure of unit, India has now become net importer of copper, whereas it was net exporter of copper earlier. Tamil Nadu government itself has said that the copper shortage is now felt in Tamil Nadu, after closure of the unit. Around 800 tiny and small scale units which have been executing work for Sterlite Copper plant or dependent on raw material supply from Sterlite Copper and located near Tuticorin region are now reported to be facing closure. Around 10000 persons have lost their jobs and behind each person, there is a family 4 to 5 people.

Why permanent closure?

Even assuming Sterlite Copper has not operated the plant as per stipulated standards, then appropriate action would have been to stop the plant and appoint an investigative team to suggest remedial measures and ensure that such steps would be implemented by the unit before restarting.

Such is the practice all over the world in the case of industrial units, where objections are raised

Recently, there was a serious accident in a factory operated by DuPont in USA and a few workers died. DuPont is a safety conscious company of world standards and even in such company, accident happened. DuPont stopped the plant and found out the reasons and is taking steps to implement remedial measures. Government of USA will impose fine on the company. However, the plant will not be closed permanently.

A bad precedent

By ordering permanent closure of the large unit in the wake of organised protest ,without investigating the real facts and bowing to the pressure of protestors who have received excessive media coverage, government of Tamil Nadu has now created an impression that a group of protestors can ensure closure of any industrial unit or infrastructure project by applying sustained pressure.

By not ordering a thorough investigation by competent investigating team to find out the facts before ordering permanent closure, Tamil Nadu government has done a historical mistake.

A national writer for the Associated Press, Jocelyn Noveck, described the Tony Awards as an event “where tolerance and inclusion were constant themes.” So this is what Robert De Niro was doing—exercising his “tolerance”—when he screamed “F*** Trump”?

At least De Niro didn’t threaten violence against the president, which he did previously (“I’d like to punch Donald Trump in the face,” he said during the last presidential campaign). More recently, he vigorously defended Michelle Wolf’s obscene-laden address at the White House Correspondents Dinner. This is how Mr. Tolerance acts.

Another beacon of tolerance who spoke at the Tony Awards was Tony Kushner. He implored the audience to “heal our country.”

Kushner’s idea of healing is to bash Catholics and Jews. He not only cheered when Terrence McNally gave us “Corpus Christi,” the play where Christ is depicted as having sex with the twelve apostles, he lashed out at the Catholic League for exercising its First Amendment right to free speech by protesting the play.

After Matthew Shepard was murdered in Wyoming, Kushner blamed the pope for the homosexual’s death: “Pope John Paul II endorses murder,” the healer said. He has also been relentless in bashing the democratic state of Israel.

When Andrew Garfield won the best actor award, he took the occasion to reference the Supreme Court decision which affirmed religious liberty in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. He sided against the decision calling on everyone to say “no to bigotry, no to shame, no to exclusion.”

It’s too bad Garfield didn’t direct his comments at the gay bullies who took aim at the baker, Jack Phillips. “We declined to create one custom cake to celebrate a wedding ceremony that would directly violate my faith’s teachings…and it resulted in five years of court battle, 40 percent of my business, losing half my staff and even death threats,” Phillips said.

Tolerance. Inclusion. Civility. The New York-Hollywood axis may shout those virtues from the rooftop, but in practice they violate them with regularity. There are no bigger phonies on earth.

Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu during the meeting with his U.S. counterpart Mike Pompeo agreed on Syria’s city of Manbij road map, providing for the withdrawal of the Kurdish militia linked to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party or PKK on June 4. According to the joint plan of Washington and Ankara, these formations will be replaced by the Turkmen and Arab units that will establish control over the city and the surrounding areas.

However, the meeting between the U.S. and Turkish foreign ministers must be viewed in the general context of the current Middle Eastern events.

The statement made by Cavusoglu at the joint press conference as a result of the bilateral negotiations demonstrates consensus in principle of Ankara and Washington on the Syrian issue. Let’s highlight two most important among them.

First, according to Cavusoglu, the Manbij road map will be used in other areas of Syria. That is, Ankara does not intend to abandon the plans on creating a buffer zone along the entire length of the Turkish-Syrian border in order to make it impossible the attacks of the Syrian Kurds on the territory of Turkey.

This area is planned to be populated by the Turkmen and Arabs. The maintenance of the Kurdish population not linked to PKK is also not ruled out.

Thus, the Kurdish militias will have to move away from the border into the territory of Syria, that undoubtedly lead to the transition of the traditional housing areas of the Kurds to the pro-Turkish forces and squeezing out of them the Kurdish population.

It’s obvious that the implementation of these plans is next to impossible without the U.S. support that took a gamble on the Kurds in fighting ISIS.

Replacing the head of the State Department Donald Trump has embarked on implementing a new Middle Eastern course, which includes the lack of support for the Kurds.

Until recently, the group predominately composed of the Syrian Democratic Forces played a key role in fighting ISIS in the East of Syria. As terrorists are defeated, the need for the Kurds disappears, which allows the U.S. to sacrifice them in the bargaining with Turkey for the division of power in Syria.

In this context, the Kurds have no rights on these territories of Syria, which have turned into the Protectorate of Turkey and U.S. It’s naive to think that Turkey will allow its old enemy to maintain control over the oil field in Eastern Syria.

At the same time, the Kurds are planned to be replaced by the so-called New Syrian Army, whose fighters are actively being trained by the U.S. military instructors in al-Tanf. If necessary this formation will cooperate with the Turkish-backed Free Syrian Army.

The second statement of the Turkish Foreign Minister on the possible purchase of the American air defense systems answers the question concerning the reasons for such a radical position of Washington on the Kurdish issue.

For the past several months the primary aim for the U.S. is to prevent deepening cooperation between Turkey and Russia in the Middle East. A contract for the purchase of Russia’s S-400 air defense missile systems by Turkey has become such an indicator. The failure of this deal is a point of pride for the United States and Donald Trump.

The Turkish leader is known for his ability to bargain. This time he managed to win on Washington’s aspiration to reduce Moscow’s influence in the Middle East and force Trump to sell Patriot anti-missile complexes to Turkey, which Ankara had been trying to achieve for many years.

The Kurds are the losing party in this bargain, which actually falls under attack of the Turkmen.

Currently, the main beneficiary is Turkey. As, if the U.S. does not keep its promises and continue supporting the Kurds, the contract for the purchase of Russia’s S-400 will remain in force. If the Kurds leave Manbij and other areas specified by Ankara, Turkey will receive American anti-missile systems, sacrificing relations with Moscow.

*Sophie Mangal is a freelance writer and a member of the Inside Syria Media Center.

The summit scheduled for 12 June 2018 in Singapore between the leaders of two nuclear states – U.S and North Korea – that have hostile relations since the Cold War has seized the headlines. The recent Shangri La Dialogue covered North Korea as one of the most pressing issues. International media has described the summit as the greatest show on earth. Singaporean leaders have explained that the summit first attests to Singapore’s diplomatic credentials as an honest moderator of international affairs, and second contributes to world peace. However, do these reasons really resonate well with the average citizen? How would the average Singaporean benefit from diplomatic endeavours that seek to improve international relations and pursue world peace.

Not Bread and Butter Issue

Unlike the National Day (NDP) celebrations or international large-scale business and entertainment events, the summit may seem quite irrelevant to the average Singaporeans and hence they may share several thoughts in their minds. First, why would they need to put up with the inconveniences of security checks, traffic delays and possible disruption to businesses? Second, why the government is expending taxpayer monies for an event, which outwardly is not a socioeconomic concern to them? Third, why the government agreed to host a high security risk event when Singapore already has to deal with terrorism?

To speak in the language of average person, community leaders and educators could be of help to explain the relevance of the summit. This would need more than the usual rhetoric of Singapore being one of the best destinations for international large-scale events and a responsible member of the international community that could punch above its weight.

Beyond the potential gains to the country’s economy and international standing, average Singaporeans should be informed how the summit would benefit them today and their children in the future. Three themes may help to explain the summit’s relevance.

(1) Keeping out External Threats

While Singapore has enjoyed decades of peace, Singaporeans may recall how their forefathers suffered during World War 2 and went through the tumultuous early independence days. The lack of world peace and regional instability brought in threats from overseas that undermine the Singaporeans’ safety, economy and way of life during these periods.

The desire for world peace may seem naïve given that human history has one significant constant – war and conflict. However, as the adage goes, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. World War 2 had proven how conflicts might not only imperil the immediate region of the warring countries but also spread to or project instability to other regions. The conflict between Japan and China in the late 1930s eventually grew into a large war in the Asia Pacific in early 1940s, dragging Southeast Asia and Singapore into the frontlines.

The world today is even smaller with global connectivity and technology, which make geographical distances and borders less effective in keeping out threats. For example, the Korean peninsula may not be near Singapore but progress in North Korea’s ballistic missile tests can place Southeast Asia within firing range especially when tensions run high.

The key point here is that a strong defence would also require Singapore to do its part to ensure that conflicts elsewhere do not spread and affect its Singaporeans in any way both today and tomorrow.

(2) Today’s Conflicts are Different

While the likelihood of a major war may seem lower today, it is important to understand that differences in the political beliefs and national interests of countries remains although they may change over time. Hence, conflicts would continue to exist and when they escalate, the parties involved may fight battles but using a mix of different means – hybrid warfare. Three examples are worth noting.

First, Malaysia came twice into foreign conflicts when suspected pro-Russian forces shot down Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 (MH17) near the restive Ukraine-Russia border and when suspected North Korean operatives conducted the assassination of Kim Jong Nam at Kuala Lumpur airport, which is like a page out of spy novels.

Second, the use of toxins to assassinate a former Russian officer in Salisbury, England also posed danger to British police officers responding to the incident and average citizens living in that neighbourhood.

Third, the ‘WannaCry’ cyberattack in May 2017 that affected computers globally and including in Singapore reportedly had a suspected North Korean link. The cyberattack particularly has serious implications to Singaporeans given that their daily lives is becoming more digitalised as Singapore becomes a Smart Nation.

The key point here is that hybrid warfare tactics such as proxy wars, subterfuge, cyber-attacks and disinformation campaigns can threaten lives, livelihoods and destabilise societies including in countries – including Singapore – that may not be party to the conflicts.

(3) Dangers of Online Falsehoods

While there may be no obvious sign of disinformation campaigns threatening to undermine the Trump-Kim summit, there have been chatter on social media that can potentially divide Singaporeans, and drive a wedge between Singaporeans and their leaders. One issue is over the use of taxpayer monies and specifically on how Singapore use them to host foreign dignitaries at the Trump-Kim summit while the Malaysia share them with its average citizens by screening the World Cup for free.

Such chatter may be possible online attempts of falsehoods that either mischievously or unwittingly spin Singapore’s role in the Trump-Kim summit with other domestic issues. These attempts actually matter to Singaporeans although they create tenuous links between unrelated issues.

The key point here is that falsehoods by nature can potentially obfuscate issues with the effect of undermining society by swaying the emotions of Singaporeans towards anger and hate.

What Next After the Summit?

Given the short notice Singapore has to prepare for the Trump-Kim summit, it is realistically a challenge to reach out to all average Singaporeans to sufficiently explain these themes and rally more of their support for the summit. Two initiatives however may be more achievable.

In the weeks of and immediately after the summit, community leaders, educators and the media can highlight the efforts of the average Singaporeans and their colleagues – such as those in the security forces and hospitality sector. These are the professionals working hard to make the summit a success, grow the goodwill that Singapore has with the world, and keep Singaporeans safe.

Over the long term, the Trump-Kim summit can be a useful addition to lessons of history, social studies and national education that every Singaporean goes through in school. Specifically, lessons that examine the summit can help Singaporeans understand how the world and region that they reside in as well as the online space could affect them.

*Muhammad Faizal bin Abdul Rahman is a Research Fellow with the Homeland Defence Programme at the Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS), a unit of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

With electoral upsets having become the norm, the latest upheaval that last week swept aside the long-standing president of Fenerbahce SC, the political crown jewel of Turkish soccer, has taken on added significance with Turkey heading into crucial snap presidential and parliamentary elections on June 24.

The parallels between Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his defeated ally, Aziz Yildirim, who headed Fenerbahce for more than 20 years, become even more striking given that Middle Eastern soccer pitches often serve as barometers of political trends.

“Fenerbahce achieved change…now it’s time for big change in Turkey,” crowed Muharrem Ince, the main opposition Republican People’s Party’s candidate for president, on Twitter.

To be sure, Mr. Erdogan remains Turkey’s most popular politician and the so far undisputed frontrunner in the historic poll that will see Turkey transition from a parliamentary to a presidential system. His chances are bolstered by his control of much of the media as a result of economic pressure as well as turning Turkey into one of the world’s foremost jailers of journalists.

Yet, the spectre of Mr. Erdogan failing to win an unqualified majority or even worse loosing looms for the first time since he became prime minister in 2002 and president in 2014. Mr. Erdogan’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) faces a united opposition for the first time against the backdrop of political, economic and social turmoil; electoral fatigue; and a lacklustre AKP election campaign.

“People are not enthusiastic this time — neither us nor our voters. We are just saying the same things as before: we built a new bridge, we are building a new airport. There are no good slogans, no good songs,” the Financial Times quoted an AKP official as saying.

Mr. Yildirim was the first public figure to become embroiled in the dispute between Mr. Erdogan and exiled Islamic scholar Fethullah Gulen, whom the president has accused of being behind a failed military coup in 2016.

Mr. Erdogan has used the botched attempt to topple him to strengthen his grip on power by cracking down on the media; purging tens of thousands from the ranks of the bureaucracy, the judiciary, the military and academia, and increasingly transforming Turkey into an illiberal democracy at best.

Messrs. Erdogan and Yildirim have dominated their respective spheres of influence for much of the last two decades. Mr. Yildirim ensured that his club’s traditional ties to the state became ever closer. Fenerbahce is Mr. Erdogan’s favourite team.

Mr. Yildirim was overwhelmingly defeated by Ali Koc, a business tycoon, who in 2013 provoked Mr. Erdogan’s ire by opening his hotel on Istanbul’s iconic Taksim Square to anti-government Gezi Park protesters who were being attacked by law enforcement forces.

Like Mr. Erdogan, Mr. Yildirim aggressively attacks his detractors, in many way believes that he is above the law, and positions himself as the only candidate capable of resolving his club’s economic woos that like Turkey itself is mired in some $200 million of debt.

And like Mr. Erdogan, Mr. Yildirim hoped that his emphasis on development and construction projects, including a new stadium and indoor gymnasium, would secure him another term.

Mr. Erdogan’s campaign harps on his massive infrastructure projects that have helped balloon Turkey’s debt to $453.2 billion.

Messrs. Erdogan and Yildirim both see themselves as underdogs. Mr. Erdogan was jailed for four months in 1999 for reading a poem that was considered inflammatory.

Like Mr. Erdogan, Mr. Yildirim used his imprisonment in 2012 after being implicated in Turkey’s largest match fixing scandal that erupted as part of a battle between Mr. Erdogan and his former ally, Mr. Gulen, the scholar who leads what was once of the world’s richest Islamic movements, as a tool to garner sympathy and votes.

The election tactics failed to work for Mr. Yildirim. While Mr. Yildirim’s campaign built on the pork barrel politics of construction, Mr. Koc, his opponent, focussed on the economy of the future with a team made up of information technology and product design experts as well as bankers, even if construction is one main stay of his conglomerate, the largest in Turkey. Koc Holding accounts for ten percent of the country’s GDP.

Similarly, Mr. Ince, the opposition candidate who started his career as a physicist, campaigns on promises of innovation. He emphasizes robotics and design and the need to enhance knowledge and upgrade critical and innovative thinking.

If the record of the past two years is any indication, voters, who have lost confidence in their political systems and leaders produce upsets when they go to the polls. Mr. Yildirim’s defeat mirrors the defeat of traditional politicians by the likes of US President Donald J. Trump and populists in central and Eastern Europe. Most recently, the return of Malaysia’s Mohamd as the world’s oldest elected head of government constituted a vote against the status quo.

Drawing conclusions from Mr. Yildirim’s defeat would be folly. But so would ignoring the message it bears. At the very least, it suggests that Mr. Erdogan’s hope that a snap election would easily secure him another term is in question and that he may be fighting his most difficult election yet.

İn game theory, the Nash equilibrium, named after American mathematician John Forbes Nash Jr., is a solution concept of non-cooperative game involving two or more players in which each player is assumed to know the equilibrium strategies of the other players, and no player has anything to gain by changing only by their strategy. (Ref. Wikipedia)

Now in Turkish environment with 80+million population, almost 50+ voters are the players in this game. Equilibrium will have a dramatic impact on political climate not only in the country but also in the Middle East, Syria, Iraq, as well as in Iran, Palestine. We shall observe impact in Russia, Europe, Northern Africa.

Current state of Turkey is not so promising with every degrading economic situation with increased interest rates, high unemployment, lower investment confidence, lower investments, lower consumer confidence in the aged 16-year old government,

Country needs a new fresh start, rule of law, parlamentarian democracy, separation of powers. So the opposition parties need new game changer policies. Voters need new game plan. New game plan will be shaped by a 10% threshold. Any party with less than %10 overall voters will not get any member in the parliament

Existing political power has nothing to offer to voters other than a fictious safe place in afterlife in heaven, with ever growing number of mosques, prayers, religious services, religious schools, with no help for investment climate, nothing for economic groth. Ruling party has 40-45% voter share, a bit less or more.

Intellectuals traditionally and historically tend to vote for major opposition party, left of middle republican peoples party (chp). However that party has a 25% locked voter expectations due to their loyal voters a little more a little less. That party has politbureau type structure with no hope of further improvement. A local religious sect has also have high share in decision making process

New Good Party is again a group of past politicians who know the politics but have no vitality of young blood. This party has a share around 15-20% voter share. They are the leftovers of existing nationalistic party, which is expected to vaporize due to the 10% threshold. They will loose their voters to ruling party or to good party.

Now we have a new party (hdp) with local south east ethnic citizens in coalition with Turkish socialist intellectuals. This party may get more that %10 threshold, if game players may change their traditional voting tendencies. This party must pass the threshold and should join the parliament and be a part of Turkish democracy.

It they can not pass the 10% voting threshold, then all their seats, almost 70+ will be received by the ruling party with governing majority in the parliament to continue existing poor state of politics as well as local economy. Voters should consider that this is not sustainable for their own personal well-being in the long run.

The Nash equilibrium will be reached only if the last party (hdp) can join the parliament, and if they can be a part of new coalition as opposed to existing ruling party.

The Nash equilibrium is also governing in Turkish presidential elections on the same day. Here two highest selected candidates will run in the second round in 2-weeks and the southeast party voters are the key parameter for the last winner.

This June 24 Turkish elections will have great impact on Turkish political environment. We shall review and experience with Nash equilibrium in political structure with great enthusiasm.

According to Alastair Crooke, writing at Strategic Culture, on June 5th:

“Trump’s US aims for ‘domination’, not through the globalists’ permanent infrastructure of the US defence umbrella, but through the smart leveraging of the US dollar and financial clearing monopoly, by ring-fencing, and holding tight, US technology, and by dominating the energy market, which in turn represents the on/off valve to economic growth for US rivals. In this way, Trump can ‘bring the troops home’, and yet America keeps its hegemony [America’s control of the world, global empire]. Military conflict becomes a last resort.”<

He bases that crucially upon a landmark 6 November 2017 article by Chris Cook, at Seeking Alpha, which laid out, and to a significant extent documented, a formidable and complex geostrategy driving U.S. President Donald Trump’s foreign policies. Cook headlined there “Energy Dominance And America First”, and noted that,

“Towards the tail end of the Clinton administration and the Dot Com boom in 2000, [Trump’s U.S. Treasury Secretary until April 2018] Gary Cohn of Goldman Sachs had dinner with his counterpart at Morgan Stanley, John Shapiro. From this dinner was hatched an audacious plan to take control of the global oil market through a new electronic global market platform.”

This “global market platform,” which had been started months earlier in 2000 by Jeffrey Sprecher, is “ICE,” or InterContinental Exchange, and it uses financial derivatives in order to provide to Wall Street banks control over the future direction of commodites prices (so that the insiders can game the markets), by means of the financial-futures markets, locking in future purchase-and-sale agreements. It also entails Wall Street’s buying enormous commodities-storage warehouses and stashing them with such commodities  — such as, in that case, aluminum), and so it influences also the real estate markets, and doesn’t only manipulate the commodities markets. Those vast storehouses (and the operation of the U.S. Government’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve, to carry out a similar price-manipulation function in the oil business) are crucial in order for the entire scheme to be able to function, because without control over the storehousing of physical commodities, such futures-price manipulations aren’t possible. Consequently, ICE couldn’t get off the ground without major Wall Street partners, which are willing to do that. Cohn and Shapiro (Goldman, and Morgan Stanley) backed Sprecher’s operation; and Wikipedia states that,

“Wall Street bankers, particularly Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, backed him and he launched ICE in 2000 (giving 80 percent control to the two banks who, in turn, spread out the control among Shell, Total, and British Petroleum).”

This is today’s financial world — a world in which billionaires control the future directions of commodities-prices, and thus manipulate markets, and even determine the economic fates of nations. It’s not the myth of capitalism; it is the reality of capitalism. It functions by means of corruption, as it always has, but the corrupt methods constantly evolve.

However, Trump’s geostrategy goes beyond merely this, especially by bringing into the entire operation the world’s wealthiest person, the trillionaire King Saud, who, as the sole owner of the Saudi Government, which in turns owns the world’s largest corporation Aramco, which in turn dominates the oil market and which is also #6 in the natural-gas market (far behind the three giants, which King Saud is trying to destroy — Russia, Iran, and Qatar — so that the Sauds will become able to dominate even there). Trump’s geostrategy ties King Saud even more tightly than before, into America’s aristocracy.

King Saud, as Cook noted, is trying to disinvest in petroleum and reposition increasingly into natural gas, because outside the United States and around the world, people are seriously concerned to minimize global warming so as to postpone global burnout from uncontrollably soaring atmospheric carbon. Petroleum has an even worse carbon footprint than does natural gas; and therefore natural gas is the world’s “transition fuel” to a ‘survivable’ future, while solar and other alternatives take hold (even if too late). Despite all of the carbon-fuels industries’ propaganda, people outside the United States are determined to delay global burnout, and the insiders know this. King Saud knows that his petroleum-laden portfolio will have to diversify fast, because the long-term future for petroleum-prices is decline. And he won’t be able to control prices at all in the natural-gas business unless he’s got America’s aristocracy on his side, in the effort to keep those prices up (at least while the Sauds will be increasing their profits from natural gas). Unlike his dominance over OPEC, Saudi Arabia has no such position to control natural gas-prices. He thus needs Wall Street’s cooperation.

Cook said:

“The second objective was a switch from oil to natural gas, and when the U.S. [military] was obliged to leave Saudi Arabia, they [the U.S.] thereupon established their biggest regional base in Qatar, who co-own with Iran the greatest single natural gas reserve on the planet – South Pars.

Energy Dominance

In the four months since President Trump’s announcement, the market strategy developed by Gary Cohn is now being implemented and its elements are emerging into view.

The general elections are less than a year away in India. If the Congress declares that its prime ministerial candidate will be Rahul Gandhi (and it may not be), expect to hear more jibes by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) about the Congress prime minister’s seat being reserved for “the dynasty”.

The irony is that “the dynasty” has not always ruled the Congress; indeed, whenever dynastic impulses have manifested themselves, they have not worked for the Congress. Anyone who cannot see this – whether a critic, admirer or self-styled dynast – is wrong.

The recent defeat of the Congress in the Chikmagalur constituency of the Karnataka assembly is just one illustration of this fact. By invoking Indira Gandhi’s return to Parliament after her win from Chikmagalur in 1978 – following her defeat in the general elections of 1977 – Rahul (and Sonia) Gandhi mistakenly called  on prospective voters to elect the Congress just as they had supported “my grandmother Indira.” Voters disregarded the appeal.

Does this suggest that Rahul and Sonia are caught in a political and social time-warp and that their political leadership is out of sync with reality? Since Indira recovered her political fortunes from Chikmagalur 40 years ago, a new generation has been born in India. Its aspirations cannot be the same as those who revived Indira’s political career.

In Chikmagalur this time, the dynastic leitmotif came wrapped in further irony: B.L. Shankar, the Congress candidate, was a Janata Dal member in 1978, when Indira was trying to get re-elected to parliament after her defeat in 1977. He then filed a legal petition labelling Indira as a traitor because of the Emergency and sought to debar her from contesting. Why did the present Congress leadership think that Shankar, who changed sides, could steer the Congress to victory in Chikmagalur in 2018?

By playing on the Indira theme, they wrongly highlighted the importance of “the dynasty” and handed Narendra Modi a political stick to beat the Congress with.

In fact, since Independence, neither India nor the Congress have been ruled by a “dynasty”. Certainly,   when it comes to India, apart from Jawaharlal Nehru (who always won), Indira, Rajiv (as prime ministers) and Sonia (as party president) won and lost elections on steam that was their own, even if in 1984 fate presented Rajiv with the opportunity to benefit from public sympathy over the assassination of his mother.

Nor did “the dynasty” always lead the Congress party. During his 14-year premiership, Nehru was Congress president only from 1951 to 1954. Indira was not Congress president during her first term as prime minister (1967-77) but only after 1979 – and during her second term (1980-1984).

Indira’s rise was not “dynastic”. She gained a lot of experience as a politician and social worker during the national movement and after independence. After Nehru’s death, Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri appointed her minister for information and broadcasting. She acquitted herself well in that post. Following Shastri’s death in 1966 she became prime minister because she defeated Morarji Desai in a free and fair party election.

Rajiv Gandhi entered parliament by contesting – and winning – an election in Amethi in 1981. Persuaded by Zail Singh to take over the premiership after Indira’s assassination, he won a huge parliamentary majority one month later, in December 1984, to confirm his position as prime minister. Like Indira’s, his premiership was not “dynastically” guaranteed and he was voted out of office in 1989.

Sonia became party president in 1998 – eight years after Rajiv’s death. That does not reflect a dynastic succession. Sonia’s Congress came to power six years later. Winning 145 seats but emerging as the largest single party, the Congress created the UPA ruling alliance with some other parties. After the 2009 general elections the Congress-led UPA formed the next government. Manmohan Singh headed both the UPA governments as prime minister. He was repeatedly undermined by Sonia as party president. Then, in 2014, the Sonia-Rahul Congress won only 44 seats. This was the party’s worst-ever performance in a national election and raised questions about its political future.

Sonia Gandhi retired as party president in December 2017, having served for a record 19 years. She was succeeded by her son Rahul. “The dynasty” may appear conspicuous in the case of Rahul. Young Indians want to live in a meritocracy. Rahul is surely aware that his anointment as Congress president by his mother – and his expressed readiness to become prime minister in 2019 – are hardly in sync with popular aspirations. In contrast, the political rise and survival of the politically experienced Indira always hinged on election results.

At another level, the vitality of Jawaharlal Nehru’s Congress party depended on strong grassroots organisation and vibrant inner-party democracy. Nehru’s four-anna Congress became the largest independence movement in world history and led India to freedom from British imperialism.

After 1947, the broad all-India appeal of Nehru’s Congress rested in part on the inclusion of strong regional leaders with grassroots bases. In contrast, Indira, Rajiv and Sonia prevented powerful regional leaders from surfacing in the Congress. That explains why the Congress has lost several state elections since 2012. In Chikmagalur, a local Congressman admitted that the party lacked popular local leaders with a strong social base to match the BJP’s ‘deft social-engineering politics.’

As in the past, voters will not care a fig for the so-called dynasty in the elections of 2019. They will want a principled and effective Congress leader who can meet their aspirations for better social and economic life chances by strengthening communal harmony, intellectual and political freedom through the rule of law and accountable democratic governance.

India’s most far-reaching economic reforms – which created the international perception of “India rising” – were initiated in 1991 by Narasimha Rao as Congress prime minister. He was never a dynast.

Can the Congress assure voters that it will provide them with the best prime minister if voted to power in 2019?

This article appeared at The Wire.

Last week, attending the late Maduluwawe Sobith Thera’s 76th birth anniversary at the Sri Lanka Foundation Institute, President Sirisena warned the country not to think too much about the upcoming presidential election in 2020. According to the Sunday Times (June 03, 2018) the president has claimed that “there is lots of talk about presidential candidates. That is a crime as the elections are due only at the end of next year. Already presidential candidates are being named. This will lead to instability in the country. By creating an election interest, one and a half years before the elections, the state officials will stop their work.” It is true that when changes are expected after major elections, attitude of the public-sector employees also change. This is an unavoidable side-effect of national elections in Sri Lanka. Did Sirisena unconsciously admit that he has no chance of winning the presidential election in 2020? This is an interesting question, but it is not the focus of this essay.

There has been a degree of hypocrisy in the appeal that it is too early to think about the impending big election. When President Sirisena asked the Supreme Court whether he can serve as president for six years instead of the five-year period stipulated by the 19th Amendment, he was thinking about the election. Unfortunately for Sirisena, the Supreme Court said no. Moreover, almost all major parties have started contemplating and some have already started preparing for the presidential election. Hence, it is not completely inappropriate to think about the election on our part, the ones who will be at the receiving end of any outcome of the election.

A couple of weeks back, the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) presented its proposal for the 20th Amendment to the constitution. The proposal seeks to transform the existing executive presidential system into a cabinet form of government. It seems that the JVP is the only party that sincerely believes in abolishing the executive presidential system. All others who support the idea, seem not too serious about the change. They like it. Obviously, as a small party, the JVP can play a major role in governance under a cabinet system. Hence, the persistence of the JVP on this issue has not been a surprise.

Nonetheless, I expected the Joint Opposition or the Sri Lanka Pudujana Peramuna (SLPP) to support the JVP proposal. Under the existing constitutional arrangements, Mahinda Rajapaksa cannot come back to power as president. The 19th Amendment reintroduced the two-term limit. Hence, under a Westminster model of government, Rajapaksa would have no problem winning the general election and come back to power as prime minister. The abolition of the executive presidential system will resolve Rajapaksa’s two term problem. The party however decided not to support the JVP proposal. What does the decision suggest about the SLPP’s strategic calculations?

For me, it indicates that the party has been extremely confident about the likelyhood of winning the upcoming presidential election. The confidence most likely stems from the recent local government election results. The SLPP secured about 45 percent of the votes in this election. Will the same votes be recast for the SLPP candidate in the presidential election? Most likely, yes.

One, bulk of the SLPP votes in the local government election came from the Sinhala heartland, which consistently votes for Rajapaksa. Even in the 2015 presidential election, votes in the Sinhala heartland went to Rajapaksa; not Sirisena. Two, one of the main reasons which stirred a lot of dissatisfaction towards the ruling coalition in this election was the high (or in the words of some people, unmanageable) cost of living. Postelection, the government has hardly done anything to lower cost of living. Instead, as far as I know, cost of living has been increasing steadily. Hence, there is no evidence to suggest that Sinhala votes could be redirected towards the UNP or the SLFP in the near future.
If this is the case, the SLPP needs only about six percent more votes to win the presidential election. This six percent could come from two sources: (1) about 14 percent votes the SLFP/UPFA gained in the local elections or the Muslim votes. In order to tap into the SLFP/UPFA votes, the SLPP needs to either appease and start collaborating with Sirisena or undertake a concerted scheme to prevent him from contesting the presidential election.

Given the animosity between the Rajapaksa faction and Sirisena, incorporating the president into the SLPP headed coalition seems unlikely. If the SLPP succeeds in convincing Sirisena not to contest, the party candidate will most probably win the election.

Another promising source is the Muslim votes. Antagonizing the Muslims through the actions of Bodu Bala Sena and other militant Buddhist entities negatively affected the Rajapaksa coalition in the last election. There have already been moves to entice the Muslims. For example, Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, the presumed SLPP candidate, recently stated that “Muslims are ready to work hand-in-hand with the Rajapaksas to form a government under the leadership of former president Mahinda Rajapaksa.” (Daily Mirror, May 29, 2018). He has already been attending Muslim religious ceremonies. Can the Muslims be convinced to vote again for Rajapaksas? Of course. The continuing attacks on the Muslims during the tenure of the unity government may influence at least a segment of the Muslim voters to support one of the Rajapaksas in this election. Hence, the prospect of the SLPP candidate in the presidential election looks very bright.

Only problem I sense in the candidacy of Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, who has been promoted as the SLPP candidate by interest groups, is the possibility of mobilization by large segment of the minorities and pro-democracy forces against Gotabhaya. His candidacy has the potential to ignite a protest vote against the SLPP in this election. Another Rajapaksa, for example, Basil may not invoke the same degree of resistance. One has to wait and see how the SLPP thinking evolves on this issue.

The split between the Sirisena faction and the UNP seems well-defined now. Parties are exchanging barbs against each other vigorously. The split means the UNP will not repeat the same strategy in the 2020 election and support Sirisena. This on the other hand means that the UNP will field its own candidate and Sirisena will not be able to secure a second term. In the local government election, the UNP gained 32.61 percent of the votes. Reaching the 50 percent mark will be an uphill task. The problems of the UNP will be compounded by the fact that the party does not have any more space to expand its presidential vote, except the Tamil votes.

Going by the recent attitude of the Tamil National Alliance (TNA), the party will directly or indirectly endorse and support the UNP candidate. It has about three percent solid votes, which could be translated into UNP votes. Would majority of the Tamils vote for the UNP candidate? It is absolutely clear that the Tamils will not have the same level of enthusiasm for the UNP candidate in 2020 largely due to the disappointment, which stems from the government inaction in terms of resolving Tamil issues. Also, Tamil votes will be determined by the candidate of the SLPP. The more hardline the SLPP candidate the more excited the Tamils will be in voting for the UNP candidate. Nevertheless, majority of the Tamil votes may go to the UNP candidate, which may not be adequate to reach the 50 percent mark.

One area the UNP will seriously look into is the votes Sirisena faction gained in the local government election. It needs to prevent those votes from going to the SLPP. This can, at least partially, be done by influencing Sirisena to contest regardless of the chances he has in winning the election. Therefore, both the UNP and the SLPP should be kind to the president, of course with different aims in mind.

Former Indian President Pranab Mukherjee addressed the closing ceremony of the ‘Tritiya Varsha Sangh Shiksha Varg’, a Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) event, on June 7 in Nagpur, India to mark the conclusion of a three-year training camp for swayamsevaks there.

Mr. Mukherjee’s decision to address thousands of RSS volunteers has been a very controversial one and was questioned and bemoaned by the Congress as a political gift to its opponent, the BJP, the fascist Hindutvadi party that now rules India, at a time when the country is being landscaped for the next general election. They had a valid ground. After all, the nearly 100 year old organization, RSS, which drew inspiration from Mussolini’s Italy and Hitler’s Germany has a history of twisting facts with half-truths since the days of Gandhi when the latter visited RSS camps in 1934. However, Mukherjee, the veteran Congress leader, stood his ground and delivered a sharp defense of India’s pluralism and secularism, and called on the RSS workers to shun violence or hatred.

Although he did not directly rebuke the Hindu Right-wing organization, he did not praise it either. He said, “Any attempt to define our nation through religion, dogma or intolerance will only lead to dilution of our national identity.”

India’s history since gaining her independence on August 15, 1947 from the Great Britain has been a checkered one, punctuated by a series of high-level murders, starting with the murder of its most notable figure, Mohandas Gandhi who was gunned down in 1948 by a RSS Hindu fanatic – Nathuram Godse. Two prime ministers – Indira Gandhi and her son Rajiv Gandhi were slain by radicalized Sikh bodyguards in 1984 and a Tamil suicide bomber in 1991, respectively. The country has also fought communist/Naxalite insurgencies in the east and separatist movements in the north-west and north-east frontier territories.

India has made it to the Guinness book of world records for huge deployment of her armed security forces in the Occupied Jammu & Kashmir as Kashmir is the only place with the highest ratio of security to people. There are an estimated 700,000 security forces for a population of 12 million. It is not a small number: 1-soldier to 17-Kashmiri civilians. Kashmiris continue to complain bitterly about the heavy security presence, and tensions have risen in the past as Indian forces have repeatedly fired on rock-throwing youths and peaceful protesters, raped women in villages and towns and burnt and damaged property worth millions of dollars. Seemingly, India had read the writings on the wall and understood that the resistance of the freedom-loving Kashmiris can’t be tackled by merely corrupting the politicians, and thus, has relied on heavy armed forces deployment to kill the resistance movement and force the Kashmiris to feel that they are part of India.

With the daily lynching of Muslims in many parts of India, and Muslim and Christian houses of worships threatened by re-energized Hindutvadi fascists, the speech of Mr. Mukherjee could not have come at a more appropriate time.

Mr. Mukherjee started his speech discussing the concepts of Nation, Nationalism and Patriotism in the context of India, that is Bharat. Using the dictionary meaning of the terms, he said that “nation is defined as ‘a large group of people sharing the same culture, language or history and inhabiting a particular state or area’. Nationalism is defined as ‘identification with one’s own nation and support for its interests especially to the exclusion of interests of other nations’. Patriotism is defined as ‘devotion to and vigorous support for one’s country’.”

It won’t require too much digging into history to state categorically that there never has been a single Indian nation, but many nations with their linguistic, cultural and social mores that were at variance with others and remain so to this very date in the landmass that we call today modern India. Dynasties emerged and became extinct as the fortunes changed for them. Even if they tried to create a shared culture and language amongst the inhabitants that they ruled over, such wishful projects never succeeded in creating the Indian fusion or nationalism where the local, individual, or regional cultural identity felt part of the whole.

As it has happened in most parts of the world, others from outside came and ruled over the indigenous people in India. The so-called Indo-Aryans came from central Asia and imposed or tried to impose their caste-ridden monstrosity over the indigenous darker-skinned inhabitants (the so-called Dravidians) that they came across and defeated them, sealing their fates forever as the lower caste people.

However, thanks to disingenuous historians and politicians, the matter of invading Aryans and their mass slaughter of the indigenous people is long lost in the political discourse. They are considered natives to India solely because of masterminding the Hindu religion that is the majority religion in this landmass of many religions, castes and creeds. Sadly, the same concession is not given to the descendants of other conquerors – Muslims and Christians – that came later.

In the crafty hands of biased individuals, Indian history got divided into three or at most four periods – the pre-Muslim Hindu Era ending in the 12th century before Muslim rule of the vast territories of India, the Muslim Era that would end with English colonization of the territory in the 18th-19th centuries, and the modern India when she earned her freedom from the British Raj on August 15, 1947.

There is such a nostalgia about the Indian past that myths have throttled or reshaped inglorious facts, and history is twisted to portray the Muslim period of rule of India as devastating.

Consider Mr. Mukherjee’s speech when he said, “Ancient travelers like Megasthenes in the 4th century B.C., Fa Hien in the 5th century A.D. and Hiuen Tsang in the 7th century AD; when they came to India, wrote about the efficient administrative systems with planned settlements and good infrastructure.”

Lost in his speech are some hard facts about India while eulogizing the past.

Hiuen Tsang (also Xuanzang, Hsuan Tsang) was the celebrated Chinese traveler, a Buddhist monk, who visited India in Ancient Times. He is described as the “Prince of Pilgrims.” He made it to India in 630 or 633 C.E., depending on the source after about three years of travel, via western China, Central Asia and Afghanistan. His visit to India was an important event of the reign of Harshavardhana. By that time, the city of Pataliputra, which was home to the First Buddhist council immediately following the death of the Buddha and the Second Buddhist council in the reign of Ashoka, was in the ruins.  Instead, Kanauj and Prayag had become important cities.

His first impressions of the Hindus inhabiting northwest India were recorded as follows: “The people are weak-minded and cowardly, and they are given to deceit and treachery. In their relations with each other there is much trickery and little courtesy. These people are small in size and unpredictable in their movements.”

Sally Hovey Wriggins wrote: “When Xuanzang finally reached the area near Jalalabad in Pakistan, he felt as Alexander the Great did 9 centuries earlier, that he had entered a new world. He stops his travel narrative to devote a long chapter to a consideration of the land of India. He says: India “was above 90,000 li in circuit, with the Snowy Mountains (The Hindu Kush) in the north and the sea on its three other sides… It was politically divided into above seventy kingdoms; the heat of the summer was very great.” [Source: “Xuanzang on the Silk Road” by Sally Hovey Wriggins, author of books on Xuanzang; mongolianculture.com .]

“He then gives us Indian measures of space and time, tells us about the castes of India, notes the characteristics of the people, their education, customs, products, dress (“the people have no tailoring”) in a kind of ethnographic survey.” He deplored Hindu excesses such as “the Hindu who covers himself with ashes like a cat who has slept in a chimney.” “His travels were not without danger… Robbers also tried to ambush his caravan in the Punjab. Pirates very nearly burned him at the stake not far from Ayodha. While on the pirate’s altar, Xuanzang was able to concentrate on the figure of the Maitreya Buddha so that he lost all awareness of his surroundings. He does not report his narrow escapes to the Emperor and so we are indebted to his biographer, Hui Li, for the accounts of them.”

Xuanzang also visited the city of Kanauj, the capital of King Harsavardhana’s empire where he told the Indian king about the “compassionate” ruler in China (Tang emperor Taizong) who “reduced taxes and mitigated punishments. The country has surplus revenue and nobody attempts to violate the laws. As to his moral influence and his profound edification of the people, it is exhausting to narrate in any detail.” Harsavardhana responded: ‘Excellent! The people of your land must have performed good deeds in order to have such a saintly lord.’ [Source: Tansen Sen, Education about Asia, Volume 11, Number 3 Winter 2006]

Xuanzang’s accounts, predating Muslim rule, portray that the Indians, far from being united under a single nation, were divided politically and that they were still a uncultured people who had no tailors. From his discourse with Harsavardhana it is also obvious that in the latter’s territory, people were heavily taxed.

Historical accounts also show that after the death of Harsavardhana, for the next three centuries there were serious disorder and famine in northern India. It is worth noting here that beginning with the fall of the Guptas and becoming complete after the death of Harsha in 647 C.E., north Indian history is confused and obscure for some five or six hundred years until the advent of Muslim rule. As the Dark Ages divide the classical age of the Greek and the Roman, so do these centuries divide modern from ancient India. [Source: “Xuanzang on the Silk Road” by Sally Hovey Wriggins; mongolianculture.com ]

How would Mr. Mukherjee explain the collapse of the Indian system if it had such a flawless, efficient administrative systems and good infrastructure? The real facts are that the system was weak like a termite-eaten house, which collapsed like a deck of card with very little shaking!

In his speech, Mukherjee said that while the Europeans were divided into nation states based on the concept of a defined territory, a single language, shared religion and common enemy, “India was a state long before the concept of the European Nation State gained ground after the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648” and that Indian nationalism emanated from ‘universalism.’ Again, it is an exaggerated claim and belies facts. Truly, if there was ever any universalism, then hundreds of millions of Indians would not have rejected their Sanatan dharma and chosen the faith of ‘invaders’ or ‘foreigners’. Nor would there be hundreds of millions of Dalits who are treated worse than dogs and swine in India!

Despite such exaggerated claims, Mr. Mukherjee’s speech was a timely one that deserves our thanks for trying to open the chauvinist minds of the Hindutvadi fascists of the RSS towards embracing diversity and pluralism, the very trend-setters of our time.

By Steve Herman

President Donald Trump sounded optimistic about persuading North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons program after a lengthy one-on-one meeting with leader Kim Jong Un. Kim appeared to echo the president’s optimism.

Trump said Tuesday at the beginning of expanded discussions with aides from both countries that “We will solve a big problem” and “a big dilemma.”

He talked about the two leaders achieving “tremendous success together” and predicted “it will be successful. It will be done.”

It was hard to hear the president and Kim over the clicking of camera shutters, and it remains unclear precisely what he was referring to.

Earlier Trump and Kim met one on one for about 40 minutes with only their interpreters. They then headed to a larger meeting with aides.

Trump was flanked in the larger meeting by chief of staff John Kelly, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and national security adviser John Bolton. They sat across the table from Kim and his team.

Earlier Tuesday morning the two leaders shook hands before retreating inside a Singapore hotel to begin that one-on-one discussion about the possible denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

To the sound of dozens of cameras, the two leaders met in front of a background of U.S. and North Korean flags in an unprecedented event — the first meeting of a sitting U.S. president and a North Korean leader.

Trump’s motorcade arrived first at the Capella Hotel on Singapore’s resort island of Sentosa. Kim’s motorcade arrived a few minutes later.

The two men sat side-by-side before beginning their solo talks with Trump predicting a “great discussion.”

“We’re going to be tremendously successful and it’s my honor, and we will have a terrific relationship, I have no doubt,” Trump said.

Kim said through an interpreter that it was “not easy to get here” and that “old prejudices and practices worked as obstacles on our way forward, but we overcame all of them and we are here today.”

The White House announced Monday that Trump would leave Singapore Tuesday night after meeting with Kim, adding that talks between U.S. and North Korean officials “are ongoing and have moved more quickly than expected.”

A White House statement said Trump would hold a one-on-one meeting with Kim Tuesday morning, with only translators present, followed by a working lunch and an expanded bilateral meeting that will include Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Chief of Staff John Kelly and National Security Adviser John Bolton.

The U.S. president will then address the media before flying out late Tuesday Singapore time. Previous reports had suggested Trump would leave Wednesday.

On the eve of the first encounter between a sitting U.S. president and a leader of North Korea, American officials are maintaining that any resulting agreement must lead to an end of North Korea’s nuclear weapons and ballistic missile threats.

There will not be a repeat of “flimsy agreements” made between previous U.S. administrations and North Korea, Secretary Pompeo told reporters in Singapore on Monday.

“The ultimate objective we seek from diplomacy with North Korea has not changed — the complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization of the Korea Peninsula is only outcome that the United States will accept,” Pompeo said.

Sanctions will remain until North Korea completely and verifiably eliminates its weapons of mass destruction programs, Pompeo added.

“If diplomacy does not move in the right direction, those measures will increase,” he said.

Pompeo said he was “very optimistic” the meeting Tuesday between Trump and Kim would “have a successful outcome.”

He declined, however, to reveal any details of the preliminary discussions held Monday between U.S. and North Korean officials.

Pompeo did say the United States is “prepared to take what will be security assurances that are different, unique that America has been willing to provide previously. That’s necessary and appropriate.”

But when pressed by reporters, the secretary of state would not say whether that could include reduction of the number of or removal of U.S. troops in South Korea.

It is also unclear whether U.S. officials will raise human rights issues in meetings with the North Koreans. Ahead of his trip, President Trump said “every issue will be raised.” But he did not address human rights issues when he met with Kim’s top aide, Kim Yong-cho. Critics say ignoring the issue risks squandering leverage and abandoning the North’s victims.

Trump attended a working lunch Monday hosted by Singapore’s prime minister, Lee Hsien Loong, at the Istana, which is the official residence of the city state’s president.

“We have a very interesting meeting in particular tomorrow, and I think things can work out very nicely,” Trump told Lee. “We appreciate your hospitality and professionalism and your friendship.”

Trump was presented with a birthday cake by his Singaporean host. The U.S. president turns 72 on June 14.

Trump also spoke by telephone Monday with South Korean President Moon Jae-in, according to officials in Seoul who predicted that if Tuesday’s Singapore summit is a success it would be a “gift” to the entire world.

“President Moon and President Trump agreed Trump and Kim will be able to make a great achievement if the two leaders come together to find a common denominator through frank discussions,” Blue House spokesman Kim Eu-kyeom told reporters.

The spokesman said Trump told Moon he would send Pompeo to Seoul immediately after the summit to explain its outcome.

About 5,000 journalists are in Singapore for the occasion, but only a handful of American and North Korean reporters and photographers were permitted at the venue when the two leaders greeted each other.

Bill Gallo contributed to this report .

Children of highly critical parents show less attention to emotional facial expressions, according to new research from Binghamton University, State University at New York.

“These findings suggest that children with a critical parent might avoid paying attention to faces expressing any type of emotion,” said Kiera James, graduate student of psychology at Binghamton University, and lead author of the paper. “This behavior might affect their relationships with others and could be one reason why children exposed to high levels of criticism are at risk for things like depression and anxiety.”

The researchers wanted to examine how exposure to parental criticism impacts the way that children process and pay attention to facial expressions of emotion. One way to look at attention is through a neural marker called the Late Positive Potential (LPP), which provides a measure of how much someone is paying attention to emotional information, such as a face that is happy or sad.

James and fellow researchers had parents of 7 to 11-year-old children talk about their child for five minutes. These statements were later coded for levels of criticism. They also measured the brain activity of the children as they viewed a series of pictures of faces showing different emotions. The researchers found that children of highly critical parents displayed less attention to all of the emotional facial expressions than children of parents displaying low levels of criticism.

“We know from previous research that people have a tendency to avoid things that make them uncomfortable, anxious, or sad because such feelings are aversive. We also know that children with a critical parent are more likely to use avoidant coping strategies when they are in distress than children without a critical parent,” said James. “Given this research, and our findings that children with a critical parent pay less attention to all emotional facial expressions than children without a critical parent, one possible explanation is that the children with a critical parent avoid looking at any facial expressions of emotion. This may help them avoid exposure to critical expressions, and, by extension, the aversive feelings they might associate with parental criticism. That said, it may also prevent them from seeing positive expressions from others.”

The researchers hope to follow up these results with another study examining what happens in the brains of children in real time when they are receiving positive and negative comments from their parents.

Bartenders and cooks have long recognized the value of an orange twist, but thanks to researchers at the University of Central Florida, squeezing oranges may give us a new way to deliver medicine or to detect bridge failures before they happen.

Engineering Assistant Professor Andrew K. Dickerson and graduate student Nicholas M. Smith have figured out the mechanics of how oranges release that thin stream of fragrant oil when squeezed. They characterized the orange peels’ structure and figured out the role the layers have to create the microjet dynamic. By mimicking nature’s mechanism of an orange layer, pharmaceutical companies may be able to develop a less expensive and less complex way to deliver airborne medication.

“We study natural systems to mathematically characterize how creation works, and despite the ubiquity of citrus-fruit consumption, these jets had not been previously studied,” Dickerson said. “Nature is our greatest inspiration for tackling real-world problems.”

The team’s findings are published in today’s Proceedings from the National Academy of Sciences.

Florida’s fruit is complex. Its hard outer layer protects the fruit, and a white spongy layer just below the skin has microscopic reservoirs of oil in hidden pockets. The spongy material absorbs impact, but when squeezed to a critical pressure it pushes up and tears open a minute section of the hard outer-layer to spray its fragrant stream. These microjets are small but fast, exiting their cavities at 22 mph on average by accelerating 5,000 Gs, which is equivalent to about 1,000 times the force astronauts feels at launch.

“There are several potential applications,” Smith said. “For example, for asthmatics, you could have a small slice of material which would aerosolize emergency medication that you currently find in expensive, multi-use inhalers. This approach may be less expensive and biodegradable.”

An orange peel releases an oily substance, and the dynamics should hold for other types of liquids, the researchers said.

But there’s still some research needed before putting the orange peel approach to work delivering medication.

“First, we need to work out sizes and proportions,” Dickerson said. “It’s important to understand exactly how the microjets work and how to tune their stability for medical applications. The size of droplets and the amount of medication they carry is critical. We’ve got a ways to go before applications can be explored.”

But when that happens, the possibilities are only limited by the imagination.

“Imagine a self-diagnosing bridge,” Dickerson said. “It would have an orange-like skin layer and when you were approaching material failure, you would get a preventative warning, a color change perhaps.”

Dickerson, a fluid-dynamic expert, is making a career of studying nature. He’s already published several papers looking at what can be learned from the proverbial wet-dog shake and how mosquitos survive raindrop collisions. Studying the shake helps us understand how to self-dry large surfaces such as solar panels. And studying how mosquitos survive rain could help create strategies for combating the disease-carrying insects.

“Few labs nationally do this type of research,” Smith said. “That’s one of the reasons I came to UCF to do my graduate work. This is exciting stuff. Nature has had billions of years to get the engineering principles right and I get to look at them, figure them out and then play with them to solve problems. That’s pretty exciting!”

A study, led by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), is the first systematically to examine the extent to which projected changes such as increases in temperature and reduced water availability could affect the production and nutritional quality of common crops such as tomatoes, leafy vegetables and pulses.

If no action is taken to reduce the negative impacts on agricultural yields, the researchers estimate that the environmental changes predicted to occur by mid- to end-century in water availability and ozone concentrations would reduce average yields of vegetables and legumes by 35% and 9% respectively. In hot settings such as Southern Europe and large parts of Africa and South Asia, increased air temperatures would reduce average vegetable yields by an estimated 31%.

Environmental changes, including climate change, water scarcity and biodiversity loss, are predicted to become more profound in the 21st century – posing significant challenges to global agriculture, food security and nutrition. While there is growing evidence that predicted future changes in temperature and rainfall will lead to significant reductions in the yields of many staple crops such as rice and wheat, the impacts on vegetables and legumes – important constituents of healthy diets -are largely unknown.

To address this evidence gap the researchers conducted a systematic review of all the available evidence from experimental studies published since 1975 on the impacts of changes in environmental exposures on the yield and nutritional quality of vegetables and legumes. Experiments included in the review were conducted in 40 countries.

The team then estimated the effects on the yields and nutritional quality of crops of changes in key environmental exposures, including increases in greenhouse gases (tropospheric carbon dioxide and ozone), reduced water availability for irrigation and rising ambient temperatures.

Previous research has shown that raised levels of carbon dioxide would increase crop yields, but this study identified for the first time that these potential yield benefits are likely to be cancelled out in the presence of simultaneous changes in other environmental exposures.

The researchers warn that in the absence of substantial efforts to respond to predicted future environmental changes, reductions in the yields of vegetables and legumes will substantially alter their availability globally. Such changes may affect the affordability and consumption of vegetables and legumes in the mid- to long-term and this could have significant impacts on population health all around the world.

Dr Pauline Scheelbeek, lead author at LSHTM, said: “Our study shows that environmental changes such as increased temperature and water scarcity may pose a real threat to global agricultural production, with likely further impacts on food security and population health.

“Vegetables and legumes are vital components of a healthy, balanced and sustainable diet and nutritional guidelines consistently advise people to incorporate more vegetables and legumes into their diet. Our new analysis suggests, however, that this advice conflicts with the potential impacts of environmental changes that will decrease the availability of these important crops unless action is taken.”

To mitigate the risks that future environmental changes pose to these crops, researchers say that innovations to improve agricultural production must be a priority, including the development of new crop varieties as well as enhanced agricultural management and mechanisation.

Professor Alan Dangour, senior author at LSHTM, said: “We have brought together all the available evidence on the impact of environmental change on yields and quality of vegetables and legumes for the first time.

“Our analysis suggests that if we take a ‘business as usual’ approach, environmental changes will substantially reduce the global availability of these important foods. Urgent action needs to be taken, including working to support the agriculture sector to increase its resilience to environmental changes and this must be a priority for governments across the world.

“But our study also identifies the broader policy relevance of environmental change. Vegetables and legumes are essential constituents of healthy diets and so efforts to ensure that their global availability is not threatened by predicted environmental changes must also be high on the global public health agenda.”

The authors acknowledge limitations of the study, including the fact that collated evidence on the impact of environmental changes on the nutritional quality of vegetables and legumes was limited and the research team identified this as an area requiring more evidence generation.

The study was funded by the Wellcome Trust as part of its Our Planet, Our Health programme.

Dr Howie Frumkin, Head of Our Planet, Our Health at Wellcome, said: “Improvements in agricultural technology have dramatically boosted the world’s food production over the last 80 or so years. But we mustn’t be complacent. Environmental changes, including more chaotic weather patterns and a warming climate, threaten our ability to feed the world’s people.

“This excellent review highlights that some of the most important foods, and some of the world’s most vulnerable people, are at highest risk. This research is a wake-up call, underlining the urgency of tackling climate change and of improving agricultural practices.”

By Keshav Kelkar

No other summit in recent history has perhaps witnessed as much head-spinning melodrama as the upcoming meeting between US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un.  While the bulk of the commentary on the upcoming summit on 12 June has focused on the implications the meeting will have on the future of US-North Korea relations, there is one overlooked aspect that merits further analysis: what are the stakes for China?

Although Trump and Kim will be taking centre stage in Singapore, the summit will be closely watched by Beijing, not least because it is historic but because the outcomes could have significant implications for China. Beijing will look to achieve the following objectives:

First, the summit, or the days leading up to it, provides Chinese President Xi Jinping with an opportunity to display Chinese leadership over a diplomatic process that has implications for the future of the Korean peninsula. By pre-emptively inviting Kim for an “unofficial visit” to Beijing, Xi not only became the first foreign leader to meet the reclusive North Korean leader, but also used the opportunity to showcase to international and domestic audiences that China was not sitting idly by as a major diplomatic initiative was unfolding in its sphere of influence. Allowing the US and North Korea to broker any deal without Beijing’s sanction would not only be a diplomatic failure for China, but a huge loss of face for Xi himself.

Moreover, should the summit ultimately fail to produce any concrete outcomes, it would present Xi with a golden opportunity to swoop in and broker a Chinese-led de-nuclearisation talks, which would be good optics for China and deal a symbolic blow to US leadership in the region.

Second, while the initial announcement for a Trump-Kim meeting caught many by surprise, Beijing moved swiftly to ensure that any meeting between Trump and Kim did not jeopardise Chinese security interests on the peninsula. The Korean Peninsula has long been regarded by Chinese strategic planners as the “lips that guard the teeth” – in other words, a strategic buffer state between China and US forces stationed in South Korea and Japan. Therefore, any outcome that could result in a unified Korea aligned with the United States, or further destabilise the North Korean regime is antithetical to Beijing’s interests. The nightmare scenario for Beijing would be to have to deal with armed conflict followed by regime collapse right at its doorstep. As Isaac Stone Fish and Robert E. Kelly point out, “Beijing fears a North Korean collapse far more than Washington does. In such an event, or in the case of a serious destabilisation, Beijing would potentially have to handle thousands, or even millions, of refugees fleeing across the porous border between the two nations. The ruling Chinese Communist Party is ill-equipped to deal with a refugee crisis: it lacks a resettlement policy and has not dealt with a mass influx of refugees since the 1970s.” Conversely, any arrangement that would de-escalate tensions on the peninsula and result in a reduction of US forces is welcome news for Beijing.

Lastly, and more importantly, Beijing will keep a close eye on any deal that would see an easing of sanctions on the North Korean regime, providing China an opportunity to expand economic cooperation with North Korea. Beijing believes that lifting economic sanctions will encourage Pyongang to implement Chinese-style economic reforms, allowing China to reap the fruits of economic cooperation and help stabilise the North Korean regime – a proverbial win-win situation. Graham Allison echoes this argument in a recent op-ed, where he aptly notes “Kim Jong Un has no plans for North Korea adopting American-style democracy. His paramount objective is to remain, like his father and grandfather, Supreme Leader for life. But he could find a form of governance closer to that of Singapore, or more likely China, appealing.”

As Trump gears up to meet the North Korean leader, Washington needs to bear in mind Beijing’s interests in the region for the talks to proceed further, or risk being surprised once again. Kim may be trying to re-orient relations to lessen North Korea’s dependence on China, but it is Xi who has the ultimate veto on any future re-alignment in the region. The last time the US underestimated China’s resolve on the Korean peninsula, it cost the United States. Trump and his advisors would do well to heed the lessons from history.

The author is a Junior Fellow at ORF Delhi

China and Russia’s outreach towards Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has created space for him to explore a new ‘Connect East’ strategy towards ASEAN and seek nuanced ‘strategic autonomy’ in engaging big powers.

By P S Suryanarayana*

Responding to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in Southeast Asia, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has articulated a nascent ‘Connect East’ strategy towards ASEAN. He did not explicitly use the phrase ‘Connect East’ during his visit to Indonesia and Singapore from 29 May to 2 June 2018. But his pronouncements reflect such a strategy as an apparently emerging new dynamic under his ongoing “Act East” policy.

The context is China’s BRI-ambition of seeking full-spectrum connectivity with many countries. Evidently, India is responding through two modest but new aspirations in Southeast Asia – boldness of strategic thinking and a projection of smart power in connectivity-related diplomacy. The current thaw in China-India engagement at the highest political level seems to have encouraged Modi, for at least two reasons:

‘Smart Power’ Projection

First, Modi is willing to help Indonesia develop ports like Sabang in the northern tip of Sumatra facing a sensitive geostrategic area near India’s Andaman and Nicobar Islands. By this, he has signalled a bold message, even if India cannot eventually use any such Indonesian port for its own military purposes. The two countries have agreed to set up a joint working group to consider Modi’s offer.

In a big-picture perspective, Modi may be trying to emulate China in exploring strategically resonant economic partnerships with other countries. Some consider India’s aspiration in developing the Iranian port of Chabahar as Delhi’s answer to China’s economic and strategic stakes in promoting Pakistan’s Gwadar port, which lies near Chabahar. However, Chabahar, to the west of India, cannot figure in Delhi’s apparent calculus of ‘Connect East’.

Second, Modi has now sought to position India as a smart player in the high-tech domain of inter-state connectivity projects. This should explain much of the non-conventional focus during his visit to Singapore from 31 May to 2 June.

A few specifics of these two ‘Connect East’ trends can be noted. Modi and Indonesian President Joko Widodo articulated a “shared vision” for “maritime cooperation in the Indo-Pacific” and expressed “a strong belief” that such cooperation “can be a force of immense stability in the region”. Official briefings indicated possibilities of India developing Sabang and gaining greater access to Indonesian ground facilities for Indian space programmes.

India’s agreement with Singapore to cooperate in the financial technology (fintech) sector is seen by both as a potential “new driver of the bilateral economic partnership”. Artificial Intelligence, Innovation and Space figure among the agreements signed during Modi’s visit to Nanyang Technological University in Singapore. Digital economy is also emerging as a new collaborative area.

Potential ‘Swing-State’?

Modi’s ‘Connect East’ strategy is just one part of Delhi’s geopolitics in the wider Indo-Pacific region as evinced from his keynote address at the Shangri-La Dialogue (SLD) in Singapore on 1 June. Indeed, the stage for this was set by his informal summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Wuhan on 27 and 28 April and with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Sochi on 21 May.

Modi was actually invited by those two leaders. That itself signified a new surge in the common interest of China and Russia to engage India.Being very close strategic partners at present, Beijing and Moscow see a United States-supported India as a potential swing-state that could help Washington tilt the scales against Sino-Russian interests.

According to the Chinese Foreign Ministry, Xi told Modi during their informal summit that “a sound relationship between China and India is an important and positive factor for maintaining world stability”. Clearly, Xi would like India to recognise the imperative of good relations with China, which has been having a turbulent equation with the US for some time now.

Similarly placed with the US today is Russia, a long-time source of India’s military hardware and knowhow. Significantly, Modi disclosed at the SLD that he and Putin discussed the importance of a multipolar world.

‘Strategic Autonomy’ and Hedging

The obvious message is that both Russia and China would like India to work autonomously of the US in global geopolitics and geo-economics. A logical corollary is that India’s “strategic autonomy”, Modi’s own policy-evocative phrase at SLD, will serve the hedging interests of both China and Russia in their individual and collective dealings with the US.

Modi’s new-found enthusiasm for “strategic autonomy” can also potentially help India itself to hedge or balance its relations with the current Russia-China combine on one hand and the functional US-Japan ties on the other. In this context, Modi said at SLD that Delhi-Tokyo ties had now become “a partnership of great substance and purpose”.

Moreover, India’s relatively new “global strategic partnership” with the US “has overcome the hesitations of history and continues to deepen across the extraordinary breadth” of these ties.

For some time now, India has also teamed up with Japan, the US and Australia in a rejuvenated Quad for official-level strategic dialogue. At the time of this writing, a Quad meeting is on the cards. While this is in line with Modi’s own hedging against China-Russia partnership, he had also taken care to counter-hedge against the US by not mentioning the Quad at all during his SLD keynote address. However, US Defence Secretary James Mattis said at SLD that he supported the Quad “100 per cent” as an additional strategic mechanism.

Future Complications?

In this kind of signalling and counter-signalling, and as a mark of “strategic autonomy” vis-à-vis the US, India associated itself with China and Russia on 4 June on the Iranian nuclear issue. India did so at the meeting of foreign ministers, which also involved Brazil and South Africa, in Pretoria on that day.

They noted “the importance that all relevant parties” should “fully comply with their obligations” under this deal, which generally favours Iran and which the US has withdrawn from.

Overall, it is with China that Modi faces the most delicate challenge. At SLD, he spoke of India’s and China’s “maturity and wisdom in managing issues and ensuring a peaceful border”. He also alluded to some bilateral economic positives. But he deployed familiar coded language to highlight India’s continuing dim view of Beijing’s BRI-diplomacy and Delhi’s opposition to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).

Significantly, officials of China, Pakistan and Afghanistan had agreed, on 28 May, to study the “feasibility” of extending CPEC to the India-friendly Afghanistan. With this, Modi’s BRI-related challenge may only get compounded.

*P S Suryanarayana is a Visiting Senior Fellow with the South Asia Programme, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore. He is the author of ‘Smart Diplomacy: Exploring China-India Synergy’ (2016).

By Kevin Jones

The controversy over Humanae Vitae, the papal encyclical that reaffirmed Catholic teaching on contraception 50 years ago, cannot be understood apart from the context of a well-funded advocacy network for population control after the Second World War.

The network includes big names in grantmaking like the Ford Foundation and John D. Rockefeller III. One scholar has been writing about this network for decades.

“The campaign to persuade Catholics, leaders and the lay public, that traditional views of sexuality, abortion, and marriage were antiquated was extensive and conducted on many fronts,” Arizona State University history professor Donald Critchlow told CNA.

“Groups such as Catholics for Choice were encouraged through philanthropic grants, but the more general campaign was conducted around sexual education.”

Critchlow is the author of the 1999 Oxford University Press book “Intended Consequences: Birth Control, Abortion, and the Federal Government in Modern America.”

Together with his talk at the Catholic University of America’s April 2018 conference “The Legacy of Dissent from Humanae Vitae,” his work helps place Humanae Vitae in the political and policy context of its time.

“In the immediate aftermath of the Second World War, leaders in philanthropic foundations, politics, and business joined together to undertake a campaign to control the rates of population growth. They concluded that future wars, famine, and other social ills could be prevented through a reduction in the rate of population growth.” Critchlow told CNA. “This neo-Malthusian agenda was joined by activists seeking reproductive rights for women and environmentalists seeking environmental justice.”

This took part in an environment of sexual revolution, even before the invention of the birth control pill.

“American sexual mores were already changing in the 1960s,” Critchlow continued. “Changes in sexual mores and sexual behavior cannot be attributed to one single cause. There should be little doubt, however, that elite opinion encouraged changes in sexual mores and behavior in the name of ‘progress,’ reproductive justice, and population control.”

The history professor classified the postwar era as “one of most massive efforts of social engineering in human history.”

“Many actors were found in this neo-Malthusian campaign, but it is important to emphasize that it was not a conspiracy as such,” he said. “Those involved in the population control movement and calls for publicly funded contraception, abortion, sterilization and sex education shared a general perspective on the need to control population growth and to educate the public. They saw themselves as the enlightened bringing progress to the masses, who were backward in their social, political, and religious views. “

When Humanae Vitae, issued by Pope Paul VI on July 25, 1968, reaffirmed Catholic teaching that contraception was immoral, these advocates responded strongly.

“Humanae Vitae was attacked openly and publicly,” Critchlow said.

This advocacy network had Catholic allies. The National Catholic Reporter had received a leaked report backed by the majority of Paul VI’s birth control commission, which argued that contraception was compatible with the Catholic faith.

Theologian Fr. Charles Curran became the center of controversy, after the Catholic University of American overturned his tenure recommendation because he rejected Catholic teaching on birth control. The decision prompted waves of protest and controversy, and was later reversed.

Hugh Moore, a non-Catholic businessman and population control activist who had helped found the Dixie Cup Corporation, took out full page ads in the New York Times and other newspapers, circulating anti-Humanae Vitae material to the bishops and translating it into Spanish and French.

“He organized petitions from dissenting priests that were highly publicized. The Vatican, Roman Catholicism, and traditional bishops in the United States were portrayed as reactionary and out of step with modernity,” Critchlow added.

Moore had played a key role in establishing the International Planned Parenthood Federation and served as its vice-president in the mid-1960s. He helped co-found the Population Crisis Committee and was a leading advocate of voluntary sterilization.

According to Critchlow, the overall campaign against a feared “population explosion” was “conducted on many fronts, often uncoordinated, with sharp differences over strategy and tactics, but based on the assumption that population control was necessary to save humanity.”

After the Second World War, philanthropic foundations worked to establish family planning clinics outside the U.S. These foundations’ lobbyists then worked to get a U.S. commitment to domestic family planning. Under President Lyndon Johnson, anti-poverty programs saw family planning as an instrument, especially in inner city neighborhoods, black minorities, and Native American reservations. This was extended under the Nixon Administration.

Books like Paul Erhlich’s “The Population Bomb,” popular magazine articles, science fiction novels and movies raised fears of a dystopian future that would be inevitable unless population growth were controlled.

Another major name in the movement was John D. Rockefeller III, who funded many population control groups and founded the Population Council in 1952. Its charter’s first draft, which was later modified, spoke of creating conditions in which parents who are “often above average in intelligence, quality of personality” produce “larger than average families.”

Critchlow saw this as “eugenic language.”

The Ford Foundation similarly put millions of dollars into population control programs. Some donors, like Cordelia Scaife May, an heiress of the Mellon family fortune, would be drawn to more radical groups like Zero Population Growth.

In the 1960s, the Catholic bishops faced paralysis. Efforts to block the federal government’s moves to fund family planning were stalled by disagreement among the bishops and uncertainty about what Pope Paul VI would finally say about the birth control pill, among other problems, such as Catholic agencies’ and hospitals’ dependence upon federal funds.

“Catholic religious leaders, including educators, confronted a critical dilemma with deep roots in the Roman Catholic experience in America: How to be accepted in a country with a tradition of anti-Catholicism, while maintaining core Catholic principles,” said Critchlow. “Inevitably compromises were reached to ensure accommodation with a culture that was becoming increasingly secularized”

With the involvement of University of Notre Dame president Father Theodore Hesburgh’s personal assistant George Shuster, a series of meetings on human population growth were held at Notre Dame from 1963 to 1967 under the sponsorship of the Rockefeller Foundation and the Ford Foundation. They brought together selected Catholic leaders to meet with leaders of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the Population Council, as well as with leaders of the Ford and Rockefeller foundations.

Critchlow, in his book “Intended Consequences” said John D. Rockefeller III and others within the foundation community were “astutely aware of the importance of changing the Catholic Church’s position on birth control” and saw the meetings as an opportunity to ally with Catholic leaders who could “help change opinion within the hierarchy.”

According to Critchlow, Fr. Hesburgh arranged for a 1965 meeting between Rockefeller and Pope Paul VI to discuss population control issues. The same year, 37 scholars who attended a conference at Notre Dame signed a confidential statement to the papal commission examining the morality of new forms of artificial birth control. Their statement lobbied for a change in the Catholic Church’s view of contraception.

Rockefeller appointed Fr. Hesburgh to the Rockefeller Foundation’s executive committee in 1966, with the understanding that he would abstain from voting on issues involving contraception, sterilization and abortion. Fr. Hesburgh served as the foundation’s chairman from 1977 to 1982.

“In the end, the bishops were forced to accommodate to dissent within the church. The Catholic Church was placed on the defensive until the rise of the abortion issue in which public opinion was much more divided on than oral contraception,” said Critchlow.

The population control programs led to several scandals involving U.S. and U.N.-sponsored family planning programs. In India, forced sterilization was widespread and drew outrage when reported. In the U.S., there were instances of federally funded forced sterilization in anti-poverty programs.

This resulted in strong attacks on population control, especially from feminists, and the movement changed strategies. It promoted delayed marriage through women’s economic and educational development.

“These goals of promoting economic independence and higher education for women in developing countries should be applauded, even if such programs are supported by feminist activists and population control advocates,” Critchlow said.

While the population control debate has shifted, the controversy over Humanae Vitae continues to this day.