By Elise Harris

At the close of his civil trial in the Vatican, former Holy See diplomat Msgr. Carlo Alberto Capella was found guilty of possessing and distributing child pornography and given a five-year prison sentence.

The priest was also asked to pay a fine of 5,000 euro. The penitentiary where he will serve his prison term is unknown.

Capella, 51, a former Vatican diplomat, was recalled from the U.S. nunciature in Washington, D.C. last September after the U.S. State Department notified the Vatican of a “possible violation of laws relating to child pornography images” by a diplomat.

His June 23 sentence came after the priest admitted his guilt in the trial’s opening session the day before, saying he committed his crimes during a period of “personal crisis” and weakness after being transferred to Washington D.C.

During the trial, Capella admitted to opening an account on Tumblr, where he obtained and exchanged lewd images and videos of children online. Some 40-55 images were found downloaded onto his cell phone, computer and a cloud storage device.

The images were divided into two primary categories, one for images from Japanese comics, and the other for images of children aged 14-17. At least one video showed a child depicted in an explicit sex act with an adult.

At the start of Saturday’s hearing, Vatican Promoter of Justice, Gian Piero Milano, asked that Capella be jailed for 5 years and nine months, paying a fine of 10,000 euro since he “knowingly and willingly” acquired “huge quantities” of pornographic images involving children, shared them and downloaded them to his devices.

The images of the comics, Milano said, were worse than other images found, since they were hand drawn and thought out with intent and creativity.

However, Capella’s lawyer asked that the sentence be reduced to the minimum, arguing that the priest was psychologically unstable due a personal crisis at the time his crimes began, and that Vatican law does not specify what the term “huge quantities” means.

The final sentence of 5 years and a fine of 5,000 euro brought the two-day trial to a close.

In his closing remarks before receiving the sentence, Capella said the errors he made “are evident” and happened in the context of a “period of fragility.”

“I am very sorry,” he said, “because my weakness has shamed the Church, my diocese, the Holy See, and my family.”

Capella said he viewed his crime as “a bump in the road of my priestly life,” and voiced hope that his case would help to others in the future.

Originally from Capri, Capella was ordained a priest of the Archdiocese of Milan and in 1993 was asked by Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini to enter the diplomatic service of the Holy See.

In 2004, after studying at the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy, he was sent to the apostolic nunciature in India, and three years later, in 2007, was transferred to the nunciature in Hong Kong. He was then transferred back to the Vatican in 2011, and worked in the Secretariat of State’s office for Relations with the States.

In June 2016 he was asked to move to Washington D.C., and was upset by the decision, but said nothing. Capella began using Tumblr shortly after his arrival to the U.S. in July 2016, to look at memes, and eventually started viewing pornography and child pornography.

The U.S. State department flagged Capella’s activity and informed the Vatican of a possible violation Aug. 21, 2017.

In September of that year, Canada issued a nationwide arrest warrant for the priest, who was then recalled to the Vatican. Police in Ontario said he had accessed, possessed, and distributed child pornography while visiting Windsor over the 2016 Christmas holiday.

Prior to his trial, Capella had been held in a Vatican jail cell since April 9, 2018, and was indicted by the Holy See June 9.

By Amin Masoodi

Six people, including the head of a pro-Islamic State group and three suspected militants, were killed Friday during a gun battle in the disputed Himalayan region of Kashmir, police said.

The firefight took place two days after India’s central government took direct control of Indian Kashmir by placing it under so-called governor’s rule.

S.P. Vaid, director general of police, said the clash erupted after militants who had taken shelter in a house fired at security forces in Anantnag district’s Nowshera village, about 55 km (34 miles) from Srinagar, Kashmir’s main city.

The home owner was killed and his wife was injured, Vaid said, adding that a policeman also died in the gun battle.

Vaid identified the slain militant leader as Dawood Ahmad Sofi, 32.

“He was behind a series of terror attacks on security forces,” Vaid said, alleging that the other three slain militants were also involved in recent terror strikes.

He did not elaborate.

“Their killing is a major setback to militant groups hell-bent on disrupting peace in the region,” he told BenarNews.

The gunfight prompted rallies in the district, where about two dozen protesters were injured after stone-throwing demonstrators clashed with police, officials said.

Authorities said they temporarily shut down internet services in the region “to help maintain order” and to make it difficult for demonstrators to organize more protests.

Police injured

About a dozen police officers were injured Friday after suspected militants hurled a grenade at a contingent on patrol in Pulwama district, about 39 km (24 miles) northwest of Anantnag, police said. A local news agency said Hizbul Mujahideen, the largest separatist group fighting against Indian rule in the region, claimed responsibility for the attack.

India and its arch rival Pakistan became separate countries after British rule in the subcontinent ended in 1947. Both nuclear-armed nations claim Kashmir in its entirety and have fought wars over it.

India, which has deployed about 500,000 soldiers in the territory it controls, accuses Pakistan of arming and training Kashmiri rebel groups, but Pakistan denies the charges.

A de facto border called Line of Control (LoC) divides Kashmir, where an outbreak of insurgency on the Indian side – known as Jammu and Kashmir state – has claimed more than 70,000 lives since the late 1980s. A majority of the fatalities have been civilians.

Last month, the two nations said they had reached a rare ceasefire after months of lobbing artillery shells across the heavily fortified LoC, but the Indian government suspended that truce last week following a surge of violence.

In its first-ever report on the state of human rights in Kashmir, the United Nations on June 14 slammed the two countries for alleged abuses in areas they rule and called for a major investigation into such violations.

India’s central government took direct control of Indian Kashmir on Wednesday, a day after the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) pulled out of a state coalition ruling the region.

Indian President Ram Nath Kovind approved a request sought by Jammu and Kashmir state Gov. Narinder Nath Vohra to place Indian Kashmir under governor’s rule – or direct control by the central government based in New Delhi – for six months, officials said.

This marked the fourth time in a decade that New Delhi has placed Muslim-majority Jammu and Kashmir under governor’s rule, in which the state assembly is suspended or dissolved.

Art curators will be able to recover images on daguerreotypes, the earliest form of photography that used silver plates, after a team of scientists led by Western University learned how to use light to see through degradation that has occurred over time.

Research published in Scientific Reports – Nature includes two images from the National Gallery of Canada’s photography research unit that show photographs that were taken, perhaps as early as 1850, but were no longer visible because of tarnish and other damage. The retrieved images, one of a woman and the other of a man, were beyond recognition.

“It’s somewhat haunting because they are anonymous and yet it is striking at the same time,” said Madalena Kozachuk, a PhD student in Western’s Department of Chemistry and lead author of the scientific paper.

“The image is totally unexpected because you don’t see it on the plate at all. It’s hidden behind time,” continues Kozachuk. “But then we see it and we can see such fine details: the eyes, the folds of the clothing, the detailed embroidered patterns of the table cloth.”

The identities of the woman and the man are not known. It’s possible that the plates were produced in the United States, but they could be from Europe.

For the past three years, Kozachuk and an interdisciplinary team of scientists have been exploring how to use synchrotron technology to learn more about chemical changes that damage daguerreotypes.

Invented in 1839, daguerreotype images were created using a highly polished silver-coated copper plate that was sensitive to light when exposed to an iodine vapour. Subjects had to pose without moving for two to three minutes for the image to imprint on the plate, which was then developed as a photograph using a mercury vapour that was heated.

Kozachuk conducts much of her research at the Canadian Light Source (CLS) and previously published results in scientific journals in 2017 and earlier this year. In those articles, the team members identified the chemical composition of the tarnish and how it changed from one point to another on a daguerreotype.

“We compared degradation that looked like corrosion versus a cloudiness from the residue from products used during the rinsing of the photographs during production versus degradation from the cover glass. When you look at these degraded photographs, you don’t see one type of degradation,” said Ian Coulthard, a senior scientist at the CLS and one of Kozachuk’s co-supervisors. He is also a co- author on the research papers.

This preliminary research at the CLS led to today’s paper and the images Kozachuk collected at the Cornell High Energy Synchrotron Source where she was able to analyze the daguerreotypes in their entirety.

Kozachuk used rapid-scanning micro-X-ray fluorescence imaging to analyze the plates, which are about 7.5 cm wide, and identified where mercury was distributed on the plates. With an X-ray beam as small as 10×10 microns (a human scalp hair averages 75 microns across) and at an energy most sensitive to mercury absorption, the scan of each daguerreotype took about eight hours.

“Mercury is the major element that contributes to the imagery captured in these photographs. Even though the surface is tarnished, those image particles remain intact. By looking at the mercury, we can retrieve the image in great detail,” said Tsun-Kong (T.K.) Sham, Canada Research Chair in Materials and Synchrotron Radiation at Western University. He also is a co-author of the research and Kozachuk’s supervisor.

This research will contribute to improving how daguerreotype images are recovered when cleaning is possible and will provide a way to seeing what’s below the tarnish if cleaning is not possible.

The prospect of improved conservation methods intrigues John P. McElhone, recently retired as the chief of Conservation and Technical Research branch at the Canadian Photography Institute of National Gallery of Canada. He provided the daguerreotypes from the Institute’s research collection.

“There are a lot of interesting questions that at this stage of our knowledge can only be answered by a sophisticated scientific approach,” said McElhone, another of the co-authors of today’s paper. “A conservator’s first step is to have a full and complete understanding of what the material is and how it is assembled on a microscopic and even nanoscale level. We want to find out how the chemicals are arranged on the surface and that understanding gives us access to theories about how degradation happens and how that degradation can possibly or possibly not be reversed.”

As the first commercialized photographic process, the daguerreotype is thought to be the first “true” visual representation of history. Unlike painters who could use “poetic licence” in their work, the daguerreotype reflected precisely what was photographed.

Thousands and perhaps millions of daguerreotypes were created over 20 years in the 19th century before the process was replaced. The Canadian Photography Institute collection numbers more than 2,700, not including the daguerreotypes in the institute’s research collection.

By improving the process of restoring these centuries-old images, the scientists are contributing to the historical record. What was thought to be lost that showed the life and times of people from the 19th century can now be found.

Young turtle doves raised on a diet of seeds from non-cultivated arable plants are more likely to survive after fledging than those relying on food provided in people’s gardens, new research into Britain’s fastest declining bird species has shown.

Ecologists at the University of Lincoln, UK, investigated the dietary habits of adult and nestling European turtle doves – an IUCN Red List Threatened Species – breeding in the UK, using DNA analysis of faecal samples. They found significant associations between the body condition and the diet of the bird.

Nestling turtle doves still being fed by their parents were found to thrive on seeds foraged from non-cultivated arable plants such as scarlet pimpernel and chickweed, but the birds were in poorer condition when their diet was high in seeds provided by humans in back gardens or public spaces. In contrast, adult body condition was better when more cultivated seeds such as wheat, oil seed rape and barley were present in the diet.

Data collected for the study, which was carried out in collaboration with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), the University of Sheffield and Cardiff University, was compared with the results of previous studies carried out in the 1960s and 1990s. It revealed a fundamental shift in the diet of turtle doves, showing that the birds are now relying more heavily on food found in gardens, such as sunflower and niger seeds, than they did 50 years ago.

As the UK’s fastest declining bird species, the results of the study have important implications for conservation strategies to save the turtle dove. Previous research has shown that nestling birds with better body condition are more likely to survive after fledging and strategies should be developed to provide the correct diet for the bird at each stage of its life.

Dr Jenny Dunn, Lecturer in Animal Health and Disease in the University of Lincoln’s School of Life Sciences, led the research while based at the RSPB. She said: “Turtle doves are the UK’s fastest declining bird, with a loss of 98% of breeding birds since 1970. Researchers are trying to tackle the problem by identifying ways to provide food resources for the species while they are breeding in the UK, but for this to be effective we need to understand the birds’ food sources and the impact they have on both adults and their young.

“The results of this study suggest that conservation strategies should include provision of anthropogenic seeds for adults early in the breeding season, coupled with habitat rich in accessible seeds from arable plants once chicks have hatched.”

To understand the diet of the birds, researchers caught turtle doves on breeding grounds at 11 sites across East Anglia, and extracted DNA from the faecal samples which enabled them to identify the diet of each bird. Their body condition was also examined, and nest sites monitored.

Further research is now needed to link the findings of the study to the use of habitats provided for turtle doves through agri-environment schemes.

By Roseanne Gerin

Aung San Suu Kyi on Wednesday blamed what she called “hate narratives” from abroad for driving wedges between ethnically and religiously diverse communities in the Southeast Asian nation’s troubled Rakhine state.

Aung Sang Suu Kyi, who governs Myanmar in her capacity as state counselor, had her second meeting with Christine Schraner Burgener, who was appointed as special envoy by U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres in April, at the Foreign Affairs Ministry in Naypyidaw, where the Nobel laureate also serves as foreign affairs minister.

Burgener was wrapping up a nine-day visit to the country during which she met with government officials, civil society organizations, and residents of communities affected by the violence in northern Rakhine state where a brutal military crackdown that began last August targeted Rohingya Muslims.

During their meeting, Aung San Suu Kyi told Burgener that the U.N. must support the government’s efforts to build confidence between Buddhist and Muslim communities in Rakhine, adding that mistrust between the two groups has existed for decades and was intensified by deadly communal violence in 2012 and “terrorist attacks” by the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army in 2016 and 2017.

Aung San Suu Kyi “pointed out that the people dare not commute in Rakhine state due to the lack of security, not because of the lack of freedom of movement, and the government, therefore, has been focusing on rule of law and development in Rakhine state,” according to a statement on the state counselor’s Facebook page.

“The state counselor also pointed out that the hate narratives from outside the country [have] driven the two communities further apart and stressed the need to focus on how to resolve the issue with [a] forward-looking approach,” it said.

Visit to IDP camps

Burgener also visited internally displaced persons (IDP) camps outside Rakhine’s capital Sittwe and in Maungdaw township and makeshift settlements along the border between Myanmar and Bangladesh.

Government soldiers and ethnic Rakhine Buddhist mobs carried out indiscriminate killings, torture, rape, and arson in Rohingya communities, leaving more than 1,000 people dead and driving about 700,000 Muslims to safety in nearby Bangladesh, where they live in sprawling displacement camps.

Myanmar has defended the crackdown as a counterinsurgency against terrorists who also claimed responsibility for another deadly attack in the region in October 2016 and denied credible evidence by rights groups and the U.N. which indicates that security forces committed widespread atrocities against the Rohingya.

Myanmar views the Rohingya as illegal immigrants from Bangladesh and subjects them to systematic discrimination, including denied access to basic services and freedom of movement.

The U.N. and United States have said that the crackdown on the Rohingya amounts to ethnic cleansing, and the U.N.’s outgoing human rights chief Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein said Monday that attacks have continued against the Rohingya “amounting possibly to acts of genocide.”

Myanmar is in the process of repatriating Rohingya refugees who want to return to Rakhine state after fleeing the crackdown in response to deadly attacks on police posts by a Muslim militant group.

On June 6, the government signed an agreement with the U.N.’s development and refugee agencies to help with the voluntary return and reintegration of displaced Rohingya, assess conditions in Rakhine state for those who are contemplating returns, and support programs that benefit all communities in the multiethnic state.

Neither Myanmar nor the U.N. agencies have disclosed details of the agreement, raising concerns among refugees and the NGOs that support them.

Addressing the root causes

With regard to Rakhine state, Burgener during her visit to Myanmar stressed the need for the country to implement the recommendations of a previous commission on Rakhine state headed by former U.N. chief Kofi Annan as a requisite for the return of Rohingya refugees.

A statement issued Thursday by the U.N. Secretary-General’s Office said: “While noting the complexities of the situation on the ground, she expressed the hope that current efforts aimed at addressing the root causes, including through the implementation of the recommendations of the Advisory Commission on Rakhine state — in particular ending restrictions on freedom of movement and granting citizenship to those eligible — would soon lead to an environment that would be conducive to the voluntary, safe, dignified and sustainable return of the IDPs and refugees to their place of origin or choice.”

The statement also said that in her discussions with all parties, Burgener “underlined the importance of accountability, which she highlighted was essential for genuine reconciliation.”

“She urged for credible fact-finding measures, and highlighted the readiness on the part of the United Nations and the international community to cooperate in this regard,” it said.

The government has refused to let a U.N.-mandated commission into the country to investigate the situation in Rakhine and barred Yanghee Lee, the U.N.’s human rights rapporteur for Myanmar, from visiting because of her criticism of its handling of the crackdown.

Aung San Suu Kyi’s civilian government, which governs under a constitution that gives the military control over security and police affairs, has argued that investigations by its own officials and the military determined that soldiers did nothing wrong in most cases during the campaign.

Critics say the government has repeatedly tried to whitewash army atrocities.

Burgener previously met with Aung San Suu Kyi and military commander-in-chief Min Aung Hlaing, the speakers of parliament, and other government officials during the start of her visit.

She now heads to Bangladesh where she will visit Rohingya refugee camps in the southeastern part of the country.

By Jayantha Dhanapala*

Sentosa, the Singapore venue of the historic June 12 summit meeting between President Donald Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un, is today an ultra modern pleasure island with a name derived from the Sanskrit ‘Santosa’, but with its old Malay name Pulao Blakang Mati (Island of Death Behind) clinging to it as a reminder of a murky past as a Japanese prisoner-of-war camp and a disease ridden swamp.

The Janus faced island history represents a future of peace and prosperity and a past of conflict and tension confronting the two leaders trying to reverse hostile relations spanning over seven decades.

Sentosa has the only casinos where native Singaporeans can gamble in this “guided democracy” but is familiar territory for the casino owner Donald Trump who makes deals relying on hunches and unconventional instinct in only his second year as President.

Shedding the usual diplomatic preparations with teams of sherpas poring over briefing books, this summit overcame one major hurdle caused by a Bolton dropped brick, and then put back on track.

The immediate prospects for Sentosa were also not good following the shambles of the G7 meeting in Quebec where U.S. allies like Canada and Germany were snubbed.

However, contributing to the success of the diplomatic breakthrough in Sentosa was the patient diplomacy of South Korean President Moon Jae-in, who had met his North Korean counterpart at the Pan Mun jom border, and China.

And then lurking behind was the strange figure of the star retired U.S. basket ball player Dennis Rodman who had established an amazing rapport with Kim Jong Un first as a basket ball fan and then as a black American citizen who helped demystify the mightiest nation to the head of the “hermit kingdom” to bring it out of self imposed isolation.

Thus Dennis Rodman played the classic role of Everyman in a drama of global politics the details of which must emerge someday. Singapore handled the role of host with aplomb.

At the end of the Summit, unlike with the carefully structured 1972 Shanghai Communiqué after the Mao-Nixon breakthrough, seasoned journalists fed on a daily diet of hamburgers and hotdogs of press releases and leaks asked the question: ‘But where’s the beef?’ The bare bones of the bilateral statement were as follows:

“President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un conducted a comprehensive, in-depth, and sincere exchange of opinions on the issues related to the establishment of new U.S.-DPRK relations and committed to the building of a lasting and robust peace regime on the Korean Peninsula. President Trump committed to provide security guarantees to the DPRK, and Chairman Kim Jong Un reaffirmed his firm and unwavering commitment to complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

Convinced that the establishment of new US-DPRK relations will contribute to the peace and prosperity of the Korean Peninsula and of the world, and recognizing mutual confidence building can promote the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un state the following.

1. The United States and the DPRK commit to establish new U.S.-DPRK relations in accordance with the desire of the peoples of the two countries for peace and prosperity.
2. The United States and the DPRK will join their efforts to build a lasting and stable peace regime on the Korean Peninsula.
3. Reaffirming the 27 April 2018 Panmunjom Declaration, the DPRK commits to work towards the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
4. The United States and the DPRK commit to recovering POW/MIA remains including the immediate repatriation of those already identified.

… President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un commit to implement the stipulations in this joint statement fully and expeditiously. The United States and the DPRK commit to hold follow-on negotiations, led by the U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and a relevant high-level DPRK official, at the earliest possible date, to implement the outcomes of the U.S.-DPRK summit.”

Critics have been quick to observe the vagueness of the agreement, the absence of precise terms, a monitoring body like the IAEA and a time-table regarding denuclearization, no mention of human rights issues in DPRK, no mention of DPRK’s missile programme and no firm dates on follow up action etc.

With a meticulously negotiated JCPOA between Iran and a group of Western countries, the U.S. still withdrew from this multilateral agreement. In Sentosa, agreement appears to have been reached in broad principle in terms of intentions with no details.

South Korea (officially the Republic of South Korea – ROK) does not appear to have been consulted on the cessation of the U.S.-ROK joint military exercises which had been so provocative in the past although President Moon has now announced that he could consider a year’s postponement.

Those who recall the Agreed Framework signed between the Clinton Administration and the DPRK and its eventual collapse amidst mutual recrimination will warn of a similar fate for the Sentosa Agreement unless there is an assiduous follow-up.

Despite these many shortcomings, the unconventional Trump has caused, ending its nuclear threat and proving that Trump can be more than a disruptor in modern diplomacy.

*Jayantha Dhanapala is a retired Sri Lanka Ambassador and a former UN Under-Secretary-General. This article first appeared in Ceylon Today on June 17 with the caption ‘Sentosa Gambler’s luck or haunting ghosts’.

“While U.S. Immigration has halted the practice of separating families at the border, it remains unclear if or when reunification will occur for families separated prior to the implementation of the new policy,” said Linda Halgunseth, a co-author of the brief, Chair of the Latino Caucus, and Associate Professor, Human Development and Family Studies, University of Connecticut. “Detaining families indefinitely also is detrimental for children’s long-term adjustment.”

According to the brief, The Science is Clear: Separating Families has Long-term Damaging Psychological and Health Consequences for Children, Families, and Communities, parent-child separations lead to a host of long-term psychological, social, and health problems that are not necessarily resolved upon reunification.

Policymakers must now turn to the reunification of these families and the ongoing well-being of the children who have been separated from their caregivers.

A late winner from Toni Kroos gave Germany a 2-1 win over Sweden and salvaged their World Cup hopes in a thrilling encounter in Sochi.

The defending champions’ chances of qualification from Group F had appeared in tatters before Kroos’ late winner.

Down to 10 men after defender Jerome Boateng had received a second yellow card on 82 minutes, and with the scores level at 1-1, Germany won a free-kick on the edge of the box which was laid off to Kroos who curled the ball into the top corner.

The drama deep into injury time had followed an equalizer from Marco Reus early in the second half, which canceled out Ola Toivonen’s sublime 32nd-minute lob for Sweden.

Germany started the brighter of the two sides in Sochi, with Julian Draxler and Marco Reus particularly lively early on.

However, very much against the run of play Sweden had the game’s first real chance after Marcus Berg found himself one-on-one with Manuel Neuer following careless play by Chelsea’s Antonio Rudiger.

The striker, who plays for Al Ain in the UAE Pro League, was shunted away from the ball by Jerome Boateng, and replays showed that Swedish claims for a penalty were warranted but neither referee Szymon Marciniak, nor the VAR officials watching in Moscow, found fault with the challenge.

The breakthrough for Sweden would come soon enough and it would come from another Germany error.

Kroos was this time guilty of a careless pass in the center of the field, allowing Viktor Claesson the opportunity to loft a ball towards Toivonen who took the ball on his chest before lifting the ball high above the head of the advancing German captain Manuel Neuer.

The Germans started the second half positively and it was barely five minutes old when Marco Reus leveled proceedings from a Timo Werner cross from the left.

Sweden remained compact in defense and allowed Germany to advance into their half but would look to break at every opportunity, and continued German carelessness afforded them several opportunities to do so.

Emil Forsberg, who turns out for RB Leipzig in Germany’s Bundesliga, saw a 76th minute effort saved by Neuer but Sweden appeared to tire as the game entered the final third, particularly with the German offense now coming in waves.

However, after German center half Jerome Boateng was issued a second yellow card in the 82nd minute, it appeared as if Sweden would hold out for a draw – especially after Swedish goalkeeper Robin Olsen turned a Mario Gomez header over the bar and a 20-yard drive from Julian Brandt rebounded off the post.

With the seconds ticking away it appeared as if Germany’s hopes of qualification to the last 16 were in doubt before Kroos’ shot from an improbable angle on the left of the box nestled in Olsen’s top corner, the latest ever winning goal in World Cup history sufficient to maintain Germany’s hopes of retaining the trophy they won four years ago – for now at least.

An international team of astronomers have made the most precise test of gravity outside our own solar system.

By combining data taken with NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope and the European Southern Observatory’s Very Large Telescope, their results show that gravity in this galaxy behaves as predicted by Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity, confirming the theory’s validity on galactic scales.

In 1915 Albert Einstein proposed his general theory of relativity (GR) to explain how gravity works. Since then GR has passed a series of high precision tests within the solar system, but there have been no precise tests of GR on large astronomical scales.

It has been known since 1929 that the Universe is expanding, but in 1998 two teams of astronomers showed that the Universe is expanding faster now than it was in the past. This surprising discovery – which won the Nobel Prize in 2011 – cannot be explained unless the Universe is mostly made of an exotic component called dark energy. However, this interpretation relies on GR being the correct theory of gravity on cosmological scales. Testing the long distance properties of gravity is important to validate our cosmological model.

A team of astronomers, led by Dr Thomas Collett of the Institute of Cosmology and Gravitation at the University of Portsmouth, used a nearby galaxy as a gravitational lens to make a precise test of gravity on astronomical length scales.

Dr Collett said: “General Relativity predicts that massive objects deform space-time, this means that when light passes near another galaxy the light’s path is deflected. If two galaxies are aligned along our line of sight this can give rise to a phenomenon, called strong gravitational lensing, where we see multiple images of the background galaxy. If we know the mass of the foreground galaxy, then the amount of separation between the multiple images tells us if General Relativity is the correct theory of gravity on galactic scales.”

A few hundred strong gravitational lenses are known, but most are too distant to precisely measure their mass, so they can’t be used to accurately test GR. However, the galaxy ESO325-G004 is amongst the closest lenses, at 500 million light years from Earth.

Dr Collett continuesx “We used data from the Very Large Telescope in Chile to measure how fast the stars were moving in E325 – this let us infer how much mass there must be in E325 to hold these stars in orbit. We then compared this mass to the strong lensing image separations that we observed with the Hubble Space telescope and the result was just what GR predicts with 9 per cent precision. This is the most precise extrasolar test of GR to date, from just one galaxy.”

“The Universe is an amazing place providing such lenses which we can then use as our laboratories,” added team member Professor Bob Nichol, Director of the Institute of Cosmology and Gravitation. “It is so satisfying to use the best telescopes in the world to challenge Einstein, only to find out how right he was.”

People are going to ask government for answers, and the solutions will lie in getting transparency through new-age systems.

By Sayli Udas⎯Mankikar

While Niti Aayog’s recent report on Artificial Intelligence (AI) provided a roadmap for urban bodies to think about new, smart ways to city functioning, a recent case of file tampering that took place in the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM), allegedly leading to the death of a peon, has made a strong case for encoded digital files and smart land recording systems, enabled through AI and blockchain technologies.

On 26 May 2018, a case of tampering of an important land acquisition file in the development planning (DP) department of the Mumbai civic body had come to the fore. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) Commissioner Ajoy Mehta’s file noting that a land acquisition case in suburban Jogeshwari ‘should’ be challenged in the Supreme Court was mysteriously changed to ‘shouldn’t’. Had this single change gone unnoticed, it would have got the landlord kickbacks worth several hundred million rupees.

This mischief was traced to a peon working in the department through a CCTV recording. The clip showed two unknown persons entering the department and making changes to the file with the help of the peon. Two weeks later, on 1 June, the peon was found dead under the wheels of a Mumbai local. An FIR was registered against unknown persons and a probe is on.

While this incident has come to light and is being investigated, there are thousands of files exchanging hands in government offices in between numerous peons and administrative staff. This puts a question mark on their safety — whether critical decisions are being changed without being noticed or if files are being buried somewhere, never to be retrieved.

Since 2013, the Mumbai civic body, like many other public bodies in the country, has taken up the task of digitisation of files where newer files are being scanned and saved in an online repository. This year’s municipal budget has set aside INR 1.12 billion to get Mumbai’s civic departments computerised. The intention is to make all services, registrations and application processes online, and fast tracking and streamlining the process of approvals — making them tamper-proof. Sadly, the experience so far has been wanting. Many software which are currently used for digitising systems are helpful and do bring in some degree of transparency, but are rarely smart and never predictive.

World over, governments are embracing AI-based applications to reduce file backlog, cut costs in processing files manually, overcome resource constraints, free workers like peons from mundane tasks, improve the accuracy of projections and bring an element of e-intelligence into the existing systems. The employment of these systems extend to tasks for which humans depend on technology, such as CCTVs, where AI could help in identifying criminal suspects via facial recognition, and scanning millions of documents in real time to trace fraudulent transactions.

Along with AI, blockchain technology could help municipal bodies and government departments form private networks for critical and high-security data such as land records, thereby keeping a check on every player accessing the system for any files or data. It works on the format of an encoded digital ledger comprising of data records or blocks that is stored on multiple computers, which can be accessed only by authorised officials. Once these blocks are collected in a chain, they cannot be changed or deleted by a single actor; instead, they are verified and managed using automation and shared governance protocols.

Such systems create a more transparent, safe, and trustworthy environment where data is shared. All the stakeholders are forced to take ownership of the information and everyone in the system knows precisely who accesses and amends information, on which day and at what time.

As it is with every new technology and systems, there are several questions raised about the viability, effectiveness and risks of both the AI and the blockchain technology. These discussions range from issues of the scale of data mining, the energy needed to process the data, the imminent danger to existing job functions that could be replaced by technology, strategic data privacy concerns and the lack of talent in this field, among other issues.

While answers are being sought and statistics are being belted out on either side of the debate, in reality, there is little that can be done to stop the world from going through these transformations.

China, in July 2017, has already set up a plan for development of AI, enumerated in the ‘State Council of a Next Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Plan’. China, through its renowned BAT framework — enabled by its three tech giants including Baidoo, Alibaba and Tencent — is rapidly adding AI capabilities to its government functions. Right from enabling face recognition, automatic traffic predictions and parking systems. Its larger plan talks of automated vehicles, computer-aided diagnostic systems, intelligent service robots, etc.

India too is catching up, albeit slowly. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has also stressed about both AI and blockchain. Several government initiatives, including the Atal Innovation Mission’s Atal Tinkering Labs, Atal Incubation Centres, Scale-up Support to Established Incubators and several other programmes and associations with industry leaders are being initiated to develop digital platforms to infuse transparency and increase efficiency of governance.

However, the pace needs to be faster and concrete and time-bound implementation plans need to be drawn up soon. People are going to ask government for answers, and the solutions will lie in getting transparency through new-age systems. The answers will lie in finding the sweet spot, where government tries to draw fine balance between smart solutions and the uncertainties of a dynamic governance structure.

By Angshuman Choudhury*

During Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s May 2018 visit to Indonesia, New Delhi and Jakarta announced that they would set up a Joint Task Force to “undertake projects for port related infrastructure in and around” the Sabang island, located off the northern tip of the Sumatran islands at the northwestern entry point to the Malacca Strait. This came two weeks after Indonesia’s Coordinating Minister for Maritime Affairs, Luhut Pandjaitan, who, during his official visit to New Delhi, stated that the port is fit to dock both shipping vessels and submarines. Pandjaitan’s statement, viewed in the context of Modi’s Indonesia visit, has spurred well-founded speculations that India’s ‘acquisition’ of the Sabang port is driven not just by geoeconomic motivations as New Delhi has argued in its statements, but also from geostrategic ones.

The port, owing to its inherent geo-strategic location, cargo handling infrastructure, and the regional maritime trade setup, is better poised to be a strategic port than a full-fledged commercial one. Nonetheless, while the port is a crucial addition to India’s expanding footprint in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR), it cannot be viewed as a game changer yet.

Strategic or Economic?

According to India’s Ministry of External Affairs, collaboration vis-a-vis the Sabang port flows from the primary impetus of “enhancing tourism, addressing issues of the blue economy including fisheries sector and […] in terms of connectivity.” These are critical sectors of cooperation that could, theoretically, facilitate India’s efforts to develop durable partnerships not just in the IOR but also in the Indo-Pacific region.

However, it would be smarter for India to use the Sabang port for strategic objectives than mere commercial ones. The port, owing to its small size and distance from the core Indonesian hinterland and ASEAN economic powerhouses, is not conducive for long-haul maritime trade. On the other hand, Sabang’s distinct location, merely 90 nautical miles below the southernmost tip of India’s Andaman & Nicobar (A&N) islands, gives it a critical strategic advantage of facilitating broader maritime reconnaissance in and around the Andaman Sea during peace time; preemptive blockading of the Malacca Strait during war time; and as a proximate base for additional strategic maneuvering in the eastern IOR flank.

New Delhi would have to invest heavily to develop the current port into a full-fledged commercial port (than into a naval base) for heavy tonnage vessels. Moreover, the costs of transporting offloaded goods to high-value markets in the Indonesian and ASEAN hinterlands would be high. Developing Sabang into a transshipment node for Indian ships too would be a redundant venture as India already transships its goods in Colombo and Singapore, both of which collectively cover this trading sector optimally. However, the island already has an operational airport, which could simply be upgraded to allow military aircraft to land and refuel, thus ensuring functional strategic linkages with the Indonesian mainland.

A Critical Maritime Node

The Sabang port venture is a timely boost to New Delhi’s geostrategic posturing across the IOR, and can serve as a crucial node for India’s geostrategic interests both in the IOR and the wider Indo-Pacific region. The ‘acquisition’ coheres with the joint blueprint that New Delhi and Jakarta have proposed, based on the idea of building a rules-based maritime order of regional security and stability. It also fits with Security and Growth for All in the Region (SAGAR)–New Delhi’s initiative aimed at turning India into the prime multilateral facilitator and security guarantor in the IOR.

Needless to say, Sabang is also aimed at counterbalancing the rapidly growing Chinese influence in the IOR, at least along the eastern sectors. Beijing’s acknowledgement of Sabang’s strategic value was reflected in a Global Times editorial, which reiterated the significance of the Malacca Strait to China’s “economic and energy security” and warned of “disastrous consequences” if India develops Sabang into a strategic base. China’s presence in the IOR has rapidly proliferated over the past five years in the form of strategic and dual-use port deals in Djibouti, Tanzania, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, and the Maldives. India’s deal with Oman for military use of Duqm port does not compare with similar deals China has with other countries. However, Sabang port can particularly complement India’s A&N Command’s capabilities in deterring Beijing’s power projections (through potential dual-use of ports in Hambantota, Sri Lanka, and Kyauk Phyu, Myanmar) across the Bay of Bengal and Andaman sea sectors.

A Game Changer?

At present, Sabang is not posited as an anti-China entity in the IOR and its stated purpose is restricted to connectivity and trade. In that sense, the Sabang port deal is hardly antithetical to Beijing’s own stated idea of “reciprocity and mutual benefit” in the IOR.

Nonetheless, the port’s real strategic value would depend on the level of cooperation other South and Southeast Asian IOR littoral states like Thailand, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, and Malaysia provide to India during times of crises. In this context, New Delhi has made some headway by promoting a nascent framework of strategic convergence in the IOR through inter-force coordination, joint maritime patrols, naval exercises, and real-time intelligence sharing with littoral states. Yet, New Delhi must not presume that smaller littoral countries would unconditionally back India in an event of confrontation with Beijing in the IOR.

Moreover, given the absence of any extraterritoriality component in the port deal, India’s wartime activities from Sabang would be contingent on Jakarta’s sovereign oversight. Indonesia has already demonstrated its cautious geopolitical balancing act between New Delhi and Beijing, evident through overtures to both sides; and in terms of political, military, and economic leverage, the balance of power is tilted against India’s favour.

Finally, Sabang does have the potential to serve as a key nodal point for strategic collaboration within the India-US-Australia-Japan ‘Quad’ grouping. However, not much can be expected from this quasi-alliance in the near future. India’s interest in the Quad seems to be waning rapidly, and differences in views between other members on how to maintain status quo in the Indo-Pacific have hampered full-spectrum collaboration.

Overall, it is too early to flag the Sabang port deal as a game changer in the current geostrategic landscape. However, it is a good start that could pave the way for a more constructive Indian presence in the IOR and by extension, in the Indo-Pacific.

*Angshuman Choudhury
Researcher, and Coordinator Southeast Asia Research Programme(SEARP)

By Sarral Sharma*

On 19 June, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) ended its three-year old alliance with the Jammu and Kashmir Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), resulting in the collapse of the coalition government. Indian President Ram Nath Kovind has approved the imposition of Governor’s rule in the state for next six months. Under the Governor’s rule, the BJP-ruled central government in New Delhi may undertake a more hardline security-centric approach with increased counter-insurgency operations to control the scourge of militancy and to create a conducive security environment to conduct upcoming elections in the state. The decision to pull out may favour the BJP politically ahead of the 2019 general elections in India. However, the PDP will face the most challenging task of developing workable outreach initiatives in its core political constituency, South Kashmir, which witnessed mass unrests in the aftermath of the July 2016 killing of Hizbul Mujahideen (HM) Commander, Burhan Wani.

Context

The breakup of the alliance was inevitable and was unsurprising given how the PDP-BJP coalition government failed to improve the law and order situation in the Kashmir Valley after the Wani encounter. Spiralling violence, growing local militancy and radicalisation, delayed Panchayat and local body elections, inter-regional differences between Jammu and Kashmir, and unsuccessful outreach attempts to the separatist leaders were some of the obvious reasons for this long anticipated breakup.

In a press statement announcing the split, the BJP’s J&K in-charge, Ram Madhav, said it had become “untenable” for BJP to continue the alliance with PDP. He stated that “after taking stock of the situation in the state, the central government and central party is of the view that we should leave the government,” referring to factors such as the deteriorating security situation, and the “perceptible sense of discrimination” in its electorally significant regions of Jammu and Ladakh.

For BJP, the decision is an attempt to consolidate its political support, and also to retrieve lost ground in the Jammu region, especially after the fallout post the Kathua rape-and-murder incident earlier this year, which had resulted in the expulsion of the two BJP ministers from the J&K cabinet over their alleged support to the accused persons. But, breaking the alliance over the Kathua incident could have damaged the BJP’s credentials in the rest of the country. Evidently, they waited for an opportune moment.

Differences between BJP and PDP over the extension of the ‘ceasefire’/”suspension of operations” in the Kashmir Valley during the Ramzan month provided a fresh opportunity. While the PDP was in favour of extending the ‘ceasefire’/”suspension of operations,” BJP rejected it possibly due to the following reasons: the Hurriyat leadership had declined to talk; militants continued attacks against civilians and security forces; and ceasefire violations and infiltration attempts from the Pakistani side increased that month. Moreover, on the issue of Ramzan ‘ceasefire’/”suspension of operations,” Madhav said it was not reciprocated by the separatist leaders and militant groups.

What Next?

Given the severely deteriorating law and order situation in the Valley over the past two years, the upcoming Amarnath Yatra could have presented more challenges to the PDP-BJP coalition government. A militant attack on the pilgrims would have been a huge embarrassment for the BJP government in New Delhi ahead of the crucial 2019 general elections. Now, under the Governor’s rule, guided by the BJP-ruled Centre, the security forces will have more freedom and better inter-agency coordination in launching operations against militants in the Valley.

Moreover, in the absence of a democratically-elected government in the state, the governor will head the Unified Command (UC) in J&K – comprised of the Indian Army, Border Security Force, the Central Reserve Police Force, and the state police. This could mean that political sensitivities may not influence decision-making on security operations in the hinterland, especially in districts in South Kashmir such as Pulwama, Shopian, Anantnag and Kulgam.

NN Vohra, the governor of J&K, and Dineshwar Sharma, the interlocutor appointed by New Delhi, will have a crucial role to play in the coming months, including on matters such as: improving intra-regional coordination between Jammu, Ladakh and Kashmir regions; bridging the gap between the Centre and J&K; and provision of humanitarian assistance to areas in the Valley that are most affected by militancy.

In the coming weeks, the most challenging task for the governor would be to create a secure environment to conduct three crucial elections scheduled in the state: Assembly, Panchayat, and the Anantnag bye-poll.

Now that the alliance has ended, the BJP may again rake up J&K-specific issues such as the constitutional validity of Article 35A or the debate over Kashmir’s special status under Article 370 in the run up to the 2019 elections. On the other hand, PDP may have to start from the scratch to rebuild its traditional image of a “soft separatist” party in Kashmir. Additionally, although it seems unlikely at the moment, the PDP’s ‘old guard’ may consider either deserting or choosing a new party leader for future elections in J&K.

*Sarral Sharma
Researcher, Centre for Internal and Regional Security (IReS)

US State Department Spokesperson Heather Nauert released a statement warning the Syrian government to cease and desist from its final military push against ISIS and al-Qaeda groups in southwest Syria. The United States is “deeply troubled by reports of increasing Syrian regime operations in southwest Syria” because such operations are within the “de-escalation zone negotiated between the United States, Jordan, and the Russian Federation last year and reaffirmed between Presidents Trump and Putin in Da Nang, Vietnam in November,” the statement says.

What a strange warning. The United States, which illegally occupies territory of a country nearly 6,000 miles away, is warning Syria, the country it partly occupies, not to conduct military operations against terrorist organizations within its own borders!

Aside from the absurdity of Nauert’s press release, there is the important matter that the whole statement is a lie.

First, the “deconfliction zone” to which she refers has been unilaterally declared by the United States. Syria never agreed to cease military operations within its own borders. Suggesting that Damascus is violating some agreement when it was never party to the agreement is shockingly dishonest.

Second, even the “de-escalation zones” agreed between Russia, Iran, and Turkey in Astana, Kazakhstan, in May, 2017, exempted UN-recognized terrorist groups from the deal. So even if Syria was a party to the US-claimed “de-escalation” agreement, its current advance on ISIS and al-Qaeda controlled territory would not be a violation.

Third, the State Department’s claims on the “Da Nang” agreement between Presidents Putin and Trump are purposely misleading. The very first sentence of the “Da Nang” statement affirms the two leaders’ “determination to defeat ISIS in Syria,” demonstrating the high priority placed on fighting ongoing terrorist occupation of parts of Syria.

So why now, seven months later, is the US warning Syria against completing the very task that Trump and Putin made a top priority?

Also, the “Da Nang statement” discusses the “de-confliction” areas explicitly in the context of the fight against ISIS:

The Presidents agreed to maintain open military channels of communication between military professionals to help ensure the safety of both US and Russian forces and de-confliction of partnered forces engaged in the fight against ISIS. They confirmed these efforts will be continued until the final defeat of ISIS is achieved.

So, again, why is the US objecting to the Syrian government’s actions to achieve a goal — defeat of ISIS — reiterated by the US government?

The “Da Nang” statement also made it clear that when it comes to Syrian territory, that country’s sovereignty must be respected:

The Presidents affirmed their commitment to Syria’s sovereignty, unity, independence, territorial integrity, and non-sectarian character…

How can the US be committed to Syria’s sovereignty when it violates that sovereignty by occupying Syrian territory and warning the Syrian government against attacking al-Qaeda and ISIS-dominated areas of Syria?

The United States — which maintains hundreds of US troops illegally in Syria — warns Syria about conducting military operations within its own borders against internationally-recognized terrorist groups, citing the “Da Nang” agreement, which:

…reinforces the success of the ceasefire initiative, to include the reduction, and ultimate elimination, of foreign forces and foreign fighters from the area…

But those “foreign fighters” they agreed to eliminate by definition must include the US military itself! So actually it is the US that is violating the agreement by remaining in Syria, not the Syrian government by fighting al-Qaeda!

As an astute colleague wrote today, “have also been rumors in Washington that the Administration is preparing for something ‘big’ in Syria, possibly related to warnings from the Pentagon that Syrian forces have been threatening the unilaterally declared “de-escalation zone” in the country’s southeast.”

Nauert’s release may be one big lie, but the US threat against Syria is looking to be deadly serious.

Don’t miss RPI’s Summer Peace and Prosperity Conference! More information here.

This article was published by RonPaul Institute.

The process of Donald Trump’s meeting with Kim Jong Un was as singular as the event itself. His ignorance, incompetence and egomania moved him from “fire and fury” and “little rocket man” to scheduling a meeting to cancelling the meeting to finally holding the summit. But a process has begun which might free two nations from American threats and put them in charge of their own destiny. The Democrats are left with nothing except attacking Trump from the right.

The Democrats like war, interventions and United States hegemony. They always have. If anyone wants proof they need only look at their collective hissy fit regarding the Trump and Kim summit. Part of the reaction is caused by fear of Trump getting credit for a foreign policy achievement. But Democrats are also true believers in imperialism. The last thing they want to see is any reduction in the American military presence in Korea or anywhere else.

There are many parties to thank for bringing about a possibility of peace in the region. The two Koreas themselves, the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea in the north and the Republic of Korea in the south have made great strides towards peacefully co-existing. Their neighbors China and Russia have also played a role in minimizing tensions. Republic of Korea President Moon Jae-In  made a positive statement about the Trump and Kim agreement and called it “a historic event that has helped break down the last remaining cold war legacy on earth.” Corporate media make no mention of his support for the possibility of a diplomatic breakthrough.

Not one member of the Democratic Party has acknowledged that South Korea is supportive of a process that impacts it most directly. Democratic senators Tammy Duckworth and Chris Murphy have actually proposed an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA ) that would require Pentagon approval for Trump to remove any of the nearly 30,000 American troops stationed there.

The so-called double freeze, which was encouraged by China and Russia, promised a cessation of nuclear testing in exchange for an end to the war games. For good measure Trump added the possibility of a future removal of United States troops. The only downside to these proposals is that they are overseen by the impulsive and unpredictable Donald Trump.

If Democrats were as progressive as they claim to be  they would pressure Trump to follow through and end the 70-year old American intervention in Korea. But they support America’s professed right to invade and intervene in the affairs of countries all over the world, The bipartisan war making consensus is in full effect. Russia and China share borders with North Korea but the pundits and politicians disregard them and their rights to engage with their neighbors.

Democratic Party imperialists like Rachel Maddow  point out Russia’s proximity to Korea as proof of evil intent. The highest rated cable television talk show host dispenses war propaganda to millions of people every day with idiotic and dangerous comments.“Russia is also increasingly straining at its borders right now and shoving back U.S. and western influence, especially U.S. and western military presence anywhere near what it considers to be its own geopolitical interests. And one of the things that they started to loudly insist on is that the U.S. drop those joint military exercises with South Korea.”

Of course Russia asserts its own geopolitical interests. Every nation wants to do that. Inane remarks from the likes of Maddow are a standard talking point for the Democrats. They eagerly uphold the model of the United States as world’s police force as much as the Republicans do.

The two war parties and their partners in media conspire to keep Americans ignorant. Even people who strive to stay informed have no idea that their government’s actions are resisted around the world. They are unaware that China and Russia are jointly leading a process to escape dollar dominion and strengthen their own economic sphere of influence. People who call themselves liberal recoil at the idea that other nations should be able to assert their rights of sovereignty. It is considered a given, an accepted dogma, that the United States ought to have 800 military facilities in the rest of the world.

In his own contradictory way Donald Trump provides an opportunity to begin a new conversation. Americans suffer very directly from the military industrial complex. Defense spending steals money that should be used to meet their needs. The United States military presence all over the world causes suffering to millions of other people. The entire paradigm needs to be changed, but Trump derangement and adherence to beliefs in Manifest Destiny prevent a conversation from ever taking place.

There is no good reason for 30,000 United States troops to be in Korea at all. Anyone calling themselves progressive need to point this out. Of course the Korea situation exposes a larger problem and that is the need to break free from the two major political parties who agree more often than they disagree. Every opportunity for sovereignty and equality among nations must be enthusiastically supported. The conversation shouldn’t be dismissed because Trump’s contradictions brought it into being. The power of the war party must finally come to an end.

It is a credit to the venality of Australia’s refugee policy that much time is spent on letting others do what that particular country ought to be doing. For a state so obsessed with the idea of a “rule-based order”, breaking those rules comes naturally – all in the national interest, of course.

Canberra’s policy makers, since the 1990s, have been earning their morally tainted fare evading international law with an insistence bordering on the pathological. The reasons for doing so have been cruel and vapid: target the market of people smuggling my moving it to other regions; harden the Australian electorate against dissolute “queue jumpers” who don’t know their place in the international refugee system; and speak to the idea of saving people who would otherwise drown.

In a tradition reminiscent of secret treaties, clandestine compacts underhand arrangements, Australia has done well for itself. The Turnbull government, spear tipped by the one-dimensional former policeman Peter Dutton of the Home Affairs Department, has shown itself to be obsessed with the clandestine when it comes to dealing with asylum seekers and refugees. Its invidious sea operation, termed Operation Sovereign Borders, continues to deter refugee-carrying boats approaching Australia. Last month, it took the revelations of a Taiwanese official to The Guardian to show that Australia had forged a deal with Taiwan on treating some of the most dire medical conditions afflicting refugees on Nauru.

The memorandum of understanding was made with Taipei in September last year. Since then, some five refugees have been flown to the state – some 5,500 kilometres – to receive treatment. “The government has been clear,” came the cold, unchanging line from a spokeswoman for the Department of Home Affairs, “that people subject to regional processing arrangements will not be settled in Australia.”

The punitive dimension here has been stressed. Medical transfer would not be used as “a pathway to settlement in Australia”. Besides, Taiwan’s medical system was more than adequate, being “consistently ranked as having some of the best hospitals and medical technology in the world”.

There is an element of the police state grotesque about this, a whiff of the tyrant in search of satisfying a sadistic whim. Those who have found their way to treatment in Taiwan have been in particularly acute medical distress. There have been questions about incomplete understanding on the part of patients, and problems with informed consent. But such vulnerability is not one to prompt Australia’s officials to well up. No excuse will be accepted in permitting resettlement in Australia.

Such conduct continues to rattle human rights advocates who continue skirmishing with the Home Affairs department. Refugee lawyer David Manne sums up the issue. “The fundamental concern must be the person’s need for medical treatment. Once again, we see the absurd spectacle of the Australian government searching the globe to hive off its basic obligations… to properly care for people subject to its policies which inflict such devastating harm.”

To that end, such individuals as an Iranian woman in need of critical heart surgery was sent to Taiwan to be treated, after which she was returned to Nauru. (This resembles, in part, the ailing person awaiting execution treated to ensure his good health on being hanged.) A 63-year-old Afghan man has been offered a similar option in terms of treating his lung cancer, but has been eminently sensible, and damned for that reason, for wanting to go to Australia.

The scrap over outsourcing medical care to third countries, and not merely the processing and housing of refugees, has also received attention in the Australian Federal Court. Lawyers from the National Justice Project this month won a bid to prevent a 30-year-old Somali woman from being sent to Taiwan. The lady in question had been a victim of female genital mutilation, and was seeking an abortion.

Expert evidence was given that the Royal Women’s Hospital in Melbourne, or the Westmead Hospital in Sydney, would be appropriate venues to treat victims of infibulation. The Taiwan Adventist Hospital, it was suggested, would not be up to scratch to supply either the medical expertise or the psychological ballast for the patient. Taiwanese physician Dr Sheng Chiang told the court that experience in performing pregnancy terminations on women with female genital mutilation was conspicuously absent in Taiwan.

In Justice Alan Robertson’s words, “infibulation carries significant emotional and psychological implications and those aspects of care need to be expertly managed.” Risks also came with later terminations, becoming “increasingly complex and dangerous”.

As for Taiwan’s side of the bargain, Shyang-yun Cheng, deputy representative of the Taipei Representative Office in the UK, has written glowingly about Taiwan’s commitment “to cooperating with like-minded countries to provide high-quality medical support and humanitarian assistance.” Encouraging, indeed, if for the obvious point that is permits Australia to evade its obligations while showing Taipei to be a good international citizen.

It is about time that Australia withdraws from the Refugee Convention and cognate documents protecting refugees and asylum seekers. In making arrangements with Taiwan, a non-signatory to the Refugee Convention, the point is clear enough. At the very least, it would be an honest admission that the legal order of the time is up for dissolution and repudiation. While US President Donald Trump scours the world for deals to abolish and arrangements to upend, Australia can be looked upon as a prime example of disruption in a field that is now crowded with contenders from the United States to Hungary. A disturbing accolade indeed.

Yahya Staquf, a diminutive, soft-spoken leader of Nahdlatul Ulama, the world’s largest Muslim movement, and Indonesian president Joko Widodo’s advisor on religious affairs, has held a series of meetings in recent weeks that reflect the Muslim world’s shifting attitudes towards Israel and the Palestinians and a re-alignment of socially conservative Muslim and Christian interests.

Just this month, Mr. Staquf, a staunch advocate of inter-faith dialogue and religious tolerance, met in Washington with Vice President Mike Pence, a devout evangelist Catholic who has described himself as “a Christian, a conservative, and a Republican, in that order,” and in Jerusalem with Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu.

Messrs. Pence and Staquf were joined by Reverend Johnnie Moore, an evangelist who in May was appointed by US President Donald J. Trump as a member of the board of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom.

Mr. Staquf’s discussions would likely raise eyebrows at any given moment.

But they take on added significance because they came in the wake of Mr. Trump’s controversial recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, stepped up US support for Israel in United Nations bodies, and in advance of a whirlwind visit to the Middle East by US peace negotiators Jared Kushner and Jason Greenblatt.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ Palestine Authority has refused to engage with the Trump administration since the US recognition of Jerusalem and Palestinian officials were unlikely to meet with Messrs. Kushner and Greenblatt during their Middle East tour that focused on a draft US plan to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Details of the plan, described by Mr. Trump as the ‘deal of the century,’ remain under wrap, but Palestinians fear that it will be heavily geared towards supporting Israeli negotiating positions.

That fear has been reinforced by the Trump administration’s fiery support of Israel in the UN. The United States this month withdrew from the United Nations Human Rights Council, citing, among other reasons, the council’s repeated criticism of Israel.

Whether by design or default, Mr. Staquf’s meetings appeared to reinforce efforts by close US allies like Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt to stifle opposition to Mr. Trump’s approach to Israeli-Palestinian peace. Turkey has been in the forefront of condemnation of US policy that resonates in Muslim public opinion, particularly in Asia.

Frustration with US and Israeli policies has undermined popular Palestinian support for a two-state solution that envisions the creation of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel.

Hamas, the Islamist group that controls the Gaza Strip, has facilitated weeks of protests along the border between Gaza and Israel in support of the Palestinian right to return to lands within Israel’s boundaries prior to the 1967 Middle East war during which Israel captured East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights.

Israel has since annexed East Jerusalem and withdrawn from Gaza, which it blockades together with Egypt in a bid to undermine Hamas’s rule.

At least 142 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces since the protests erupted in late March and some 13,000 wounded.

Mr. Netanyahu trumpeted the political significance of his meeting with Mr. Staquf in a statement following their encounter.

“Muslim states are becoming closer to Israel because of the common struggle against the Iranian regime and because of Israeli technology. … The prime minister hopes that there will be progress in our relationship with Indonesia, too,” Mr. Netanyahu’s office said.

Indonesia and Israel do not maintain diplomatic relations but do not stop their nationals and officials from travelling between the two countries. Mr. Staquf has insisted that he was visiting Israel in his private capacity rather than as an advisor to the Indonesian president.

Indonesia recently revoked Israeli tourist visas in protest against Israel’s hard-handed tactics in Gaza. In response, Israel has threatened to ban tourist visas for Indonesians. Some 30,000 Indonesians, mostly Christian pilgrims, obtain visas to visit Israel each year.

Indonesia in May exempted Palestinian imports from custom duties in a bid to support the Palestinian economy.

Mr. Staquf insisted that his visit to Israel at the invitation of the American Jewish Congress was intended to promote Palestinian independence. “I stand here for Palestine. I stand here on the basis that we all have to honour Palestine’s sovereignty as a free country,” he said in a statement posted on his organization’s website.

Nonetheless, Mr. Staquf did not meet Palestine Authority officials during his visit. Osama al-Qawasmi, a spokesman for Mr. Abbas’ Al Fatah group, charged that his visit was “a crime against Jerusalem, against the Palestinians and Muslims in the world, and constitutes support for the criminal Israeli occupier against our fighting and resolute people.”

Mr. Staquf was the second NU leader to visit Israel in the past two decades. Abdurrahman “Gus Dur” Wahid travelled several times to Israel before and after his presidency but not while he was Indonesia’s head of state.

Muslim leaders, many of which have long reconciled themselves to recognition of the State of Israel’s existence, have largely been reluctant to publicly engage with Israeli officials as opposed to non-Israeli Jews as long as Israel and Palestine have not made substantial progress towards peace.

Mr. Staquf like Mr. Wahid before him broke ranks by travelling to Israel, a move that sparked criticism and condemnation on Indonesian social media and from some members of parliament.

While the criticism has focussed on Mr. Staquf’s visit to Israel rather than his meeting with Messrs. Pence and Moore, it is also rooted in widespread perceptions of evangelists as purveyors of rising Islamophobia and anti-immigrant sentiment.

Lost in that criticism is the fact that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is being hailed by some evangelists as heralding a new era with his projection of greater religious openness in the kingdom and his unprecedented statement that both Palestinians and Israelis “have the right” to have their own land.

“You know I couldn’t believe my ears actually when I was watching the news report where the crown prince of Saudi Arabia said directly, verbatim, He said this kingdom will become a kingdom for all religions. I had to watch it again and he was crystal, crystal clear.

You know as evangelicals this is a new day for us in the Middle East. Evangelicals are the baby Christians in the region… What we’re seeing is a new openness to what evangelicalism is, which I think is a move of the Holy Spirit.” Mr Moore said.

Mr. Staquf projected his visit to Israel as promoting the concept of rahma or compassion and mercy as the basis for a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the forging of relations between Israel and the Muslim world.

In practice, by design or by default, it supports US and Saudi efforts to impose their will on the Palestinians and the larger Middle East that potentially could produce as many problems as they offer solutions.

In doing so, it pays tribute to Prince Mohammed’s ability to project himself as an agent of change in Saudi Arabia even if the precise contours of his vision have yet to emerge.

In a twist of irony, it is a tribute by the leader of a movement that was founded almost a century ago in opposition to Wahhabism, the ultra-conservative Sunni Muslim worldview that long shaped Saudi Arabia and that Prince Mohammed is seen as disavowing.

The much-anticipated summit between American President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in Singapore on June 12 made world news, some touting it as the biggest story of the century. Analysts world over have dissected every bit of what transpired and the contents of the joint statement. Such intense scrutiny on the merits or demerits thereof does not undermine the significance of this historic event, however.

The most visible outcome of the summit is the diplomatic concession from the United States: the suspension of joint US-ROK military drills while diplomacy between the two countries continues. And contrary to the expectations of many, the joint statement signed between the two leaders did not include any commitments from the North on complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization or CVID, previously cited by Washington as the only acceptable outcome of the summit.

In broad terms, the joint declaration included a commitment by North Korea to the “denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula” and the establishment of security guarantees from Washington in return. While the four key remaining countries involved in the original Six-Party denuclearization talks all spoke positively about the summit, each had their own unique take on the event.

Not to be left behind, back home Trump yearned for praise over the deal he struck with Kim. Trump boasted that it is easy for making war but only the courageous ones who make peace. Trump boasted that his deal with Kim will save tens of millions of people from a potential nuclear war and that he now needs to get everyone else on board. He was clearly not happy with the lukewarm backing from congressional Republicans and criticism from Democratic opponents, besides scepticism from allies and media that the terms of the joint statement were vague and lacking in clear objectives. Trump seems to be frustrated that his expectations of a hero’s welcome were not forthcoming after he returned from Singapore.

The big question that begs an answer is: was Trump successful as a master deal maker or does his agreement with Kim represent a major step toward solving an intractable foreign policy problem? Though there could be no ready answer that could assuage the negativities being floated around, Trump felt justified that not everyone was on the same page as him.

In defense of the agreement he reached at Singapore wherein Kim agreed to denuclearise the Korean Peninsula, Trump claimed that it has led to an end to Pyongyang’s nuclear tests and “rockets flying all over the place”. Trump was annoyed with those who were critical that he signed an agreement that was not specific enough to ensure an end to North Korea’s nuclear weapons development. The agreement said Kim “reaffirmed his form and unwavering commitment to complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula”, but set no timetable for the disarmament or terms for independent inspections of North Korean nuclear sites.

Much whatsoever Trump might feel triumphant about achieving something that looked unachievable days ago, his goal of complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization, even in the most optimistic case, probably will take years. This possibility is contingent upon Pyongyang standing up to its commitment and not violate, as it has every previous nuclear agreement.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that negotiations will resume soon, and that the US “most definitely” is expecting verifiable North Korean action to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula by the end of Trump’s first term in the White House in January 2021.

Then the question of hierarchy in diplomatic protocol is being raised that Trump is accused of having violated. Trump’s public embrace of Kim is perceived as an endorsement of Kim’s autocratic leadership style, including what Trump said was a joke about the obedience of Kim’s advisors. Trump seems to have said that Kim was doing what was needed for peace.

Trump also faced heat back at home for going against presidential norms by saluting a North Korean general. In the 42-minute video of the summit aired by North Korea’s state news channel, Trump was shown meeting various North Korean officials, including a North Korean military general. The general first salutes Trump, to which the president salutes back, before shaking his hand. Kim was seen smiling in the background. While Senator Chris Van Hollen called Trump’s act days after he bashed up traditional US allies over trade disputes at a G-7 meeting as “nauseating”, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders defended Trump’s action, calling it “a common courtesy”.

According to military and intelligence experts, US presidents typically do not salute military officials from adversarial nations. Washington and Pyongyang have no formal diplomatic relationship, and North Korea is still technically at war with South Korea, a key US ally. Normally there is a protocol for military salutes and therefore military veterans saw Trump’s salute as “wholly inappropriate”.

Human rights activists have for long admonished North Korean regime for its record of detaining and punishing thousands of people in prison camps. Pyongyang has been responsible for “a regime of terror, murder and unspeakable horror against its own people”. Trump was accused for not raising this issue during his meeting with Kim. However, conservatives who defended Trump cited former president Barack Obama giving a thumbs-up to the Cuban military and “giving a bro shake” to then-Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Obama was also criticised for bowing to Emperor Akihito when he visited Japan in 2009. Conservatives then criticised Obama’s move displayed weakness from the US on the world stage. Obama was also criticised the same year for bowing to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.

Irrespective of going to the merit or demerits of the Trump’s and Obama’s acts, it is expected that a president is aware of proper protocol when interacting with foreign military officials.

Another major decision that came out immediately after the summit was the announcement by Trump to end military exercises with South Korea. The annual drills have been an irritant to North Korea, perceived as a rehearsal for eventual invasion. This major announcement was to facilitate smooth finalisation of terms of the denuclearization. Trump terms the drills as “very expensive” and “provocative”. This might lead to rethink in Japan and South Korea about their security postures until at least denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula is completed, if at all.

The United States government decision to end its border policy of forcibly separating migrant children from their parents, does not help thousands of youngsters already in detention, who should be released and reunited with their families, a group of UN rights experts said on Friday.

The group of 11 independent Special Rapporteurs, and other experts, insist that the detention of the migrant children – “most” of whom are asylum-seekers from Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras – inside the US, “severely hampers their development and in some cases, may amount to torture”.

Their statement issued to reporters in Geneva, follows President Donald Trump’s decision to sign an Executive Order ending the practice of forcible separation on Wednesday, two months after the so-called “zero-tolerance” policy was introduced.

The order calls for detaining family members together, who are caught attempting to enter the US, mostly at the southern border with Mexico.

The experts, appointed by the Human Rights Council in Geneva, said that the Order simply “does not address the situation of those children who have already been pulled away from their parents.”

“We call on the Government of the US to release these children from immigrant detention and to reunite them with their families based on the best interests of the child, and the rights of the child to liberty and family unity,” the statement added.

The group of experts had already expressed their grave concerns to the US government over the impact of the zero-tolerance policy in early April. The policy made all adults and children trying to cross the border liable to criminal prosecution as a punitive deterrent, the experts noted.

“The separations have been conducted without notice, information, or the opportunity to challenge them. The parents and children have been unable to communicate with each other,” said the statement, adding: “The parents have had no information about the whereabouts of their children, which is a cause of great distress.”

“Moreover, we are deeply concerned at the long-term impact and trauma, including irreparable harm that these forcible separations will have on children.”

Echoing that point of view, the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) said on Friday that it was opposed to separating children from their families for the purposes of migration control.

Spokesperson Christophe Boulierac, added that the agency would also be opposed to unconfirmed media reports that children could stay with their families if all of them had to remain in detention.

An alternative would be to take a non-custodial community approach, Mr. Boulierac added.

Last Monday, the UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, said in a statement that “as a matter of principle” refugees and migrants should always be “treated with respect and dignity, and in accordance with existing international law,” although he did not single out the US in this regard.

UN Human Rights chief, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein told the opening of the Human Rights Council in Geneva on Monday, that the practice of child migrant separation, amounted to “government-sanctioned child abuse” which may cause “irreparable harm” with “lifelong consequences”.

Special Rapporteurs address either specific country situations or thematic issues, across all parts of the world, and work on a voluntary basis, without any salary or remuneration for their work.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said Europe has guaranteed that the country will be able to sell its crude oil.

Addressing a meeting of Iran’s Chamber of Commerce in Tehran on Sunday, Zarif commented on the future of Iran’s economy under mounting pressures from the enemies.

Iran has gotten used to difficulties, Zarif said, adding that the country had been handling an Iraqi imposed war in the 1980s by selling its oil at a price of 8 dollars per barrel, while the current prices stand at 75 dollars.

“Europeans guarantee that Iran will be able to sell its oil, although Americans are considering their own measures in this regard (limiting Iran’s oil sales),” he said.

There are no major European sanctions against Iran anymore, Zarif explained, saying the era of anti-Iran sanctions by Europe, which were sometimes harsher than the US ones, would not be repeated again.

Highlighting Tehran’s efforts to save the 2015 nuclear deal, Zarif said the US -the world’s top economy- has focused efforts on forcing Iran to withdraw from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

The whole international community, except for the US, the Zionist regime of Israel, and a few number of regional states which cannot live in peace even with their neighbors, have been supporting the JCPOA, Zarif said, adding that even Canada, which has cut diplomatic ties with Iran, wants the nuclear deal to be saved.

On May 8, the US president pulled his country out of the JCPOA, which was achieved in Vienna in 2015 after years of negotiations among Iran and the Group 5+1 (Russia, China, the US, Britain, France and Germany).

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

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

Saudi Arabia’s air defense forces intercepted and destroyed two ballistic missiles over Riyadh on Sunday, launched by Iran-backed Houthi militia in Yemen.

Homes in the Saudi capital shook and there were at least six loud blasts, bright flashes in the sky and puffs of smoke above the city. There were no reports of casualties.

The Iran-backed rebels’ news outlet Al-Masirah boasted that the missiles had struck the Saudi defense ministry and other sites in the capital.

But Col. Turki Al-Maliki, spokesman for the Saudi-led coalition fighting the rebels, denied that the defense ministry had been hit.

The attacks were the latest in a series of missile launches targeting densely populated residential areas of Saudi Arabia, including Riyadh and the southern cities of Jazan and Najran, close to the border with Yemen.

The latest missile attack on Riyadh has brought new urgency to the military operation by forces from the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen to capture the Red Sea port city of Hodeidah.

Hodeidah port is a lifeline for humanitarian aid to Yemen, but it is also a conduit for the supply of Iranian weapons to the Houthis, including missiles fired at Saudi Arabia.

The coalition has produced evidence to show that, as well as arms and ammunition, Tehran illegally smuggles missile parts to the Houthis through the port. They are then reassembled and launched at Saudi cities from sites in northern Yemen.

A coalition military operation began two weeks ago to dislodge the Houthis from Hodeidah and halt the supply of weapons and missile parts.

On Sunday, coalition forces moved closer to the city center.

There was fierce fighting near Hodeidah University, about 3 km west of the city center, on the coastal road linking the city’s airport to the port.

Coalition forces took control of the airport last week and have been consolidating their hold in the area as UN efforts continued to reach a political deal that would avert a full military assault on the port.

Capturing Hodeidah would allow the coalition to cut the supply line to the Houthis in the capital, Sanaa, and the militias are devoting all their resources to retaining control.

“There is a heavy deployment of armed Houthis in the city and new check points have been set up in neighborhoods where there are supporters of the Tehama brigades,” said one resident. The Tehama are a Yemeni faction from the Red Sea coastal plain who are fighting with coalition forces to restore Yemen’s legitimate government.

The coalition has pledged a swift military operation to take over the airport and seaport without entering the city center, to minimize civilian casualties and maintain the flow of goods.

Some civilians have been injured or made homeless in the fighting. The medical charity Medecins Sans Frontieres has received 151 injured people in recent days at Al-Thawrah Hospital, the main public medical facility serving Hodeidah, and expects to receive more as the fighting moves toward the city.

“There are 86 beds in Al-Thawrah and we desperately need more. We hope to set up a field hospital with 20 beds in the next two weeks,” said Caroline Seguin, the charity’s program manager for Yemen.

“The battle for Hodeidah is reaching the point of no return,” the International Crisis Group said in a conflict alert.

“This is the final, fragile moment in which it may still be possible for UN-led negotiations to prevent a destructive fight.”