Chinese Catholics have given a mixed reception to the Sino-Vatican provisional agreement on the appointment of bishops that has seen Pope Francis recognize seven Chinese bishops ordained without his mandate.

Father John from the underground community of Mindong Diocese in Fujian province said there is now no reason to refuse to concelebrate Mass with the illicit bishops recognized by the pope, otherwise “there is not any obedience. We cannot be irrational.” He stressed, however, that “being obedient does not necessarily mean agreeing.”

He said the underground community can no longer exist and only the open church is recognized but he pledged that he will never join the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association (CCPA). “I will go home when I become too aggrieved being a priest,” Father John added.

Francis from an open community in Hebei province told ucanews.com that he does not agree with the signing of the agreement between China and the Vatican.

“China is now suppressing religions severely. [The regime] does not only remove crosses but is controlling strictly the dissemination of religious information on the internet. There is no freedom of speech,” he said.

“I will not attend Mass celebrated by priests who agree with the agreement and will continue to boycott those seven illicit bishops. If the entire church on the mainland becomes degraded, I will only stay at home to pray.”

He said that he can only keep his own faith and cannot be assimilated like pro-government members of the public. He stressed that “when the church is assimilated by the devil, then that will be the time that we act according to our own conscience.”

Mary from an open community of Jiangxi Diocese said she was very concerned about the agreement. She could not accept the clause that bishops will be nominated by the government and lead the church. “I cannot accept the submission of the church to the regime. I think the pope is wrong this time.”

Regarding the seven illicit bishops recognized by the pope, she said “it touches the principles of the church. When there is a priest having a mistress here, I will not go to church then. I can still follow Jesus at home.”

Pietro Pan from an underground community in Shangdong province said the pope sharing his authority of nominating bishops with a government is indeed handing over the church to the government. “The church then fails to be one and most holy,” he said.

He admits that he could not understand why the pope is recognizing the illicit bishops. “Would it imply that the decisions the church made earlier were wrong? There are some among them who have mistresses and children. Can they still be bishops? It is incredible. What is going through in the church that makes it capricious? Is this still the church of Jesus?” he asked.

He stressed that he refuses resolutely to participate in activities related to the illicit bishops as well as sacraments celebrated by their priests.

Paul of an underground community in Shijiazhuang in Hebei province denounced the agreement, saying that this is obviously a selling out of the church. The church is submitting to an atheist regime. “The pope recognized the seven illicit bishops,” he protested, adding that “when people having wives and children can be bishops, so can I?!”

Joseph Zhou from the underground community of Nanyang in Henan province believes that the agreement allows both parties to take a step forward. Yet he remains cautious and pessimistic regarding the future. He hopes that authorities will now release arrested bishops and priests and allow them to carry out their pastoral ministries.

Responding to the rumor that underground communities will be eradicated, Joseph believes that would be difficult to achieve. He hopes that the government may recognize underground churches.

Father Paul from an open community in Guangdong said the church in China has almost reached the lowest level in faith matters, including marriage and family problems and behavior of the clergy. He has been longing for an agreement so that “the Holy See can deliver faith and pastoral messages more directly to the China Church, especially on how to manage priests.”

As the new bishops will require the appointment of the pope, he explained, it is hoped that the quality of the pastors will be raised, which will contribute to the standardization and normalization of the China Church.

Paul Wang, a CCPA member from Baotou in Inner Mongolia, said he obeyed the pope. “This is the result that everyone has been awaiting for a long time. This is the fruit of the Holy Spirit. It is hard to come by.”

Although the church is still suppressed, he believes that will end soon. “I believe President Xi Jinping is a good secretary-general [of the Communist Party],” he said.

Speaking about the demolition of crosses, he said that it mainly takes place in Protestant churches and is not much related to the Catholic Church. “The pope is great and intelligent. He is chosen by God. He cannot be wrong as he represents God,” Wang said.

Paul Xiao from the open community of Cangzhou Diocese in Hebei province said he will observe how the church is affected.

“The suppression is not really suppression of the church. It is only a sign that the state has started formally to execute the laws and regulations,” he said, adding that he will still participate in church activities. “I believe that the decision the pope made is not wrong. The government will not persecute us either. The government is constantly revising the law that makes things more standardized.”

Maria Zhang, a CCPA member from Taiyuen of Shanxi province, welcomes the pope’s decision. She believes that “the pope is the wisest.” She claimed that she did not feel she was being suppressed, “at least not in my place here.” She thinks that it is those churches causing problems that lead to the discontented government demolishing crosses.

The Kremlin and the Moscow Patriarchate remain totally opposed to autocephaly for the Ukrainian church, but in recognition of near certainty that the Universal Patriarch is going to extend that independent status to Kyiv, Moscow is increasingly thinking about how it can exploit this event for Moscow’s political and religious benefits.

That shift does not mean that the Kremlin or the Moscow Patriarchate is going to stop opposing autocephaly for Ukraine; and it certainly does not mean the Russian government and the Russian church won’t do what they can to blacken the reputation of the Ukrainian church by propaganda or by active measures.

Thus, they are already attacking officials and churchmen in Ukraine – for an especially egregious but sadly typical example, see versia.ru/ukrainskuyu-pomestnuyu-cerkov-mozhet-vozglavit-sekretar-sovbeza-aleksandr-turchinov – and Putin’s longstanding use of provocations, including organizing violence that Moscow blames on others, will likely play a role.

Kyiv and the West must be prepared for that because if there is violence against Russian Orthodox believers or churches in Ukraine, the Kremlin propaganda machine will work overtime to ensure that many will believe its version of events and blame the victim, in this case Ukraine, as has happened so often in the past.

But more significantly, Russian officials and Russian Orthodox churchmen in Moscow are now talking about what they can achieve from the split in world Orthodoxy they plan to promote when Ukraine’s church gains autocephaly. Indeed, some in the Russian capital believe, despite the obvious losses the Moscow Patriarchate will take, they may come out ahead.

On the Versiya portal, commentator Ruslan Gorevoy discusses what he calls “The Orthodox War” and asks “what will the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate lose and what will it gain from the split the Universal Patriarch has provoked” (versia.ru/chto-poteryaet-i-chto-mozhet-priobresti-rpc-mp-ot-raskola-provociruemogo-vselenskim-patriarxatom).

The losses that the Moscow Patriarchate will suffer after autocephaly are obvious: Ukrainians are more religiously active than Russians are, and the Moscow church will lose many of its bishoprics and parishes, a major source of income and an essential part of its claim to be the largest Orthodox church in the world.

But, Gorevoy suggests, the Russian church will pick up something possibly more valuable. Up to now, Orthodox churches have viewed the Constantinople Patriarchate as first among equals, often deferring to it. Now, even before autocephaly but as a result of Constantinople’s actions, ever more of them are looking toward others instead – most prominently to Moscow.

Given the size of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate and its wealth, both from church collections and the kind of economic activities the Putin regime has allowed it to engage in untaxed and unreported, the Moscow Patriarchate is in a position to “help” other churches view it and not Constantinople as the center of Orthodoxy.

Consequently, Gorevoy says, Universal Patriarch Bartholemew has overplayed his hand in the Ukrainian case, leading many of the existing autocephalous churches offended and looking for leadership elsewhere. Their desire for communion thus works for Moscow which has cast itself in this case as a defender of the status quo.

As Gorevoy points out, “among the leaders of world Orthodoxy, Bartholemew is counted first among equals. After all the Constantinople throne is the oldest in the world, one thought to have been founded by the apostle Andrey the First Called. But ‘oldest’ does not mean the wealthiest or the most influential.”

Only three percent of the world’s Orthodox are under its rule, and it is a very poor sister to Moscow which can deploy funds to encourage other Orthodox churches to support its positions, something it has often done overtly and likely covertly including during the current controversy.

According to Vladimir Shmaly, the former secretary of the Moscow Patriarchate’s theological commission, Bartholemew wants to make Constantinople into “an Orthodox Vatican;” and to do that he has to “destroy the Moscow Patriarchate” by splitting off its churches and bishoprics in Ukraine.

Thus, “the goal of an autocephalous Ukrainian campaign by Constantinople is not Ukraine but ‘the expulsion’ of the Moscow Patriarchate from the community of Orthodox churches,” thus allowing Bartholemew to “play the role either of a Byzantine emperor or an Eastern pope,” Shmaly says.

Moscow political analyst Lev Vershilin sees an even more disturbing possibility in Constantinople’s actions. In his view, the Universal Patriarchate wants to put the Moscow metropolitanate under a Kyiv patriarchate, “a first ‘symbolically’ and then in reality,” and over time, declare other autocephalous churches in Siberia, the Urals and the Far East.”

Another Russian analyst, Rostislav Ishchenko, says that by declaring a religious war in Ukraine, Constantinople is pushing true Orthodox Christians to form their own militias to combat this effort. As a result, he says, there will be “rivers of blood” in Ukraine. “As a result, the Ukrainian state will be destroyed,” and Constantinople will suffer a clear defeat.

It would appear, Gorevoy concludes, that “Moscow should act in a more restrained fashion” than Ishchenko says others will lest it lose its credibility and the influence it has gained because of Constantinople’s overreaching. But of course, what the Russian government may do covertly and then blame on the Ukrainians is another thing altogether.

By Michael Lelyveld

China’s government appears to be stifling investment in the country’s economy as it tries to steer funding into preferred sectors for growth.

In a Sept. 6 report, the official Xinhua news agency highlighted the double-digit rise of investment in fixed assets like buildings and machinery since 1978, the start of China’s “opening-up” reforms.

From 1981 through 2017, China recorded 490 trillion yuan (U.S. $71.4 trillion) in fixed asset investment (FAI) with average annual growth of 20.2 percent, according to National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) data.

The contribution of FAI to China’s gross domestic product peaked at 48 percent in 2011 before settling down to 44.4 percent last year as the country’s focus shifted to consumption from “over-reliance on investment and exports,” Xinhua said.

What the article doesn’t say is that FAI growth has declined sharply and defied government efforts to revive it at a time when GDP growth has edged down and the economy faces pressure from abroad.

Investment growth has slowed from 10 percent in 2015 to 7.2 percent last year and 5.3 percent in the first eight months of 2018.

The latest rate is a record low since at least 1995, the Financial Times reported.

The government has noted the particular weakening of infrastructure investment as eight-month growth slipped to 4.2 percent from 19.8 percent in the year-earlier period.

In the first half of the year, the number of new infrastructure projects fell 0.81 percent while the investment value plunged 33.5 percent, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) said.

The infrastructure falloff has been all the more remarkable because it has taken place in a sector that the government has traditionally controlled.

In July, the NDRC planning agency announced that it would supervise “all phases of (FAI) projects by local governments” following reports that local authorities were reluctant to proceed due to crackdowns on financial risk ordered by the central government.

While investment in expressways climbed 12.8 percent in the first six months, construction of rural roads rose only 1.8 percent, the Ministry of Transport said.

Premier Li Keqiang called for accelerating infrastructure projects, singling out construction of the Sichuan-Tibet railway, as the cabinet-level State Council called for more stimulus spending to spur the economy.

In July, the government also announced a pilot program to establish “special-purpose companies” under state ownership to push state capital investment.

The NDRC issued an FAI monitoring report seeking to highlight investment opportunities, citing 459,000 new proposed investment projects.

Reviving private investment

But while the number of projects rose 23.3 percent in the first half, investment in the projects, valued at 73.1 trillion yuan (U.S. $10.6 trillion), increased by only 6.9 percent, the official English-language China Daily said.

The government has claimed some success in reviving the growth of private investment, which rose 6 percent last year and 8.7 percent in the first eight months of 2018.

According to the official reckoning, private investment accounts for about 60 percent of GDP and more than 80 percent of urban jobs. Private investment rose 3.2 percent in 2016 and 10 percent in 2015, the NBS said.

State media reports suggest that private investment has been held back by suspicions that local governments have been using it as a back-door source of finance, adding to debt obligations.

Most recently, the NDRC has promised to take “further measures” to promote private investment such as easing market access while trying to steer it into preferred sectors, including new airports and aviation services.

Last month, the NDRC published a list of 28 civil aviation projects valued at 110 billion yuan (U.S. $16 billion), encouraging private investors to participate, Xinhua said.

The opening for investment may represent a fraction of the sector’s opportunities. China has 232 airports for civil aviation, with 32 serving 10 million or more passengers annually, the China Civil Airports Association said.

The government also plans to lower restrictions for private investment in infrastructure, public services, elder care and health care, an NDRC spokesman said on Sept. 6. Officials have made many similar promises in the past.

But government probes of private investment have competed with the incentives to encourage it, turning the net effect into a mixed bag.

Official suspicions have weighed heavily on public-private partnership (PPP) projects, despite a big push for the investments in 2014.

Earlier this month, a Ministry of Finance (MOF) office publicized figures for PPP projects indicating that a surprisingly large number had been shut down before they got off the ground.

As of August, 7,867 PPP projects had been registered with a combined investment of 11.8 trillion yuan (U.S. $1.7 trillion), the China Public-Private Partnership Center said.

Of the total, 3,812 projects had been signed and 1,762 had started construction. But 2,148 projects with investments of 2.5 trillion yuan (U.S. $364 billion) had been “eliminated” under the MOF’s crackdown on “zombie” PPP projects, Xinhua reported.

The effect of cross-purposes

It is hard to estimate the effect of opposing forces and initiatives within the government, but the cross-purposes may be dampening FAI growth.

Some economists say that FAI was due to weaken in any case as China moves to its next stage of growth.

“I think China is becoming more ‘normal’ in terms of fixed asset investment relative to GDP. As the service sector economy becomes a larger share of GDP, fixed assets will diminish,” said Gary Hufbauer, nonresident senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington.

“Conversely, R&D and technology expenditures in general will increase,” he said.

Hufbauer suggested that China’s investment patterns in traditional industries may be reaching a plateau.

“China has built all the steel mills the country will need for the next 50 years,” Hufbauer said by email.

Other experts say the FAI growth figures tell only part of the story because so much of China’s capital movement in the past was classed as investment, and much of the investment itself was unproductive.

“The 25-percent growth years were full of money movement that wasn’t true investment, not to mention an enormous amount of waste,” said Derek Scissors, an Asia economist and resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

“At five-percent growth, the waste isn’t growing that fast because the central government no longer mindlessly praises spending,” he said.

Scissors was asked whether the central government is helping or hurting investment growth by trying to steer it into preferred opportunities like PPP projects and airports.

“Almost surely hurting,” he said. “Private money wants flexibility both with regard to the initial project and with regard to exiting early if that becomes the best choice at some point.”

“The government setting priorities only makes that more difficult,” Scissors said.

By M.A. Athul*

During a span of 11 days, between September 13 and September 23, 2018, Security Forces (SFs) arrested nine Hizb-ul-Mujahideen (HM) cadres, all residents of Assam. The first arrest took place on September 13, when a trained HM cadre, Qamar-uz-Zaman, was arrested from Shivnagar locality in Kanpur District of Uttar Pradesh. Zaman hails from Jamunamukh in Hojai District of Assam. The Uttar Pradesh Police and National Investigation Agency (NIA) subsequently alerted authorities in Assam about the arrest.

On September 14, Police arrested Shahnawaz Alam from Nilbagan in the Hojai District of Assam. On September 15, Police arrested SaidulAlam, a resident of the Lanka region in Hojai District, from Udali in Nagaon District (Assam). On the same day, Police arrested Omar Faruk near Byrnihat along the Assam-Meghalaya border. On September 17, Police arrested Zaman’s elder brother Saiful Islam,and recovered INR 106,000 from his house in Jamunamukh in Hojai District. Police sources disclosed that Saiful Islam was detained by the Police on September 15 and was interrogated till his arrest. On September 18, Police arrested another three persons, Baharul Islam, Riyazuddin Bhuyan and Joynal Ahmed from Hojai District.

On September 18, 2018, Ankur Jain, Superintendent of Police (SP), Hojai District, stated: “We are now trying to dig out the root of Hizb-ul-Mujahideen in Assam. So far, we have arrested seven persons and each one of them is being interrogated by our Special Investigation Team (SIT). We have the information and all we have to do is to join the dots. Shahnwaz Alam so far has turned out to be one of the who’s who of Hizb-ul-Mujahideen.”

Later, on September 23, a linkman of HM, identified as Abhumanyu Chouhan was arrested from Mosoka under Kheroni Police Station in Karbi Anglong District.

HM was reportedly attempting to supply sophisticated arms, including AK 47 assault rifles, for its operatives in the State. Sources said that the arms procurement process had already begun and there might be some links with dealers based in Nagaland in the entire process. An unnamed senior Police official added, “As per our report, the outfit could not execute its plan to supply arms but then we are not ruling out any possibility. Many new revelations have come up during the questioning.”

The quick arrest of six HM militants within a week of the initial arrest in Uttar Pradesh and continuing investigations into their disclosures are likely to bring this incipient movement to an end. There is little evidence of any sustainable network associated with HM in Assam, and the present cluster is likely to have been a one-off development, based on individual associations developed by Zaman, who had gone to Kashmir’s Kishtwar District as a petty trader in 2013, and had subsequently joined HM.

The arrest of Islamist militants is, however, not a new phenomenon in Assam. A long list of Islamist outfits has been operating in Assam since the 1990’s. The rise of Islamist militancy started in North Eastern India in the wake of the 1992 Babri Masjid demolition and the subsequent communal disturbances; as well as because of Manipur’s infamous Meitei-Muslim riots in 1993. Pakistan’s’ Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), relentless in its design to exploit India’s vulnerabilities, received help from the regime in Bangladesh, which, at that time, was deeply hostile to India. A hotbed of Islamist radicalization and militancy, Bangladesh was used by ISI to extend its proxy war against India – a situation that has changed dramatically in New Delhi’s favour since the Sheikh Hasina Government assumed office in 2009.

A majority of Islamic militant groups in the Northeast were founded between 1990 and 1996, with the proclaimed objective of ‘safeguarding the overall interests’ of the minority Muslim communities in the region. More groups surfaced in the early 2000s, but these were short-lived.

Nevertheless, trace activities of Islamist extremists persist. According to partial data compiled by the South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP), at least 109 Islamist extremists have been arrested across the Northeast since 2015 (data till September 23, 2018). These include 57 cadres in 2015 [20 Bangladesh-based Jama’atul Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB), 19 Muslim Tiger Force of Assam (MTFA), 10 Muslim United Liberation Tigers of Assam [MULTA], one cadre each of Muslim Liberation Army (MLA) and Peoples United Liberation Front (PULF), and six others (group not identified)];36 cadres in 2016 [24 JMB, six MTFA, one each of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), MULTA, Indian Mujahideen (IM), and three others (group not identified)];six cadres in 2017 [five MULTA, one JMB. At least 10 Islamist extremists, including eight HM, two MULTA, have been arrested thus far in 2018 (data till September 23, 2018).

In addition, State Parliamentary Affairs Minister Rockybul Hussain had informed the State Assembly on December 15, 2014, that between January 2001 and November 2014, a total of 130 Islamist extremists, including 106 MULTA cadres, 14 of Harakat-ul-Mujahideen (HuM), and 10 of JMB, were arrested in Assam.On December 8, 2015, Rockybul Hussain had informed the State Assembly that three Islamist militant groups, MULTA, JMB, and HuM, were active in the State.

During the Assam violence in July 2012, the Central Government identified at least 19 Islamist organisations to watch in connection with violence in the State. The list included 14 groups from Assam: Muslim Security Council of Assam (MSCA), United Liberation Militia of Assam (ULMA),Islamic Liberation Army of Assam(ILAA), Muslim Volunteer Force (MVF), Muslim Liberation Army (MLA), Muslim Security Force (MSF), Islamic Sevak Sanng (ISS), Islamic United Reformation Protest of India (IURPI), Revolutionary Muslim Commandos (RMC), Muslim Tiger Force (MTF), Muslim Liberation Front (MLF), Muslim Liberation Tigers of Assam (MLTA), Muslim United Liberation Front of Assam (MULFA)and MULTA. There were five groups from Manipur in the list: Islamic National Front (INF), Islamic Revolutionary Front (IRF), United Islamic Liberation Army (UILA), United Islamic Revolutionary Army (UIRA) and PULF.

According to SATP, at least 20 Islamist terror formations have operated in Assam at different periods.

Historically, the most active among these groups were MULTA, and the People’s United Liberation Front [PULF]. While the former confined its activities to Assam, the latter operated in Manipur and in the adjoining Districts of south Assam. Their presence has also been felt in the neighbouring States of Nagaland and Meghalaya. At one time, Harakat-ul-Mujahideen (HuM) was also very active along with Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami (HuJI). Around 500 militants mostly belonging to MULTA, PULF, and HuM either surrendered or were arrested in Assam and Manipur between 1999 and 2004, after which very limited activity has been noticed by the surviving elements of these groupings.

The presence of JMB in Assam was exposed after the discovery of the Burdwan Module in West Bengal. An accidental explosion at Burdwan on October 2, 2014, in which two JMB militants were killed and another was injured. NIA claimed that, during the course of investigations, it had been found that operatives of JMB had established their networks in different Districts of Assam, Jharkhand, and West Bengal. According to the NIA Charge sheets, five accused in the case belonged to State of Assam. The NIA also claimed that JMB operatives

…were engaged in preparation of bombs, ammunition/arms, maintaining hideouts and organizing terrorist training camps in pursuance of a larger conspiracy to organise terrorist attacks in different parts of India and in Bangladesh.

One of the charge sheeted persons, Lal Mohammed aka Ibrahim, a JMB cadre arrested by Jharkhand Police on April 18, 2015 (NIA officially arrested him on April 27, 2015), reportedly revealed to interrogators that JMB’s sabotage plans in Assam were intended to counter Bodo ‘aggression’. Similarly, reports indicated that MTFA was formed to take ‘revenge’ for the massacre of Muslims in the Bodoland Territorial Area Districts (BTAD) in May 2014.

Earlier on December 24, 2017, a report had mentioned that intelligence agencies had intercepted messages by the Kerala-based extremist Popular Front of India (PFI) sent to West Asian countries, linked to a campaign launched against the updating of the National Register of Citizens (NRC). According to reports, PFI is currently active in Goalpara, Karimganj, Silchar, Hailakandi, Kamrup, Borpeta, Baksa, Chirang, Kokrajhar, Dhubri, South Salmara, Lakhimpur, Nagaon and Tinsukia Districts of Assam.

According to a report published on June 30, 2018, the process of updating the NRC in Assam has provoked some radical Islamist outfits to step up their activities in areas inhabited by suspected illegal migrants. Inputs received by security agencies suggest that organisations from the country’s south are on overdrive to expand their base among the community through ‘philanthropic activities’, such as the distribution of textbooks and blankets. While these organisations were initially confined to Goalpara and Darrang, their activities have now expanded to include Karimganj, Chirang and Baksa. A students’ wing floated by one of these groups has also been making efforts to enrol students in Guwahati.

Pallab Bhattacharya, the then Additional Director General of Assam Police in charge of the Special Branch, said that the NRC has offered scope to many organisations to ‘fish in troubled waters’: “The recent conference by the SIO (Students Islamic Organisation) at the Delhi press club is an example, as is the raising of the NRC issue at the level of the United Nations.”

Earlier, a June 20, 2018, report claimed that ISI had activated sleeper cells in Assam to cause disturbances after the NRC is completed. There are previous instances when ISI agents were apprehended in the State. For example, on August 10, 1999, four ISI agents identified as Fasih Ullah Hussain, Javed Musaffar, Maulana Hafiz Mohammed. Akram Mallick and Qari Salim Ahmed were arrested from Guwahati. On June 22, 2007, 13 suspected ISI agents were arrested by the Army in North Cachar District. On October 15, 2012, SFs arrested a suspected ISI agent, identified as Akhtar Hussain, in Dhemaji District.

Major global Islamist terrorist groups such as al Qaeda and the Islamic State have also long been eying the region. Osama bin Laden’s 1996 fatwa, “Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places,” first mentioned Assam. Again, at the time of its formation in September 2014, al Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent (AQIS) specifically listed Assam among the target for jihad, along with Gujarat and Jammu and Kashmir. Similarly, in June 2014, the Islamic State issued a map project the regions of the world that it planned to dominate over the succeeding five years, which included all of India in its projected Khorasan Vilayat. There is, however, no visible sign of the presence of these formations in Assam.

Despite the long list of Islamist militant groupspresent in Assam, no operational successes have marked their existence in the past years, suggesting an absence of operational capabilities, as well as the ability of law enforcement agencies in countering their embryonic plots. The loss of Bangladesh as a safe haven and launching pad has also made any consolidation difficult. Indeed, Bangladeshi extremists formations such as JMB now see India’s Northeast as a refuge and escapefrom the crackdown in their own country, rather than as an area of potential operations.

There has been a consolidation of peace in Assam,which has experienced a multiplicity of ethnic insurgencies since 1979. With ethnic insurgent violence in its last leg, it is unlikely that Islamist formations will find any easy ground to operate in the State. The discovery and neutralization of the HM cell is an isolated incident, unlikely to auger any new trend.

*M.A.Athul
Research Assistant, Institute for Conflict Management

By S. Binodkumar Singh*

On September 15, 2018, thousands of Grand National Coalition of Afghanistan (GNCA) supporters closed the provincial offices of the Independent Election Commission (IEC) in Herat, Balkh and Kandahar Provinces after the Government and the IEC failed to positively respond to their demands. On August 10, 2018, GNCA set a 10-day deadline for a response from Government to meet their demands, including the use of a biometric system for elections, a change in the election system and a transparent poll across the country. GNCA also warned that it would close the IEC offices in Nangarhar, Kunduz, Bamiyan, Panjsher, Faryab and Jawzjan Provinces, if their demands were not met.

Further, on September 17, 2018, supporters of GNCA set up tents and closed the provincial election office in eastern Nangarhar Province, launching a sit-in protest. Later, Police arrested 16 GNCA supporters on charges of disrupting the provincial election office and removed the tents.

GNCA, consisting of 35 political parties, was formed on July 26, 2018, under the leadership of General Abdul Rashid Dostum, the First Vice President and leader of Junbish Party, with the declared objective of working for improved governance, creating jobs, holding of transparent elections and ensuring improved security across the country. Other key figures in GNCA include Acting Foreign Minister and head of Jamiat-e-Islami, Salahuddin Rabbani; Jamiat-e-Islami Chief Executive, Atta Mohammad Noor; Second Chief Executive Officer and leader of Hezb-i-Wahdat, Mohammad Mohaqiq; former President, Hamid Karzai; former National Directorate of Security (NDS) Chief, Rahmatullah Nabil; former Vice President, Younus Qanuni; former Finance Minister, Anwar ul-Haq Ahadi; former Water and Energy Minister, Ismail Khan; Wolesi Jirga (Lower House of Parliament) Member of Parliament (MP) from Nangahar, Haji Zahir Qadir; Wolesi Jirga MP from Kandahar, Lalai Hamidzai; former Advisor to President Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai, Ahmad Zia Massoud; and First Deputy Speaker of Wolesi Jirga, Hamayun Hamayun.

Meanwhile, condemning the GNCA’s move for forcing the closure of election offices in certain provinces, IEC Chief Gula Jan Abdul Badi Sayad, on September 16, 2018, urged the Government to take necessary precautions to ensure the security of the election workers in the provincial offices of the Commission. Similarly, calling on Government leadership to take tough action against those who are trying to derail the election process, Abdul Aziz Aryayee, Chairman of the Independent Electoral Complaints Commission (IECC) stated, on September 19, 2018, “Those who are sabotaging the process must be identified; the Afghan Government shouldn’t remain silent.”

Amid growing complaints over the Government’s “lack of commitment” to holding transparent Parliamentary Elections scheduled for October 20, 2018, President Ashraf Ghani on August 7, 2018, issued a decree to prevent any interference in the election process and to ensure that elections are held in a safe and transparent environment. According to the decree, the security forces have the responsibility of maintaining the security of voter registration centers and will prevent the entrance of irresponsible and armed individuals into the centers. The decree also asks Government officials and employees to avoid making use of facilities in favor of any particular candidate and to eschew any form of interference in the election process.

On September 16 2018, the IEC issued the preliminary voters’ lists for Sar-e-Pul, Zabul, Panjsher and Farah Provinces. According to the IEC, work is underway to finalize the voters’ lists for another ten Provinces. IEC commenced voter registration in the provincial capitals on April 14, 2018, and ended the process on July 27, 2018. After that, the IEC announced that around 9.5 million voters had been registered, of which 34 per cent were women. The Commission also began digitizing its records to create a single voters’ list that could be checked for duplication and disaggregated by polling station. Further, in order to remove the concerns of the public and political parties about fraud during the election process, Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, National Unity Government (NUG) Chief Executive Officer (CEO), stated that biometric data of voters was important for the elections, and that IEC would announce the procedure for using voters’ biometric data in the ‘near future’.

However, at an event on September 1, 2018, GNCA leaders displayed thousands of fake national identity cards and voter stickers. Photos of Government officials, influential figures and MPs were used in the fake identity cards. For example, the photo of Abdul Jabbar Qahraman, an MP from Helmand Province was used for five ID cards with stickers on them. As a consequence, slamming the Government and the IEC for their shortcomings regarding the upcoming Parliamentary Elections, Gulbudin Hekmatyar, leader of GNCA and Hezb-e-Islami, noted on September 11, 2018, “The Government is moving in a wrong direction and the Independent Election Commission has adopted an unfair approach, emphasizing that the commission is offering an irrelevant justification for the embarrassing fraud in the elections.” He also claimed that voter stickers have been printed with an aim to commit fraud in the elections. Further, on September 18, 2018, accusing the Government of trying to favour Ahmad Zia Massoud, Chief Executive of the GNCA, Hekmatyar asserted, “Government is now planning fraud in the elections so that it can send its representatives to the House of Representatives. It wants those representatives in the Parliament who would serve Government so that it can apply its orders in line with its demands.”

Worse, a number of candidates have been killed around the country over the past few months, raising concerns over the safety of candidates. On September 2, 2018, Anwar Niazi, a parliamentary candidate from the Parwan Province was killed in Kabul in an IED explosion. On August 25, 2018, Jalal Salehi, a candidate from Kabul, was killed in Kabul’s Shakar Dara District. On July 30, 2018, another Nangarhar candidate, Hayatullah Khan Rahmani, was killed when a suicide bomber targeted him in Rodat District in the Province. Another candidate, former member of the Ghazni Provincial Council, Sayed Obaidullah Sadat, was killed in Ghazni city on July 14, 2018, by unknown armed men. On July 1, 2018, the Afghan Sikh and Hindu community leader, Ottar Singh Khalsa, who was running for parliamentary elections, was killed in a suicide attack in Jalalabad city in Nangarhar Province. While these incidents were widely reported, no official source has released details on the exact number of candidates targeted.

On September 13, 2018, at a gathering in Kabul, election watchdog Transparent Election Foundation of Afghanistan (TEFA) Chief Mohammad Naeem Ayubzada warned that the security problems would pose a major challenge to the elections and that necessary technical and operational preparations for the upcoming Wolesi Jirga polls remained inadequate. Separately, on September 14, 2018, a survey conducted by the Afghan Institute of Strategic Studies (AISS) showed that people’s trust in the IEC was slightly greater compared to the past, but was still not adequate. The survey shows that 45 per cent of 1,305 interviewees in 13 provinces said they were happy with the IEC, while 45 per cent were “not satisfied”. 10 percent of interviewees gave no clear response.

Highlighting Afghanistan’s ongoing political developments, security and election process, United Nations (UN) Secretary General António Guterres submitted the quarterly report on Afghanistan to the UN Security Council on September 10, 2018. According to the report, Afghanistan’s mainstream political parties and political movements have intensified their efforts for reform of the election system ahead of the October Parliamentary Elections. Separately, voicing his concern at security and the political challenges to Afghanistan’s Parliamentary Elections, on September 17, 2018, the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) Chief Tadamichi Yamamoto, while briefing the UN Security Council regarding the situation in Afghanistan, cautioned, “Operationally and technically, the preparations are on track. Yet I remain very concerned that political challenges could jeopardize the tight timelines and derail the elections unless all political leaders engage constructively and peacefully to ensure that elections are held on time. Security is also a serious concern.”

On the other hand, expressing grave concern at the increasing activities of the Islamic State (IS, formerly, Islamic State of Iraq and al Sham, also Daesh) militants in Afghanistan, on September 17, 2018, Vassily Nebenzia, Russian Ambassador to the UN observed during a meeting of the UN Security Council, “According to our information, the number of ISIL adherents may reach 10,000 individuals.” Contacts between Daesh and representatives of the Islamic Turkistan Movement had also intensified, the envoy asserted, urging joint regional and international action against the outfit. Meanwhile, US Country Reports on Terrorism 2017 released on September 19, 2018, claimed that Afghanistan continued to experience aggressive and coordinated attacks by the Taliban other insurgent and terrorist groups through 2017. The reports further claimed that the Pakistani Government had vowed support to the peace talks between the Afghan Government and the Taliban, but did nothing to restrict the Taliban and Haqqani network from operating from Pakistan-based safe havens and attacking US and Afghan forces in Afghanistan.

The Taliban remains tremendously disruptive. According to the 40th Quarterly Report of Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), as of May 15, 2018, there were 229 Districts under Afghan Government control (74) or influence (155), 56.3 percent of the total number of Districts in the country. This represents no change in District control since the preceding quarter, but is a slight improvement over the 57 per cent reported in May 2017. The number of contested Districts – controlled by neither the Afghan Government nor the insurgency – has, however, increased by three in the quarter under review, to 122 Districts, with 30 per cent of Afghanistan’s Districts now in the ‘contested’ category. 14 per cent of total Afghanistan Districts remained under Taliban control as per SIGAR’S 39th Quarterly Report. The situation remained unchanged as per the 40th Quarterly Report.

Voter registration has long been a weak point undermining the integrity of Afghan elections. In the 2014 election, there were an estimated 23 million voter cards in circulation for a total of around 12 million voters. To get rid of the fake and duplicate voter cards, the National Unity Government Agreement was signed on September 21, 2014, between Ashraf Ghani and Abdullah Abdullah. However, there are already credible complaints by candidates and observer groups about the new voters’ lists. A bad voters’ list will not only undermine the credibility of the Parliamentary Election slated for October 20, 2018, but also of the politically more significant Presidential Election slated for April 20, 2019. The growing disorders of Afghanistan can only be worsened if trust in the democratic process is undermined.

*S. Binodkumar Singh
Research Associate, Institute for Conflict Management

By Dr. S.Chandrasekharan

This month two issues among many dominated the political discourse in Nepal. The first one was the abrupt postponement of Inter State Council Meeting of the Chief Ministers that was being eagerly awaited by the Provincial Leaders. Second was an equally abrupt withdrawal of Nepal from the first ever military exercise of BIMSTEC countries initiated by India way back in June.

Last week, the Chief Ministers of all the seven provinces met at Pokhara for a two-day session to lay the groundwork for the ensuing Inter State Council meeting to be chaired by the Prime Minister.

The Group lamented at the lack of laws, policies, financial and human resources that have failed the provincial governments in delivering services to the people. The Meeting concluded that a “Constitutionally guaranteed Federalism will not be effective in the country without an effective functioning of the provincial governments”. They were right.

Specifically, the meeting by consensus had suggested certain steps to improve governance at the provincial level and thereby contribute for effective functioning of federalism. Some of the important points were:

• Formation of a high-level body chaired by the Prime Minister for the implementation of federalism.
• Formation of an Inter State Coordination Committee to work as a bridge between the Centre and the States.
• Senior Secretaries of the Centre to be appointed as Chief Secretaries of the Provinces.
  Provinces to form Civil Service Commissions to hire employees.
  Centre to make necessary to provide a Provincial Police Force.
• The District Administrative Offices to be made accountable to the Provincial Governments.
  Distribution of natural and economic resources to the Provinces based on equitable principles.
  Sorting out projects to be constructed in each Province depending on the requirements and viability.

The points made in the Meeting were in the form of a “concept paper” and was to be discussed in the Inter State Council Meeting. It was not a set of “demands”. The meeting was meant to exchange ideas and their experience in running the provincial administration.

Irked by discussions and the concept paper that emanated, the Prime Minister postponed the Inter State Council Meet on 8th of September.

The irony is that in six of the seven Provinces, the ruling party of the Prime Minister is heading the Government. The points made were genuine, harmless and within the limits of the federal Constitution. It is almost certain that Prime Minister Oli was aware of the upcoming meeting of the Chief Ministers of the Provinces. He could have told them not to meet so if he was not happy with it as most of the Chief Minsters are from his Ruling Party.

The fact remains that the federal constitution remains only on paper and no effort has been made by PM Oli to usher in a genuine federal administration as is envisaged in the Constitution. C.K. Lal one of the noted analysts rightly described the present Constitution as a “Dysfunctional Statute”.

In the meeting of the Chief Minsters, it was mentioned by some that the Centre was unwilling to give powers to Provincial Governments on issues related citizenship, passports, setting up of a separate security force as well as handling of border issues with neighbouring countries.

In another instance, on 8th September, the Prime Minister abruptly ordered that Nepal should withdraw from the proposed regional level first ever military exercise under the aegis of BIMSTEC initiated by India The exercise was aimed to “create synergy in the field of counter terrorism operations among the member States”. By the time the PM’s orders were received, an advance party of three officers of Nepal Army had already reached Pune for the exercise. The engagement was at the Platoon level and so to save face, those officers who had reached already were allowed to attend the exercise as “Observers”. Thailand followed suit to join the exercise as Observers.

The idea of this exercise came up even before the summit meeting of BIMSTEC in end August. Also, the Armies of both India and Nepal have traditionally been engaged at various levels at the military to military level for many years and there has been no political interference on these bilateral engagements.

It is said that Oli had to issue the withdrawal orders following opposition from some of his own party leaders. It is said that Bhim Rawal and Jhalnath Khanal as well as Narayan Kaji Shrestha of erstwhile Maoist Centre were firmly opposed for various internal personal reasons. Withdrawal from the exercise should not be a matter of concern for India but what should be of concern is whether both Nepal and Thailand withdrew out of fear of China?

One other issue of interest from the Indian point of view was the visit of Dahal, the Chairman of the Ruling Party to India in the second week of September. It is said that Dahal met the Indian political leadership in his two days of stay that included meeting the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, Home Minister, National Security Adviser as well leaders of BJP and the National Congress. It is also said that the Nepal Foreign Ministry was not informed of the visit nor did Dahal brief the Nepali Establishment on his return from India.

Dahal is a wily and an opportunistic character and it is not known what stories he had woven in briefing the Indian leaders. Or is it one of those tactics of previous Panchayat Regimes which reveled in “Public Humiliation” and Private Explanation” in its dealings with India?

After Deuba, Dahal appears to be one of the darlings of the Indian Establishment. One hopes that it could improve the relationship between the two countries!

By Dr Subhash Kapila

Geopolitically, Afghanistan in end-2018 can best be characterised that it has certainly not turned out as United States second not so victorious Vietnam War despite Pakistan’s effort in collusion with China to forge a China-Pakistan-Russia Trilateral to adversely tilt the balance against the United States. United States continues to be firmly embedded in Afghanistan as resolved by US President Trump.

Geopolitically, what is evident is that the United States under President Trump has put Pakistan under great pressure on cessation of its destabilisation of Afghanistan through the Taliban and other terrorists groups operating from safe havens in Pakistan. United States can be expected to place economic pressures also on Pakistan and these could work in light of Pakistan’s dismal economic situation.

Pakistan’s ripostes have been to prevail over China to forge the China-Pakistan-Russia Trilateral as would be evident from my past SAAG Papers. This Trilateral has attempted to carve out for them an independent role in Afghanistan, minus the United States. Not much headway is noticeable for the simple reason that this Trilateral includes Pakistan which continues to be the major part of Afghanistan’s conflictual situation and hence does not carry any credibility.

Resultantly, the China-Pakistan –Russia Trilateral as a whole does not carry any credibility as ‘honest brokers’ in bringing about sustainable peace in Afghanistan. Other than the Taliban, Pakistan and its born-again dubious Afghanistan benefactors have no natural allies within Afghanistan.

The Taliban stands over-rated by foreign observers and analysts oblivious of the fact that Taliban-controlled tracts within Afghanistan are held by terrorised force of the Taliban and not by any willing welcome cooperation of the Afghan people inhabiting such Taliban-controlled tracts. With increased capacity-building and better training of Afghanistan National Army the Taliban would find that such Taliban-controlled areas would become untenable.

Afghanistan situation in end-2018 needs to be examined at two different levels to arrive at objective conclusions which in turn would throw up perspectives for the mid-term future of Afghanistan. The first level to be analysed is the internal security situation in Afghanistan which stands greatly affected by Pakistan Army’s proxy war through terrorism groups attempting violent disruptions undermining the stability in Afghanistan. The second level which needs to be examined in greater detail is 2018 involvement of external powers in Afghanistan besides the resident -power, namely the United States.

The internal security and stability situation despite the presence of United States Military Forces can be termed as ‘Disturbed’ due to the incessant proxy efforts of Pakistan Army’s extremist affiliates like the Taliban and other groups like the Haqqanis operating from safe havens in Pakistan bordering Afghanistan. Despite their efforts to prompt the United States military exit from Afghanistan, their strategy unfolded so far has not succeeded. Afghanistan’s Security Forces imperceptibly have gained greater confidence in tackling the externally inflicted disruptive efforts to once again install a Taliban regime in Kabul as what was done by the Pakistan Army in the closing decade of the last Century. The United States military intervention in end-2001 following 9/11 dislodged the Taliban Government in Kabul.

Afghanistan has witnessed three presidential elections following democratic norms and what is notable is that in the past two decades unlike Pakistan where the Pakistan Army has ruled Pakistan directly or through proxies,, there is no such evidence of a military takeover by the Afghanistan Army exploiting the disturbed security situation. This is an optimistic pointer towards the potential of democracy taking roots in Afghanistan even though imperfect to begin with.

In terms of internal control of Afghanistan there are conflicting perspectives painted depending upon which side of the fence people are and their vested interests. Those wishing to see an American exit from Afghanistan paint dismal internal control situations that the Taliban is in control of large swathes of territory in Afghanistan. Admittedly, the situation is disturbed in Afghanistan but if it was so alarmingly dismal and threatening then the Pakistan Army would not have held its hand back in pushing a Taliban Government to power in Afghanistan.

The fact that it has not happened so belies such claims of Taliban’s likely victories over the United States Military Forces. Further, if the military situation in Afghanistan was favouring the Taliban taking control over Afghanistan then why is the Taliban currently engaged in talks with the United States in Doha?

Obviously and significantly too, the Taliban is in talks with the US interlocutors having realised that having been unable to get a better of the United States militarily, the next best option would be to secure some semblance of political legitimacy for political power sharing in the future of Afghanistan by engaging the United States on the negotiating table.

Moving on to the examination of external powers geopolitical roles in Afghanistan, let us first begin with the United States. Undoubtedly, the United States is the ‘Resident Power” in Afghanistan and cannot be termed by any stretch of imagination as an “Occupation Power” like China in Occupied Tibet. As a Resident Power in Afghanistan not only has the United States shed American blood and money to secure Afghanistan’s peaceful and democratic future but has encouraged the Afghans to build their future by the military capacity building of Afghanistan and also the building of democratic institutions, besides economic viability.

With the advent of President Trump in power in Washington, the US President has firmly committed the United States to the security and stability of Afghanistan without any time-lines for US Forces drawdown in presence. This was a timely signal to the China-Pakistan-Russia Trilateral that was taking more than usual interest in Afghanistan.

China, in terms of external powers interest in Afghanistan can geopolitically be termed as ‘Pakistan Collusive Power”. China’s interests and involvement in Afghanistan has never been divorced from Pakistan Army’s strategic interests. China maintained virtual diplomatic contacts with Taliban Regime’s brutal rule in Kabul. China even in the last decade has not reined-in Pakistan Army’s terrorist attacks and suicide bombings in Afghanistan emanating from safe havens in Pakistan’s Frontier Areas. Geopolitically, China cannot be expected to play any benign role in Afghanistan or in any credible conflict resolution and peace processes.

China’s brutal suppression of Uyghurs Muslims in Xinjiang just across the borders would be an eye opener for the proud Afghans as to what is being inflicted on their Muslim co-religionists .Perceptionaly, would not the Afghans perceive what China stands for when its interests in Afghanistan are determined by Pakistan Army GHQ in Rawalpindi?

Russia has in recent years jumped on to Afghanistan geopolitics, both in terms of solidarity with China strategically and also to get back at the United States for inflicting a Vietnam on Russian Occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s. In the bargain, Russia emerges as an ‘Exploitative Power’ in relation to Afghanistan furthering the interests of the China-Pakistan Axis in Afghanistan, conveniently forgetting that the same Pakistan Army has consistently claimed that it was Pakistan Army which inflicted a Vietnam on the Russian Army in Afghanistan through the introduction in South Asia for the first time of Islamic Jihad and Jihadi terrorism.

Pakistan’s involvement in Afghanistan spans over three decades where in different geopolitical configurations with different Major Powers the Pakistan Army has persistently inflicted medieval Islamic Jihadi scourges on the hapless people of Afghanistan. Pakistan’s sordid, intrusive and disruptive role in Afghanistan stands widely discussed and documented world-wide. It does not bear repetition.

In 2018, the United States under President Trump had to severely warn Pakistan in January 2018 and again with the advent of Pakistan’s new Prime Minister Imran Khan that Pakistan must stop all terrorism emanating from Pakistani soil against its neighbours; with Afghanistan in mind more pointedly. The United States was forced to cut off all military aid to Pakistan but it remains to be seen whether with China as a collusive Major Power at its elbow whether Pakistan Army would stop its disruptive proxy military operations against Afghanistan and which in turn amount to a defiance and disruption of US security interests in Afghanistan.

India as the Major Power in South Asia has not only legitimate security interests in stability of Afghanistan but also has long years of civilsational contacts with Afghanistan, which predate the creation of the Pakistani nation-state. India can be termed as a “Benign External Power” in Afghanistan and has confined itself to the use of ‘Soft Power’ by pouring in millions of dollars in the reconstruction and nation-building of Afghanistan Perceptionaly, in the eyes of the Afghan people and their successive Governments India’s presence in Afghanistan is welcomed in comparison to Pakistan which is a next door neighbour.

Geopolitically in 2018, India enjoys strong geopolitical convergences over Afghanistan with the United States. Taken together, the United States and India need to embark on a fast track capacity-building of Afghanistan—– militarily and economically, besides democratic institution building.

Since the main theme of this Paper is focussed on Afghanistan’s geopolitical situation in 2018-end, one is tempted to draw comparisons with the geopolitical configurations in play in Afghanistan. We find two diametrically opposite political configurations—–the China-Pakistan-Russia Trilateral of autocratic nations at cross-play with the United States, India, Western Europe and Japan— al democratic nations.

In Conclusion, it needs to be stressed that geopolitically, the United States needs more than ever to stay embedded in Afghanistan in relation Indo Pacific security and also as what I had some time back analysed in a SAAG Paper the imperatives in Afghanistan of ‘United States Forward Military Presence’ on the lines of its deployments in Japan and South Korea. The foregoing is an inescapable imperative for the United States both in relation to China and Central Asia. It also needs to be stressed that India as the pivot of Indo Pacific Security now needs to do more in Afghanistan to supplement and assist the United States in emergence of Afghanistan as a moderate and democratic nation.

By R M Panda

Pakistan’s recent efforts through its foreign minister Makhdoom Shah Mehmood Qureshi visit to Afghanistan to convince Afghan Government about Pakistan’s efforts to bring lasting peace and to play a constructive role in negotiating a reconciliation process in Afghanistan is more a farce and is far from reality. Pakistan is not going change its ways despite warnings from US even after the recent visit of Mike Pompeo. This is clear to those in India and even in Afghanistan, but does not appear to be so to those in United States.

During US secretary of state Mike Pompeo’s recent visit to Islamabad, the demands of the US included:

• Decisive action against the terror group- the Haqqani network.
• Pakistan to press Afghan Taliban to go for negotiations.
• Pakistan needs to do more against terror groups and designated individuals like Lashkar, Hizbul, Jaish and Hafiz Saeed, Syed Salahuddin etc.
• Release Dr. Shakil Afridi from custody.

Of these, Pakistan appears to have pushed Taliban to negotiate with US on a limited objective relating to exchange of prisoners. This suits Taliban -as compared to a few Afghan soldiers in their custody, a large number of Taliban prisoners are in the custody of US/Afghanistan. It remains to be seen how the US is going to react to it. Besides a large number of Taliban Prisoners, the most important catch is that of the Anas Haqqani, the youngest son of Haqqani with the US. In a way the demand is – Release Anas or else there will be no further talks! This demand looks to be on the instructions of ISI!.

The US is yet to confirm the schedule for the talks as well as on the demand on exchange of prisoners- especially Anas Haqqani. The US is well aware that whole sale release of Taliban prisoners will only worsen the current situation and therefore is not likely to accept the demands. This suits Pakistan too as Pakistan is not likely to give in to US demands and cooperate in bringing peace to Afghanistan.

In this context, what is to be understood is that in Pakistan though the Government has changed but not the masters. The Power centre was and will continue to be in the hands of Pakistan Army and its ISI. One good recent example will suffice. When one of the senior leaders of the establishment complained about the Chinese companies and some Lahore Lobby benefitting on the CPEC corridor, leaving the traditional industrial lobby of Karachi in lurch, it was the Chief of Army who was briefed by the Chinese Ambassador soon after, clarifying the Chinese position!

As I had mentioned in my earlier paper in SAAG “http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/node/2338” unless Pakistan is able to make progress in the six points made earlier there is no likelihood of Taliban coming for any credible negotiation or stop Pakistan from supporting the Taliban. The visit of the Pakistan’s Foreign Minster as mentioned in the beginning of this paper is not meant to solve the issue but to make an assessment of the developments in Afghanistan and the presence of US Forces aiding Afghanistan.

The six point agenda of Pakistan, as is known is as follows.

1. A pro Pakistan government in Kabul.

2. To reduce Indian influence if it cannot be eliminated

3. Afghanistan to eventually serve Pakistan’s economic interests.

4. Some way to make The Durand Line acceptable to the Government in power in Afghanistan.

5. To deal better with the Secessionist movement of Balochistan and prevent Afghanistan not providing shelter to Baluchistan insurgents.

6. To prevent any consolidation of moves for a greater ‘Pashtunistan’

In the visit of US delegation led by Secretary of State, Pakistan got what it wanted in getting an assurance from Pompeo that US will not stand in the way of an IMF bail -out though on another occasion he had warned that the US would ensure tightened conditions for the bailout from the IMF.

Interestingly, the Prime Minister of Pakistan admitted in his 6th September speech at the Defence day event and blamed outsiders for creating a Jihadi force and later they were to be hunted as terrorists.. The wording from the one of his tweets of Prime Minister Imran Khan confirmed his view that “Lesson to be learnt by us is never to be used by others for short term paltry financial benefits ever again. Our society became radicalised and polarised as we helped CIA create jihadi groups; then, a decade later, we tried to eliminate them as terrorists.”

The problem is that many US presidents in the past have tried to wean away Pakistan from supporting the terrorists and have not succeeded. Nether the carrots nor the sticks have worked. It remains to be seen how Trump is going to tackle Pakistan as it should be clear by now that the problem of Afghanistan lies in Pakistan and not elsewhere and unless this is sorted out there could be no peace in Afghanistan

The writer can be reached in pandaradhamadhaba@gmail.com

I offer the following essay for all lovers. Solomon’s Song of Songs begins with: “Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth; for your love is more delightful than wine.” (1:1-2) Who is this bold, assertive female? What does she desire from her lover?

How and why is this book of love song poems, so unlike the Book of Psalms, in our Sacred Scriptures? Song of Songs is among the most difficult and mysterious books in the Bible for five reasons.

First, on the Pshat (literal) level, it is very difficult to understand and translate the Hebrew text, because although it has only 470 Hebrew words; 47 of these words appear only in this collection of love-songs included in the Bible, that were sung or recited during wedding ceremonies in ancient Israel for centuries after the age of King Solomon.

Second, on the the Drash (moral) level, the title is both a superlative; the best of songs: and a collective anthology of songs, many of them containing strange and even weird metaphors. Thus, no one type of interpretation can be uniformly applied to the whole book.

In some metaphors the male symbolizes God and in other metaphors the female embodies the Holy One. Failure to see the Shekinah in the Song of Songs; and the attempt to ignore the great variety of songs; and see only the same message everywhere, has plagued most translations and commentaries.

Third, on the Sod (mystical) level, the exaggerated use of dramatic earthly metaphors in the Song of Songs was meant to disguise the deeper mystical and much more spiritual meanings of physical lovemaking.

Both Jewish and Christian mystics have traditionally seen the interactive behavior between the two lovers as symbolizing the covenantal love between God and the People of Israel (Jewish) or between Jesus and the Church (Christian).

Fourth, although according to the Remez (allegorical) interpretation one of the two lovers is supposed to be God; none of the names for God or any of the usual appellations for God ever appear explicitly in Song of Songs.

This symbolic understanding of the Song of Songs’ couple, lovers relationship sexuality, probably originated from the disciples of the famous early second century legal scholar, Rabbi Akiba ben Joseph the convert, who proclaimed the Song of Songs to be the holiest book in the third section of the Bible: “all the Writings are holy, but the Song of Songs is the Holy of Holies.” (Mishnah Yadaim 3.5).

Fifth, traditional commentators have been blind to the uniqueness of two song poems in the Song of Songs that describe the female body as a vertical ladder connection between a now married loving couple and the Holy One of Israel.

In the first five verses of chapter four there are, in descending order, eight stages of female attributes to experience; and in the first six verses of chapter seven there are, in ascending order, ten sacred female attributes to experience.

“I think these two poems in the Song of Songs were designed to be a sacred sexual experience manual for married couples, to help them have religious experiences within marital intimacy.

The eight descending female jewels, six above her neck and only one below, are for newly married couples; and the ten ascending jewels, five below her neck and four above, are for those whose marriages are more mature.

I also think this view of the importance of the female body as a vehicle of sacred sexuality is a mystical elucidation of the conceptual term Ezer Kenegdo in chapter two of Genesis. Please note the nature of Hebrew’s ‘two genders only’ grammar, does not mean that LGBT partners are excluded from using this sacred sex manual.

For more information on Jewish views of marriage and sexuality see pages 245-255 in my new book ‘Which Religion Is Right For You? a Kuzari for the 21st century’ Hadassa Word Press ISBN (978-620-2-45517-6) Amazon.

Low oil prices and high spending have drained Saudi Arabia’s cash reserves and as fossil fuels become relics of the past, the economies of oil-producing nations will diminish as well. To avert this catastrophe, the Saudi leadership promptly designed an unprecedented plan to diversify the kingdom’s economy beyond petroleum. Although the intention is welcomed by the global community, the Vision 2030 initiative is not without its geo-economic considerations.

Headed by Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, the Saudi Vision 2030 project came into effect at the backdrop of the 2011 Arab Uprisings. The speed at which the demonstrations spread throughout the Middle East caught the House of Saud by surprise, and when protests erupted in the country’s Eastern Province where much of the Shia community resides, the government in Riyadh cracked down on dissidents while it ramped up social spending.

However, the $93 billion that was poured into social spending could only be maintained if the price of crude oil remained at around $100 per barrel. Yet, at the time, oil prices were around $55 per barrel. As a result, the budget deficit grew swiftly while the Saudi foreign exchange reserve decreased steadily. It became evident that the situation was not sustainable due to the demographics. The fact of the matter is that since about 60% of the Saudi population is under the age of 25, the number of working adults in the country is set to surge over the next decade. Even if the price of oil increased, it would not be sufficient to secure the long-term economic prospects of the kingdom.

The Saudi Government recognizes that it needs to reduce its spending and increase domestic revenues from sources beyond oil production. In other words, it was time for a change. To that end in 2016, the government launched the Vision 2030 project. At heart, the initiative promised to step back from the present relationship the government has with the public where the state provides all the services and resources the citizens need at very little cost in exchange for complete control over the society.

The effort to move away from this social contract is neither easy nor appreciated by the public. For instance, the government’s recent increase of various taxes and prices for services raised living costs in the country. In addition, the Vision 2030 initiative stipulates the downsizing of the public sector and the empowerment of the private sector in the economy. Yet, considering the fact that nearly 70% of the kingdom’s labor pool is employed in the public sector, Saudi citizens are not thrilled with the proposed reforms of the Vision 2030 initiative.

At this stage, it is too early to judge the success of the Vision 2030. Since the start of 2018, the Saudi Government has fallen back on its old habits of spending thanks to improved oil prices. As such, the urgency for reform has slowed down. However, there is still progress in some areas and many more changes are likely to unfold in the coming years. Some of the acclaimed specifications of Vision 2030 are the promise to boost employment in the private sector and to triple non-oil revenues through taxes and fees.

To accomplish this, Vision 2030 proposes to reduce all kinds of social subsidies while implementing labor and social reforms that would increase the participation of women in the workforce.

Meanwhile to open the kingdom’s private sector to foreign investment, Riyadh plans to invest in retail, finance, construction, healthcare, tourism, defense, mining, and manufacturing.

A central component of the initiative is Saudi Aramco. More specifically, to acquire the necessary investment funds, the government wants to put up the state-owned Saudi Aramco for initial public offering. Only then will the Vision 2030 project truly start. Once the IPO reaches a valuation of around $2 trillion, the government plans to sell about 5% of Saudi Aramco on public stock markets. This would generate the Saudis roughly $100 billion. However, there is great skepticism over the valuation of Saudi Aramco with many estimating the value to be around $1.5 Trillion. To get the funds, Riyadh would end up selling additional shares of Saudi Aramco’s assets.

In addition, the government’s hope that 5% will fetch $100 billion is not sufficient for economic reforms. In fact, it’s just enough to balance the flow of money draining from the Saudi reserve, but there won’t be enough money left to invest in private industries. To address the financial shortcomings and still have enough funds to invest, the kingdom would have to sell additional shares of Saudi Aramco’s assets.

Beyond funding, the Vision 2030 project seeks to ramp up the share of the private sector in the overall economy which sits at a little over 20% of the total GDP. Some industries such as defense and tourism will likely surge in the coming years. Religious tourism is already at an all-time high with about $22 billion in annual revenues and tourism is the second largest source of income in the kingdom. Tourism is also expected to rise by another $10 billion in the next few years and this number could increase if the Saudi Government reformed its visa system for travelers.

As for its defense industry, Saudi Arabia is one of the biggest military spenders in the world, yet the country has no domestic defense industry. As such, for years, the Saudis have procured arms from western nations like the United States. To that end, the Vision 2030 initiative seeks to change this by bolstering the indigenous manufacturing of weapons thereby reducing military spending and creating jobs. These reforms are likely to succeed in the coming years.

However, in other industries, Saudi Arabia has its limits. Many of the specified industries are already adequately advanced in the country such as mining and petrochemicals. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia is unlikely to grow into a regional medical hub as it aspires since more sophisticated facilities already exist in the nearby region. Altogether, it means that the roadmap to ramp up private industrial output will work in some areas, but fail in others.

Another complication for the Vision 2030 initiative is that the projections are based on western models and do not consider the work ethics in Saudi society where about 80% of the jobs in the private sector are filled by foreign workers from South Asia. Even though Vision 2030 could create more economic opportunities, most Saudi citizens will not be eager to take up labor intensive jobs since they have grown accustomed to high-paying jobs in the public sector. Therefore, to truly employ the Saudi youth in the private sector, the Saudi leadership in Riyadh will have to take the time to educate its people and cultivate better work ethics amongst the public. This adjustment will take far longer than the current schedule for 2030.

For the sake of argument, let’s assume that somehow the Saudi youth agreed to work in the labor-intensive sectors and as promised, Saudi Vision 2030 doubled the GDP, created 6 million jobs, and everything went as planned. On paper, the economic project would have improved the livelihood of all citizens including the minorities. In practice however, the Saudi leadership will not risk their relationship with the Wahhabi clerics who will try to restrain the role of Shia officials, businessmen, merchants, and clerics in Saudi society. Thus, no matter how far-reaching Saudi Vision 2030 goes, it will not resolve the country’s sectarian divisions.

In fact, the initiative is more likely to further sideline the Shia community of Saudi Arabia who account for 15% of the total population. Thus, Vision 2030 will not improve the lives of all Saudi citizens. The Wahhabi and Sunni communities are said to benefit from more opportunities and as the social and economic status of the Shia community will remain largely unaffected, they could resent the other religious segments even more.

Although the Vision 2030 has set up admirable goals, policymakers in Riyadh will need to find a balance between social spending, public outcry, budget deficits, as well as sectarian and foreign interests if the initiative has any hope of succeeding.

Despite Barack Obama’s economic sanctions against Russia, and the plunge in oil prices that King Saud agreed to with Obama’s Secretary of State John Kerry on 11 September 2014, the economic damages that the US and Sauds have aimed against a particular oil-and-gas giant, Russia, have hit mostly elsewhere — at least till now.

This has been happening while simultaneously Obama’s violent February 2014 coup overthrowing Ukraine’s democratically elected pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych (and the head of the ‘private CIA’ firm Stratfor calls it “the most blatant coup in history”) has caused Ukraine’s economy to plunge even further than Russia’s, and corruption in Ukraine to soar even higher than it was before America’s overthrow of that country’s final freely elected nationwide government, so that Ukraine’s economy has actually been harmed far more than Russia’s was by Obama’s coup in Ukraine and Obama’s subsequent economic sanctions against Russia (sanctions that are based on clear and demonstrable Obama lies but that continue and even get worse under Trump).

Bloomberg News headlined on February 4th of 2016, “These Are the World’s Most Miserable Economies” and reported the “misery index” rankings of 63 national economies as projected in 2016 and 60 as actual in 2015 — a standard ranking-system that calculates “misery” as being the sum of the unemployment-rate and the inflation-rate. They also compared the 2016 projected rankings to the 2015 actual rankings.

Top rank, #1 both years — the most miserable economy in the world during 2015 and 2016 — was Venezuela, because of that country’s 95% dependence upon oil-export earnings (which crashed when oil-prices plunged). The US-Saudi agreement to flood the global oil market destroyed Venezuela’s economy.

#2 most-miserable in 2015 was Ukraine, at 57.8. But Ukraine started bouncing back so that as projected in 2016 it ranked #5, at 26.3. Russia in 2015 was #7 most-miserable in 2015, at 21.1, but bounced back so that as projected in 2016 it became #14 at 14.5.

Bloomberg hadn’t reported misery-index rankings for 2014 showing economic performances during 2013, but economist Steve H. Hanke of Johns Hopkins University did, in his “Measuring Misery Around the World, May 2014,” in the May 2014 GlobeAsia, ranking 90 countries; and, during 2013 (Yanukovych’s final year as Ukraine’s President before his being forced out by Obama’s coup), Ukraine’s rank was #23 and its misery-index was 24.4. Russia’s was #36 and its misery index was 19.9. So: those can be considered to be the baseline-figures, from which any subsequent economic progress or decline (after Obama’s 2014 Ukrainian coup) may reasonably be calculated. Hanke’s figures during the following year, 2014, were reported by him at Huffington Post, “The World Misery Index: 108 Countries”, and by UAE’s Khaleej Times, “List of Most Miserable Countries” (the latter falsely attributing that ranking to Cato Institute, which had merely republished Hanke’s article). In 2014, Ukraine’s misery-index, as calculated by Hanke, was #4, at 51.8. That year had 8 countries above 40 in Hanke’s ranking. Russia was #42 at 21.42. So: Russia’s rank had improved, but, because of the globally bad economy, Russia’s absolute number was slightly worse (higher) than it had been before Obama’s coup in Ukraine and subsequent sanctions against Russia. By contrast, Ukraine’s rank had suddenly gotten far worse, #4 at 51.80 in 2014, after having been #23 at 24.4 in 2013.

The figures in Bloomberg for Russia were: during 2015, #7 with a misery-index of 21.1; and projected during 2016, #14 with a misery-index of 14.5; so, Bloomberg too showed a 2015-2016 improvement for Russia, and not only for Ukraine (where in the 2016 projection it ranked #5, at 26.3, a sharp improvement after the horrendous 2015 actual numbers).

“Hanke’s Annual Misery Index — 2017” in Forbes, showed 98 countries, and Venezuela was still #1, the worst; Ukraine was now #9 at 36.9; and Russia was #36 at 18.1.

Thus: whereas Russia was economically sunningly stable at #36 from start to finish throughout the entire five-year period 2013-2017, starting with a misery-index of 19.9 in 2013 and ending with 18.1 in 2017, Ukraine went from a misery-index of 24.4 in 2013 to 36.9 in 2017 — and worsening its rank from #23 to #9. During that five-year period Ukraine’s figure peaked in the year of Obama’s coup at 57.8. So, at least Ukraine’s misery seems to be heading back downward in the coup’s aftermath, though it’s still considerably worse than before the coup. But, meanwhile, Russia went from 19.9 to 18.1 — and had no year that was as bad as Ukraine’s best year was during that period of time. And, yet: that coup and the economic sanctions and the US-Saudi oil-agreement were targeted against Russia — not against Ukraine.

If the US were trying to punish the people of Ukraine, then the US coup in Ukraine would have been a raving success; but actually Obama didn’t care at all about Ukrainians. He cared about the owners of America’s weapons-making firms and of America’s extractive firms. Trump likewise.

During that same period (also using Hanke’s numbers) the United States went from #71 at 11.0 in 2013, to #69 at 8.2 in 2017. US was stable.

Saudi Arabia started with #40 18.9 during 2013, to #30 at 20.2 in 2017. That’s improvement, because the Kingdom outperformed the global economy.

During the interim, and even in the years leading up to 2014, Russia had been (and still is) refocusing its economy away from Russia’s natural resources and toward a broad sector of high technology: military R&D and production.

On 15 December 2014, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute headlined, “Sales by Largest Arms Companies Fell Again in 2013, but Russian Firms’ Sales Continued Rising,” and reported, “Sales by companies headquartered in the United States and Canada have continued to moderately decrease, while sales by Russian-based companies increased by 20 per cent in 2013.”

The following year, SIPRI bannered, on 14 December 2015, “Global Arms Industry: West Still Dominant Despite Decline,” and reported that, “Despite difficult national economic conditions, the Russian arms industry’s sales continued to rise in 2014. … ‘Russian companies are riding the wave of increasing national military spending and exports. There are now 11 Russian companies in the Top 100 and their combined revenue growth over 2013–14 was 48.4 per cent,’ says SIPRI Senior Researcher Siemon Wezeman. In contrast, arms sales of Ukrainian companies have substantially declined. … US companies’ arms sales decreased by 4.1 per cent between 2013 and 2014, which is similar to the rate of decline seen in 2012–13. … Western European companies’ arms sales decreased by 7.4 per cent in 2014.”

This is a redirection of the Russian economy that Vladimir Putin was preparing even prior to Obama’s war against Russia. Perhaps it was because of the entire thrust of the US aristocracy’s post-Soviet determination to conquer Russia whenever the time would be right for NATO to strike and grab it. Obama’s public ambivalence about Russia never persuaded Putin that the US would finally put the Cold War behind it and end its NATO alliance as Russia had ended its Warsaw Pact back in 1991. Instead, Obama continued to endorse expanding NATO, right up to Russia’s borders (now even into Ukraine) — an extremely hostile act.

By building the world’s most cost-effective designers and producers of weaponry, Russia wouldn’t only be responding to America’s ongoing hostility — or at least responding to the determination of America’s aristocracy to take over Russia, which is the world’s largest trove of natural resources — but would also expand Russia’s export-earnings and international influence by selling to other countries weaponry that’s less-burdened with the costs of sheer corruption than are the armaments that are being produced in what is perhaps the world’s most corrupt military-industrial complex: America’s. Whereas Putin has tolerated corruption in other areas of Russia’s economic production (figuring that those areas are less crucial for Russia’s future), he has rigorously excluded it in the R&D and production and sales of weaponry. Ever since he first came into office in 2000, he has transformed post-Soviet Russia from being an unlimitedly corrupt satellite of the United States under Boris Yeltsin, to becoming truly an independent nation; and this infuriates America’s aristocrats (who gushed over Yeltsin).

The Russian government-monopoly marketing company for Russia’s weapons-manufacturers, Rosoboronexport, presents itself to nations around the world by saying: “Today, armaments and military equipment bearing the Made in Russia label protect independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of dozens of countries. Owing to their efficiency and reliability, Russian defense products enjoy strong demand on the global market and maintain our nation’s leading positions among the world’s arms exporters. For the past several years, Russia has consistently ranked second behind the United States as regards arms exports.” That’s second-and-rising, as opposed to America’s first-and-falling.

The American aristocracy’s ever-growing war against Russia posed and poses to Putin two simultaneous challenges: both to reorient away from Russia’s natural resources, which the global aristocracy wants to grab, and also to reorient toward the area of hi-tech in which the Soviets had built a basis from which Russia could become truly cost-effective in international commerce, so as to, simultaneously, increase Russia’s defensive capability against an expanding NATO, while also replacing some of Russia’s dependence upon the natural resources that the West’s aristocrats want to steal.

In other words: Putin designed a plan to meet two challenges simultaneously — military and economic. His primary aim is to protect Russia from being grabbed by the American and Saudi aristocrats, via America’s NATO and the Sauds’ Gulf Cooperation Council and other alliances (which are trying to take over Russia’s ally Syria — Syria being a crucial location for pipelining Arab royals’ oil-and-gas into Europe, the world’s largest energy-market).

In addition, the hit to Russia’s economic growth-rate from the dual-onslaught of Obama’s sanctions and the plunging oil prices hasn’t been too bad. The World Bank’s April 2015 “Russia Economic Report” predicted: “Growth prospects for 2015-2016 are negative. It is likely that when the full effects of the two shocks become evident in 2015, they will push the Russian economy into recession. The World Bank baseline scenario sees a contraction of 3.8 percent in 2015 and a modest decline of 0.3 percent in 2016. The growth spectrum presented has two alternative scenarios that largely reflect differences in how oil prices are expected to affect the main macro variables.”

The current (as of 15 February 2016) “Russia GDP Annual Growth Rate” at Trading Economics says: “The Russian economy shrank 3.8 percent year-on-year in the fourth quarter of 2015, following a 4.1 percent contraction in the previous period, according to preliminary estimates from the Economic Development Minister Alexey Ulyukayev. It is the worst performance since 2009 [George W. Bush’s global economic crash], as Western sanctions and lower oil prices hurt external trade and public revenues.” The current percentage as of today, 17 September 2018, is 1.9%, after having plunged down from 2.2% in late 2017, to 0.9% in late 2017; so, it is rebounding.

The World Bank’s April 2015 “Russia Economic Report” went on to describe “The Government Anti-Crisis Plan”:

On January 27, 2014, the government adopted an anti-crisis plan with the goal to ensure sustainable economic development and social stability in an unfavorable global economic and political environment.

It announced that in 2015–2016 it will take steps to advance structural changes in the Russian economy, provide support to systemic entities and the labor market, lower inflation, and help vulnerable households adjust to price increases. To achieve the objectives of positive growth and sustainable medium-term macroeconomic development the following measures are planned:

• Provide support for import substitution and non-mineral exports;

• Support small and medium enterprises by lowering financing and administrative costs;

• Create opportunities for raising financial resources at reasonable cost in key economic sectors;

• Compensate vulnerable households (e.g., pensioners) for the costs of inflation;

• Cushion the impact on the labor market (e.g. provide training and increase public works);

• Optimize budget expenditures; and

• Enhance banking sector stability and create a mechanism for reorganizing systemic companies.

So: Russia’s anti-crisis plan was drawn up and announced on 27 January 2014, already before Yanukovych was overthrown, even before Obama’s agent Victoria Nuland on 4 February 2014 instructed the US Ambassador in Ukraine whom to have appointed to run the government when the coup would be completed (“Yats,” who did get appointed). Perhaps, in drawing up this plan, Putin was responding to scenes from Ukraine like this. He could see that what was happening in Ukraine was an operation financed by the US CIA. He could recognize what Obama had in mind for Russia.

The “Russia Economic Report, May 2018: Modest Growth Ahead” says:

Global growth continued its 2017 momentum in early 2018. Global growth reached a stronger than- expected 3 percent in 2017 — a notable recovery from a post-crisis low of 2.4 percent in 2016. It is currently expected to peak at 3.1 percent in 2018. Recoveries in investment, manufacturing, and trade continue as commodity-exporting developing economies benefit from firming commodity prices (Figure 1a). The improvement reflects a broad-based recovery in advanced economies, robust growth in commodity-importing Emerging Markets and Developing Economies (EMDEs), and an ongoing rebound in commodity exporters. Growth in China – and important trading partner for Russia – is expected to continue its gradual slowdown in 2018 following a stronger than-expected 6.9 percent in 2017.

Putin’s economic plan has softened the economic blow upon the masses, even while it has re-oriented the economy toward what would be the future growth-areas.

The country that Putin in 2000 had taken over and inherited from the drunkard Yeltsin (so beloved by Western aristocrats because he permitted them to skim off so much from it) was a wreck even worse than it had been when the Soviet Union ended. Putin immediately set to work to turn it around, in a way that could meet those two demands.

Apparently, Putin has been succeeding — now even despite what the US aristocracy (and its allied aristocracies in Europe and Arabia) have been throwing to weaken Russia. And the Russian people know it.

PS: The present reporter is an American, and used to be a Democrat, not inclined to condemn Democratic politicians, but Obama’s grab for Russia was not merely exceedingly dangerous for the entire world, it is profoundly unjust, it is also based on his (and most Republicans’) neoconservative lies, and so I don’t support it, and I no longer support Obama or his and the Clintons’ Democratic Party, at all. But this certainly doesn’t mean that I support the Republican Party, which is typically even worse on this (and other matters) than Democratic politicians are. On almost all issues, I support Bernie Sanders, but I am not a part of anyone’s political campaign, in any way.

*Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010.

It is possible to align security and development goals but it will depend on resolving conflicts, addressing poverty, rebuilding trust and engaging women. Leaders in development and finance debated the building blocks of creating peace and told participants at the World Economic Forum’s Sustainable Development Impact Summit that all issues must be addressed to create sustainable solutions.

Kristalina Georgieva, Chief Executive Officer, World Bank, said: “We can celebrate the decline of extreme poverty – 1.1 billion people have been lifted out of poverty. But to meet the goal of ending extreme poverty, we have to worry about peace and security.” She pointed out that when conflicts are raging, there are other severe factors, such as another crippling wave of Ebola disease in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

“This lack of security is hitting people once, twice and three times,” Georgieva said. In addition, people are suffering from vulnerability to climate change. “Countries that have done the least to contribute to climate change are the most to suffer,” she said. “We are not balancing in investment in mitigation and adaptation.”

Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) will cost an estimated $7 billion a year, but Georgieva pointed out that trillions of dollars are sitting idle around the world. Policies are needed to give investors certainty. “It is a challenge but also an opportunity to use public money to create the enabling environment for private investments to flow,” she said. This is in the hands of people, businesses and countries, and policies are needed to give investors certainty. “People also need confidence [and trust] that investors will not come and rip them off,” she added.

The World Bank has 72 projects addressing institutional weaknesses. “Are we there yet? Not quite. Are we going in the right direction? For sure,” Georgieva concluded.

Luis Alberto Moreno, President, Inter-American Development Bank, said it is necessary to multiply initiatives and to understand that for every dollar of an organization’s financing, we need to create situations to see that money is moving through the system. This, he added, will create an appetite for owners of savings to use them. “There is an appetite for doing things around climate change,” he said. To encourage investment, Moreno said it is important to manage the risks for the private sector. “We need to see what we can do to mitigate risks by using blended finance,” he added. “We are collectively wrestling with it. We are going in the right direction, but we are way behind.”

Bineta Diop, Founder and President, Femmes, Africa Solidarité, addressed the issue of women, peace and security in Africa. “I have spent most of my life in conflict,” she said. “When people discuss conflict, the first country you think about is Africa. When I see people suffering, I think something can be done in this nexus of peace and development. Human beings are caught in the middle.”

Diop recommended that more GDP needs to be invested in people. “We need to shift to see how we invest if we want to achieve the SDGs. We need to invest in development seriously – but real investment.” She gave the example of countries that have consistent sunshine and can profit from solar. “This is a real investment. Electricity brings people water and light, so it is necessary to invest in infrastructure and new technology,” she added.

Diop’s organization is working in 22 countries in Africa with a Plan of Action for women’s peace and security, which will lead to sustainable peace and development. “I want all African states to have a Plan of Action,” she said. In this way, women are contributing to prevention. She also pointed out that “Africa has to invest in Africa.” It is a poor continent, but when you look at resources, Diop said, “we are a rich country.” She called for European leaders to support women by helping to build the skills of Africans.

Thomas Greminger, Secretary-General, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), raised concern about a return to war in Europe, pointing to the conflict in Ukraine, now in its fifth year. “This is very much at the top of our agenda at OSCE. It undermines trust and confidence among the key stakeholders,” he said. “There is a heavy toll on the ground in terms of suffering and we are also paying a high price for it.”

The OSCE has developed a toolbox to tackle crises and minority-related conflict. “These are tools of prevention and diplomacy,” Greminger said. “We are trying to bring conflicts closer to resolution, but we also need political will.” He called for political leadership to invest in a “rules-based world order” built on strong international institutions. “If the international community pushes, progress is possible in a country,” he said.

The World Economic Forum, the International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation, hosts its second Sustainable Development Impact Summit in New York on 24-25 September to drive solutions for the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and Paris Agreement on climate change.

India went one step forward and two steps back in retaliation against high tariffs on steel and aluminum by USA. Twice, it suspended its decision to impose high tariff on 29 items imports from the USA. By the original schedule, high tariff was to be imposed on 4th August. It was deferred to September 18 and further to November 2.

Skepticism rises over India’s real intention behind the trade retaliation against USA. A close study between the lines reveals India’s burgeoning dependence on defence ties with USA. Even though USA is the second biggest trade partner and a major foreign investor in India, its significance sparked with new dynamism in the relation, propelled by recent 2+2 Dialogue, which represented strengthening military ties with USA. What led India to revitalize the defence ties with USA, while it is still guide by Indo-Soviet Treaty, now with Russia.

Ever since the USA declared India a “Major Defence Partner” in 2016, focus on defence ties outweigh the economic relation. In this context, the recent 2+2 dialogue in between the two countries is significant. It resulted signing of Communication Compatibility and Security Agreement ( COMCASA). By this, it is considered that a journey has begun for consolidation of military ties between the two countries in the context of technology transfer and defence procurement.

Hitherto, Russia has been dominant player in defence ties with India. According to analysts , Russia has 67 percent stake in defence procurement. The existing system of procurement debars USA to supply defence equipment with transfer of technology. It is believed that COMCASA will pave the way to supply the equipment with transfer of high technology, which is mandated in the US law of Foreign Military Sales ( FMS).

FMS systems of sales, which include transfer of technology, mandate that the sales must be approved under Arms Export Control Act ( AECA) of USA and it will be authorized by President of USA. Under such stringent regulation, the important hurdle was US reluctance to share the technology in the context of India’s long binding relation with Russia.

Another important outcome of 2+2 dialogue was the readiness to begin negotiations on Industrial Security Annex (ISA). This will further open the window for greater scope for Indian companies to get latest technology.

The agreement on COMCASA and the launching of the negotiation on ISA will act a pivot to India’s Make in India initiative for development of its defence industries. Under this initiative, greater focus was made to open the defence industry to the private sector through policy parameters, such as broadening FDI participation in the industry.

The decision to start exchanges between US Naval Forces Central Command ( NAVCENT) and Indian navy will be another milestone for strengthening maritime cooperation in the Western Indian Ocean.

Besides defence ties, US sanction on Iran is another factor which hinges on India’s retaliation against USA. The sanction will be effective from 5th November, 2018. Iran is the third biggest destination of India’s crude oil import. It accounts for 10 percent of the total crude oil import. Amidst the global oil price volatility , which deepened energy crisis and is unlikely to impact on inflation, India needs earnest cooperation of USA for wavering the sanction. Against this backdrop, India seemed to have been drawn into dilemma to exercise retaliation against the USA.

Nevertheless, the retaliation has little significance in terms amount of impact on trade. The 29 items, which were identified for high tariffs, account for less than one percent in India’s total import from the USA. It was US $ 240 million out of total import of US$ 26, 611 million in 2017-18. Neither import of these items by India accounts for a big share in USA’s world export. Hence, this cannot be treated as “tit for tat” action against USA. . India’s major items of imports from USA are aircrafts, electronic goods, automobile components and non-electrical goods.

Contrarily, if India’s retaliation heightens US anger and bring more items under high tariff, other than steel and aluminum, India will be at more disadvantage position. Exports of ready-made garments and gems and jewelry ( particularly diamond and precious stones) are the cases , if brought under high tariff, will loose heyday. Both these items account for one-sixth of India’s total exports – garments with 5.5 percent and gems and jewelry with 9 percent shares in 2017-18. And, USA is the biggest importer of these two items from India. Both these items are under close lenses of USA , since India has violated WTO rules by continuing subsidy even after crossing the cap of $ 1000 per capita income a year. USA has already threatened to drag India into WTO dispute settlement body.

Against this backdrop, that is, precedence of defence ties to economic relation and basket of trade, the conventional wisdom suggests that India should refrain for escalation of retaliatory action against USA, just for tit-for-tit.

Trump’s high tariff trade war is against China, and India. His high tariff is a punitive action against China, which devastated USA’s domestic industry. China accounted for 47 percent of USA’ world trade deficit. It accused China and other emerging nations, who are export based economies, for reaping the benefits from liberal markets in USA by unfair means and not reciprocating by opening their markets.

India is far behind the USA in terms of a power game. In trade and investment, the USA is more significant to India and not vice –versa. USA is the biggest export destination for India and a major foreign investor in the country. It is the major turf for employment generation in India, since USA is the biggest importer of labour intensive products from India, such as ready-made garment and other textile products. To this end, India’s retaliation on tit-for tit may open a Pandora Box.

Views expressed are personal

By Dr. Christopher J. Bolan*

(FPRI) — Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s forces appear poised to launch an offensive operation to retake all or portions of Syria’s last major remaining oppositionist stronghold in the Idlib province. All major players in this looming battle are posturing to shape the nature and extent of this upcoming campaign in ways that advance their particular interests.

Idlib is a province located in northwestern Syria. Since the outbreak of civil war in 2011, Idlib has been the site of frequent confrontation between the Syrian Armed Forces and any number of opposition forces—whether “moderate” such as the Free Syrian Army or others linked in varying degrees to radical jihadi terrorist groups including al-Qaeda. In the summer of 2017, Idlib was one of four so-called de-escalation zones established jointly by Russia, Turkey, and Iran aimed at reducing the violence between rebel and Syrian government forces. The Syrian government and its backers, however, have regularly exploited a loophole in these agreements that permits fighting against terrorist groups to reconquer one rebel enclave after another. The techniques to secure these military victories often included massive bombing of civilian infrastructure including hospitals and schools and devastating sieges designed to starve entire populations into submission. Often, the terms of surrendering these territories back to Assad’s control involved transferring remaining rebel forces and isolated civilians to the province of Idlib doubling its population to some three million people. As a result of Assad’s military victories elsewhere and these transfers of rebel forces, Idlib today remains the single major bastion of remaining opposition forces in Syria.

Assad himself undoubtedly favors a full-scale, no-holds-barred offensive that decisively restores unchallenged regime control over this rebel stronghold. Some press reporting indicated that U.S. officials believe President Assad has already approved the use of chlorine gas in the upcoming Idlib offensive. This prospective use of chemical weapons would come in direct defiance of the U.S. and coalition military retaliation he suffered back in April in response to Assad’s gas attack against civilians in the suburbs of Damascus. The White House has issued stern warnings of dire consequences should Assad employ these weapons.

For the moment, Russia seems poised to militarily back Assad’s desire to regain control over the rebellious province. Moscow has conducted airstrikes against terrorist elements operating in the province and has recently completed its largest naval force deployment in the eastern Mediterranean since the start of the seven-year-old Syrian civil war. As this battle looms, Russian diplomats have also warned the United States against taking “reckless steps” and have gone so far as to threaten to attack a U.S.-occupied base located at At-Tanf near the Syria-Jordan-Iraq border. In response, U.S. forces in the area conducted military exercises designed to underscore the capability of these forces to successfully defend themselves against attack.

Meanwhile, Iranian leaders who have provided invaluable political and military support to Assad’s previous military efforts have been largely quiet. This strategy is a sensible one for Tehran as leaders are understandably reluctant to provoke additional Israeli airstrikes in Tel Aviv’s escalating military campaign targeting Iranian forces deployed in Syria. Analysis suggests that Israel has conducted over 130 such airstrikes since 2013. Perhaps the most dramatic strikes took place in May 2018 when Israel launched its most extensive air and missile strikes since the 1973 Arab-Israeli War against dozens of Iranian targets in Syria killing more than 40, including 19 Iranians.

In contrast, Turkey has moved aggressively to forestall or at least limit the extent of Syria’s anticipated offensive. Since late 2017, Turkey has manned a dozen military checkpoints throughout the province as part of the de-escalation plan mentioned above. In the event of a full-scale Syrian assault on Idlib, these physical markers of Turkish presence would be quickly overrun. Fearing that prospect as well as the likelihood that a major offensive in Idlib could result in hundreds of thousands of additional Syrian refugees fleeing toward the Turkish border, Ankara recently has warned Moscow that an attack would not be tolerated and that the result would be a “lake of blood.”

Meanwhile, the U.S. position on Idlib has gradually moved toward increasing opposition to a major offensive. Initial U.S. diplomatic efforts were initially restrained and largely aimed at dissuading Assad from employing chemical weapons in any forthcoming assault. As an assault looks increasingly likely, however, senior U.S. officials have issued broader warning against any “military campaign in all its forms” and condemned any offensive as “objectionable as a reckless escalation.”

While a diplomatic resolution between Syria, Turkey, and Russia that forestalls an all-out assault is possible, it would seem that a military confrontation in Idlib in one form or another is almost inevitable given Assad’s desire to capitalize on the momentum generated by battlefield successes elsewhere.

The nature and scope of the coming offensive in Idlib matters and will have important implications for players at the tactical and operational levels of war. The 3 million civilians now struggling in Idlib will of course be most directly impacted. Syrians have now suffered seven years of brutal civil war. The war has killed hundreds of thousands, displaced millions, and witnessed the horrific use of sarin nerve agent and chlorine gas against defenseless civilian populations. UN officials have warned that a massive assault on Idlib will greatly add to this already deplorable list of miseries.

Beyond these substantial humanitarian concerns, however, the strategic impacts of any offensive in Idlib are likely to be relatively minor absent a direct military confrontation between any of the major outside powers engaged in Syria (a noteworthy qualification). Regaining control of Idlib would certainly represent another step forward for Assad and his backers in Russia and Iran, but American military forces and their Kurdish allies will retain control of northeastern Syria stopping Assad well short of his goal to re-unify all of Syria under his control. Moreover, an Assad victory in Idlib will do little to restore Assad’s legitimacy among the Sunni majority population who have suffered most acutely under his rule. Localized and periodic domestic opposition to Assad’s rule will remain an enduring feature of Syria—at least in the immediate term.

Additionally, even if Turkey is either convinced or compelled to withdrawal from Idlib, it will likely retain a significant military presence in or along Syria’s northern border to control the flow of refugees and deny the establishment of an independent Kurdish zone. Finally, any military campaign in Idlib will only add to the substantial costs of reconstructing Syria, which are already estimated to exceed $1 trillion, burdening both Russia and Iran with an unpayable bill for the destruction wrought by their support of Assad. Given these prospects, any offensive in Idlib is unlikely to prove decisive to the interests of any major party.

The tactical and operational impacts of the upcoming Syrian offensive in Idlib, however devastating for the Syrian people themselves, are not likely to significantly affect the most salient strategic outcomes of the Syrian civil war, which include the continued rule of the Assad regime over most of Syria, expanded Russian and Iranian influence in Damascus, a reduced but not totally destroyed jihadi presence, and the massive scale of reconstruction assistance that will be required to address the humanitarian needs of the Syrian people in the aftermath of civil war. These hard realities themselves pose important questions that will need to be addressed by U.S. strategic and military planners as they devise policies and programs going forward. These strategic realities and resultant questions are worth examining in more detail.

1. Assad’s continued rule from Damascus has been assured for the near future. President Obama’s calls in 2011 for Assad to “step aside” were never supported by meaningful policies to achieve that goal. Since 2015, Russian air support and Iranian-back Shi’a militia forces on the ground have bolstered Assad’s military fortunes and enabled him to reconstitute his control over the majority of both Syrian territory and its major population centers. The Trump administration came to office in 2017 accepting Assad’s continued hold on power as a “political reality” and emphasized that U.S. policies in Syria would be solely focused on defeating ISIS.

Of course, President Trump could suddenly declare the removal of Assad from power as a U.S. policy objective. After all, in announcing coalition missile strikes against Syrian chemical facilities in April 2018, President Trump denounced both Russia and Iran for “supporting, equipping, and financing the criminal Assad regime.” On the other hand, other senior American officials including the Secretary of Defense James Mattis at the time emphasized that regime change was not the goal of U.S. policy saying that the missile strikes had the narrow strategic purpose of deterring the future use of chemical weapons.

Absent a clear change in U.S. policy objectives, U.S. strategies would be better designed from the assumption that the Assad regime will continue to exercise dominant influence in most of what some analysts have characterized as “useful Syria.” To what degree the U.S. can work tacitly or openly with President Assad’s regime to advance American interests in battling ISIS and stabilizing Syria are open questions that demand answers.

2. Russia has established its place as a meaningful player in the Middle East whose interests will need to be factored into future U.S. strategic calculations (but not necessarily accommodated). Coming to the rescue of its sole remaining Cold War ally in the Middle East—President Assad in Syria—was really Moscow’s only option if it wanted to preserve access to its only naval and air bases in the region at Tartus and Humaymim. President Trump may well have harbored hopes that a personal connection with Russian President Vladimir Putin could convince Moscow to moderate Assad’s excesses and press for the removal of Iranian forces from Syria. Unfortunately, Russian efforts on both counts have been disappointing given Assad’s continued use of chemical weapons and the continued presence of Iranian military advisors in Syria.

Just how much to confront Russia over its support for Assad remains an open question. In calculating a response, U.S. policymakers will need to weigh the risks that U.S. pushback could unintentionally lead to direct military confrontation with Russian forces in the confined battlespaces in and over Syria. Russian foreign ministry officials regularly condemn the very presence of U.S. military forces in Syria as against international law and convention. In defending themselves against an attack on a small outpost near Deir al-Zour in February 2018, U.S. forces killed hundreds of Syrian-allied forces and Russian mercenaries. How and to what extent will U.S. policymakers respond to the inevitable future challenges posed by Damascus, Moscow, or Tehran to the continued presence of American troops in Syria?

3. Iran has demonstrated its ability to support and lead Shi’a militia groups to advance its interests in the region. Iran’s relationship with the Assad regime has a long history grounded in their shared interests in breaking their geopolitical isolation and challenging America’s dominant position in the region. The leadership in Tehran will not easily be compelled to abandon the Assad regime as Syria represents Iran’s only state-based ally in a region dominated by Sunni powers. Similarly, Assad remains absolutely dependent on the thousands of Iranian-led, trained, and funded Shi’a militias to maintain and consolidate his gains on the ground.

Another key question for U.S. policymakers is just how far is Washington willing to invest in pushing back against Iran’s presence in Syria? Russian leaders have recently admitted that they are incapable of compelling a complete Iranian withdrawal from Syria. U.S. policymakers will need to develop an integrated political, economic, and perhaps military strategy for achieving this goal while overcoming the active opposition they are likely to confront from Damascus, Moscow, and Tehran.

4. Jihadi forces will have been largely defeated, but not destroyed or eliminated. The anti-ISIS coalition has achieved tremendous military success in ousting militant jihadi groups from virtually all of Syrian territory. Idlib now remains the most significant jihadi stronghold hosting as many as 10,000 al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorists. Russia and Syria claim that these groups remain a threat that must be dealt with forcefully and effectively. Given the counter-terrorism focus of U.S. policy up to this point, how can this threat be eliminated while avoiding the major humanitarian catastrophe that would result from a major Russian-backed Syrian offense into the province? To what extent are U.S. policymakers willing to find common cause with the Assad regime, Moscow, and Tehran to eliminate any remaining pockets of jihadi terrorist groups?

5. Syria will remain a fractured country and society requiring major international assistance for a generation or more. UN officials have warned that an assault on Idlib could result in the “worst humanitarian catastrophe” of the 21^st The Trump administration is reluctant to play a significant role in funding these efforts and has already suspended financing for stabilization projects in Syria. Instead, the administration is pressing other coalition partners for contributions. However, as mentioned previously, the tab for reconstruction in Syria is already estimated to exceed $ 1 trillion and is only likely to grow until an enduring political settlement can be reached. Syria is likely to overburden an exhausted international donor community that is already struggling to satisfy pressing humanitarian needs elsewhere in the region to include Yemen, Iraq, and Libya.

Ignoring the task of rebuilding Syria risks another failed state that remains mired in conflict, continues to generate refugee flows that jeopardize the stability of neighboring Jordan and Lebanon, and provides fuel and space to terrorists groups exploiting the fears and vulnerabilities of local populations. The questions for U.S. policymakers here revolve around if and how the U.S. can best identify, promote, and support those development programs that will most quickly and effectively restore some semblance of stability to Syria.

These enduring features of a post-civil war Syria will require U.S. policymakers to fundamentally reassess America’s strategic objectives in Syria, develop a coherent strategy engaging all instruments of national power to achieve those goals, and then tailor the specific missions and composition of whatever U.S. military forces are to remain.

The administration appears to be at an important inflection point for doing so. Statements by senior State Department officials recently signify a substantial expansion of U.S. objectives extending beyond the fight against ISIS that now include expelling all Iranian and Iranian-backed forces and establishing a “nonthreatening government” in Damascus. These goals will remain illusory, however, unless U.S policymakers develop effective strategies that respond to the basic realities of the conflict described above and answer the broader questions posed by these realities.

The views expressed are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect the positions of the U.S. government or Department of Defense.

About the author:
*Dr. Christopher J. Bolan, a Senior Fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute’s Program on the Middle East, is Professor of Middle East Security Studies at the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College.

Source:
This article was published by FPRI.

Now that obituaries and eulogies to former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee are over and he has once again been relegated to propping cobwebs, it would be good to sift through the paeans to glean something beyond the man. He was called a ‘consensus builder’, ‘right man in the wrong party’, ‘poet among bigots’, ‘mukhota’ – the soft mask for the hard-line Hindu right. Some suggested his ‘liberal’ views came from having a family and also via discussions with close friends from the other side of the ideological divide.

Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayees Rise

One cannot miss how his shifting moral and ideological positions traces his trajectory from a common person to the Prime Minister of India. His early ideas for the Jan Sangh were dyed in secularism. Vajpayee even paid tribute to Nehru, comparing him to Lord Ram and later came out against the Sadhu’s attacking the Parliament going against his RSS and Jan Sangh compatriots.

Did young Vajpayee’s dream slowly wither under the diktats of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) reality? Did his brush with power in 1977 saffronise him further? Or did the Congress victory during his tenure as Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) president, which rode home on a wave of national emotion, convince him to follow L.K Advani in whipping up a baser sentiment?

We may never be able to pinpoint the reason for Vajpayee’s deeper saffronisation and his actions. He pumped-up kar-sevaks on the eve of the demolition of the Babri Masjid. The tremors of which will be felt for many generations to come. For all the moralising about international double standards on nuclear weapon ownership, in hindsight, his decision to conduct nuclear tests had nothing to do with national security or protecting national interests. It was one of the first attempts to inject vacuous nationalistic pride and garner India international respect.

Was he forced to keep up with the times and did he do so against his will? His 12 April 2002 speech, in Goa during the BJP national executive meeting, where he said ‘Wherever Muslims are, they don’t want to live in peace. They don’t want to mix with others. They use terror as a weapon” was a blatant attempt to out-saffron the new party hero, the then Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi who Vajpayee had, a few days earlier, wanted to sack for the Gujarat horror.

Rise and Reactions

However, the last few decades are littered with the consequences of his actions. It would appear that Vajpayee laid the foundations of India under the BJP.

The empty grandiose actions and statements of Modi and his government are a homage to Vajpayee’s May 1998 indecision. Isn’t Modi and his government’s recalcitrance and shifty efforts to bring marauding gau-rakshaks to book reminiscent of Vajpaypee’s dithering during and after the Gujarat massacre of 2002? That, current sitting Chief Ministers and Ministers have been able to spew hate and glorify lynchers is not surprising given these are but a step up from Vajpayee’s pre-Babri Masjid demolition and Goa speeches and his inability to punish Narendra Modi for what happened in Gujarat.

Modi has only taken to the next level what the first BJP Prime Minister started. Vajpayee’s essay on the secular direction that Jan Sangh should take mirrors Modi’s kneeling at the Central Hall of the Parliament.

Vajpayee erred, if at all, in not recognising the monster he was nourishing and training over the years, even though he pandered to its demands. And when he did realise his folly he did not stand up to it, instead stooped lower to conquer. Modi has it far easier, he does not have to feed the beast nor does he need to apologise for it. His silence when it runs amok only encourages it. Citizens have unwittingly played into the hands of the animal’s keepers by criticising the Prime Minister’s unperturbed silence. Modi knows that words are insufficient to put down this rabid creature. It needs the courage of Raj Dharma which Vajpayee suggested of Modi post the Gujarat pogrom and which he himself did not adhere to then and later during the BJP convention in Goa.

The Rajiv Gandhi Effect

It is not enough to blame Vajpayee for the impunity that the right wing frolic in today. The later Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi said ‘When a mighty tree falls, it is only natural that the earth around it does shake a little’ as an explanation to the Sikh pogrom carried out by some members of the Congress I and the RSS after the assassination of the then Prime Minister, and his mother, Indira Gandhi. His statement, no different from the doting parent’s explanation for their child’s obnoxious behaviour.

Did Vajpayee take a leaf from Rajiv Gandhi’s book? That both these leaders were unwilling and unable to take responsibility for these heinous crimes points to a particular pathology. Could the over 3000 murders of Sikhs not only be in retaliation to the assassination of Mrs. Gandhi and the growing Sikh demand for greater autonomy but also a tribute by the followers to Indira Gandhi? If this were the case then Rajiv Gandhi, as a neophyte leader, would not want to be seen displeased with such actions. Instead, he would want to show an understanding for their depravity, therefore his quote.

Vajpayee faced a similar conundrum in 2002. The demolition of the Babri Masjid by the Kar Sevaks on sixth December 1992 was to get back at the Muslims for an event that had occurred in 1528. Vajpayee had fueled the kar sevaks on the eve of the demolition.This had led to riots across the country which killed thousands.

The ongoing Hindutva agenda to right perceived historical wrongs led to two opinions as to the cause of the deaths of 59 kar sevaks on 22 February 2002 on the Sabarmati Express at Godhra railway station. This culminated in the pogrom of Muslims over a three month period in Gujarat to avenge what many believed was murder of the 59 perpetrated by setting 4 bogies of a train on fire by Muslims.

Vajpayee had been instrumental in building the foundations of bellicose Hindu revival. By distancing himself from those bred on his words and from taking responsibility or seeking the removal of Modi, Vajpayee would have proved the shallowness of the Hindutva philosophy and confessed his and his foot soldiers culpability in rending the fabric of India. Instead, he aped Pontious Pilot, washing his hands of the case, suggesting Narendra Modi could follow something intangible termed ‘Raj Dharma’.

In doing so, Vajpayee gave Modi a chance to stand his ground and even raise himself in the eyes of the Hindu seeking redressal for historical grievance. It led to the belief that such incidents are par-for-the-course for Hindu revival and therefore worthwhile and unpunishable.

Rajiv Gandhi and Atal Bihari Vajpayee, though from opposing ideologies, unwittingly came together to create a more potent version of themselves – Narendra Modi. Modi in his turn created MiniMe’s across the country who now run riot. It may seem cravenly farcical but the truth is Narendra Modi is a true product of a secular democracy and the country reaps the dividend of this unusual union.

By Doug French*

There are labor shortages all over the country. There are not enough truck drivers, plumbers, food waitresses, construction workers, and so on. The official unemployment rate is below 4 percent. It was just reported private sector wages popped 2.9 percent.

However, Bernie Sanders and other “progressive” candidates are endorsing the idea of a federal living wage. On his website, Bernie starts with,

Millions of Americans are working for totally inadequate wages. We must ensure that no full-time worker lives in poverty. The current federal minimum wage is starvation pay and must become a living wage. We must increase it to $15 an hour over the next several years.

His latest big idea is to

tax companies with 500 or more employees an amount equal to federal benefits received by their low-wage workers. The bill is designed to discourage large companies from paying their workers so little that they end up relying on federal benefits, such as food stamps, to make ends meet.

If Bernie were paying attention, there is a minimum wage experiment going on in real time in Venezuela right now. Sure, there’s some serious money printing going on there and plenty of socialist schemes to keep the shelves empty. However, the fact there’s nothing to buy hasn’t kept Venezuelan president Maduro from hiking that country’s minimum wage 24 times since 2013 when he took office.

The latest hike went into effect on September 17, and it was huuuge — 3,000 percent. Fabiola Zerpa writes for Bloomberg,

7 million employees are guaranteed 1,800 bolivars a month — worth about $20 at the black-market rate. President Nicolas Maduro intended the mandate as political boost, but it’s having the opposite effect as companies, already hit by Venezuela’s epic economic contraction, tell workers they can’t afford to keep them.

No one should be stunned if employees are told to go home if the government by way of brute force increases pay by 30 times.

“I already told my four employees to go find other jobs,” Caracas garage owner Marcos Vizcaino told Bloomberg. “I’ve decided to close. There’s no need for me to keep to losing money for a third year in a row.”

Zerpa writes,

The higher minimum wage, which Maduro announced last month, was among several bids to steady the rapidly failing state’s economy and stanch hyperinflation. The socialist autocrat also devalued the currency and lopped five zeroes off denominations of the bolivar bill, which has been rendered almost valueless.

Lopping zeros off a currency has never worked and how on earth would raising the minimum wage by 30 times “stanch hyperinflation?” By the way, the zero lopping just happened a few weeks ago and price inflation is 100 percent for the new money.

Maduro’s policies only serve to drive the Venezuelan economy further into a Marxian hellhole. Venezuelan business owners must keep quiet because if they decide to “simply dismiss people. Much of the action happens secretively as companies try to avoid punishment by the government, which has been jailing those it believes are flouting the rules.”

Socialism isn’t like the free market which progresses peacefully. Socialism requires a bureaucratic boot on the neck of business. “Apart from the astronomical rise in wages, companies have limited ability to adapt, thanks to restrictive controls.” Zerpa writes. “Food operations are closely monitored as the government provides them imported raw materials. More than 500 supermarkets and stores have been fined and 200 managers and workers detained since Maduro’s announcements, according to Cedice, a private-property watchdog group.”

Maduro seized a cardboard plant and a pharmaceutical company for not toeing the government’s line. Even businesses with steady payrolls like banks, education, and construction are expected to be hammered by the new edict, because “large firms have collective-bargaining agreements subject to government scrutiny.”

Aurelio Concheso, a labor expert at Fedecamaras told Bloomberg, “The impact can be devastating; it can consume a whole company’s capital.”

Murray Rothbard wrote in The Free Market in 1988,

It is conventional among economists to be polite, to assume that economic fallacy is solely the result of intellectual error. But there are times when decorousness is seriously misleading, or, as Oscar Wilde once wrote, “when speaking one’s mind becomes more than a duty; it becomes a positive pleasure.” For if proponents of the higher minimum wage were simply wrongheaded people of good will, they would not stop at $3 or $4 an hour, but indeed would pursue their dimwit logic into the stratosphere.

Maduro is indeed pursuing his “dimwit logic into the stratosphere.” His country has no food or necessities and soon it will have no jobs.

About the author:
*Douglas French is former president of the Mises Institute, author of Early Speculative Bubbles & Increases in the Money Supply , and author of Walk Away: The Rise and Fall of the Home-Ownership Myth. He received his master’s degree in economics from UNLV, studying under both Professor Murray Rothbard and Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

Source:
This article was published by the MISES Institute

Every war being fought today is illegal. Every action taken to carry out these wars is a war crime.

In 1928, the Kellogg-Briand Pact or Pact of Paris was signed and ratified by the United States and other major nations that renounced war as a way to resolve conflicts, calling instead for peaceful ways of handling disputes.

The Kellogg-Briand Pact was the basis for the Nuremberg Tribunal, in which 24 leaders of the Third Reich were tried and convicted for war crimes, and for the Tokyo Tribunal, in which 28 leaders of the Japanese Empire were tried and convicted for war crimes, following World War II.

Such prosecutions should have prevented further wars, but they have not. David Swanson of World Beyond War argues that a fundamental task of the antiwar movement is to enforce the rule of law. What good are new treaties, he asks, if we can’t uphold the ones that already exist?

The United States is violating international law, and escalating its aggression

All wars and acts of aggression by the United States since 1928 have violated the Kellogg-Briand Pact and the United Nations Charter since it was signed in 1945. The UN Charter states, in Article 2:

“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

Yet, the United States has a long history of threatening aggression and using military force to remove governments it opposed and install friendly ones. Illegal attacks by the US since World War II have resulted in 20 million people being killed in 37 nations. For example, as we outline in “North Korea and the United States: Will the Real Aggressor Please Stand Down,”the United States used violence to install Syngman Rhee in power in the 1940’s and subsequently killed millions of Koreans, in both the South and the North, in the Korean War, which has not ended. Under international law, the “war games” practicing to attack North Korea with conventional and nuclear weapons are illegal threats of military action.

The list of interventions by the United States is too long to list here. Basically, the US has been interfering in and attacking other countries almost continuously since its inception. Currently the US is involved directly in wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen and Somalia. The US is threatening Iran and Venezuela with attack.

The United States has 883 military bases in 183 countries and has hundreds of outposts scattered throughout the world. Lynn Petrovich recently examined the new defense budget. With regard to the Pentagon’s 2019 budget report, she writes:

“If the planet is our community, America is the bully in the neighborhood.  Reference to the word ‘lethal’ is sprinkled no less than 3 dozen times throughout The Report (‘more lethal force’ p. 2-6, ‘technology innovation for increased lethality’ p.1-1, ‘increasing the lethality of new and existing weapons systems’ p. 3-2).”

and

“Were it not for The Report’s dire (yet, fully funded) predictions for world domination, one would think this budget request was satire by The Onion.”

Included in the new budget are funds to recruit 26,000 more of our youth into the military, purchase ten more “combat ships,” build more F-35s, even though they don’t work, and “modernize” our nuclear weapons. At a time when the United States is losing power in the world and falling behind in wealth, the government voted nearly unanimously to provide $74 billion more than last year to be more aggressive. Imagine what that money could do if it were applied instead to improving public education, transitioning to a clean energy economy and a public works program to restore our failing infrastructure.

The United States empire is falling and blindly taking all of us down with it as it tries to assert its power.

What to do about it

The peace movement in the United States is being revived and building alliances with peace activists in many countries, and it can’t happen fast enough. There are many opportunities for action this fall, the “Antiwar Autumn.”

The World Beyond War conference, #NoWar2018, just concluded in Toronto. The focus of the conference was legalizing peace. Among the topics discussed was how to use courts to prevent wars, stop the escalation of militarism and investigate war crimes. Professor Daniel Turp of the University of Montreal and his students have sued the Canadian government over participating in extraditing prisoners to Guantanamo, potential intervention in Iraq and providing weapons to Saudi Arabia.

Turp recommends that activists who are considering legal action first look to domestic courts for a remedy. If none exists or domestic action is unsuccessful, then it is possible to turn to international bodies such as the International Criminal Court or the United Nations. Any people or organizations can file a report or complaint with these bodies. Before doing so, it is important to gather as much evidence as possible, first hand accounts are strong but even hearsay can be grounds to trigger an investigation.

Currently, Popular Resistance is supporting an effort to ask the International Criminal Court to launch a full investigation of Israel for its war crimes. People and organizations are invited to sign on to the letter, which will be delivered by a delegation, including us, to the Hague in November.

William Curtis Edstrom of Nicaragua wrote a letter to the United Nations in advance of Trump’s visit to serve as the chair of the Security Council meeting. He is requesting “hearings, debate and vote on an effective plan of action against various crimes that have been committed by people working for the government of the US that are of significance to the global community.”

This week, Medea Benjamin confronted a Trump administration official, the head of the new “Iran Action Group,” at the Hudson Institute. President Trump is planning to advocate for more aggression against Iran at the United Nations. When the US tried this in the past, it has received push back from other nations Now it is clear it is the US, not Iran, that has violated the nuclear agreement and is conducting an economic war against Iran while threatening military action. The world is likely to stand up to Trump and US threats.

Recent progress towards peace by North and South Korea show that activism is effective. Sarah Freeman-Woolpert reports on efforts by activists in South Korea and the United States to build coalitions and organize strategic actions that create the political space for peace.

Leaders of both countries met this week to discuss improving relations and finding a compromise between North Korea and the United States. President Moon will meet with President Trump at the United Nations this month. Korean activists say that their greatest concern is that Koreans finally having “the ability to shape the future of [their] country.”

When we understand that war is illegal, our task becomes clear. We need to make sure that all nations, especially the United States, obey the law. We can replace war with mediation, conflict resolution and adjudication. We can legalize peace.

Here are more actions this Antiwar Autumn:

September 30-October 6 – Shut Down Creech – week of actions to protest the use of drones. More information and register here.

October 6-13 – Keep Space for Peace Week. Many actions planned in the US and UK. Click here for details.

October 20-21 – Women’s March on the Pentagon. More information here.

November 3 – Black is Back Coalition march to the White House for peace in Africa. More information here.

November 10 – Peace Congress to End U.S. Wars at Home and Abroad. This will be a full day conference to define next steps for collaboration by activists and organizations in the US. More information and registration here.

November 11 – March to Reclaim Armistice Day. This will be a solemn march led by veterans and military families on the 100th anniversary of Armistice Day, which ended World War I, to call for celebrating Armistice Day instead of Veterans Day in the US. Click here for more information.

November 16-18 – School of Americas Watch Border Encuentro. This will include workshops and actions at the border between the US and Mexico. More information here.

November 16-18 – No US NATO Bases International Conference in Dublin, Ireland. This is the first international conference of the new coalition to close US foreign military bases. Click here for more details.

UC Davis researchers announce in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences this week a breakthrough in understanding which cells afford optimal protection against Salmonella infection–a critical step in developing a more effective and safe vaccine against a bacterium that annually kills an estimated one million people worldwide.

Professor Stephen McSorley, interim director of the Center for Comparative Medicine, led a collaborative group of scientists from the University of Melbourne, Australia, the University of Connecticut and UC Davis. They evaluated the difference between circulating and non-circulating memory T cells in providing immunity to Salmonella infection in mice models.

“What everyone has been focused on in immunology, not just in addressing Salmonella, but all infectious diseases for the past 50 years or so, has been antibody and T cell responses,” McSorley said. “What hasn’t been realized until very recently is there are actually two different categories of T cells–those that circulate through tissues in the body and those that never move and are known as tissue resident or non-circulating memory cells.”

Since non-circulating memory T cells were discovered, McSorley said there’s been a rush in different disease models to understand whether they are important or not–in cancer and infectious diseases. It seems in some models they are very important; in others, they are less so.

“It’s a new cell population we haven’t looked at before and they’re very effective so we need to learn more about them,” McSorley said. “They may be part of the answer to developing vaccines against a variety of pathogens.”

The team focused on these non-circulating memory T cells to better understand how well they protected against reinfection from Salmonella Typhi, a strain that causes life-threatening enteric fever commonly in Africa and parts of Asia. Other strains of Salmonella are capable of causing gastroenetritis or invasive non-typhoidal Salmonellosis (NTS), an emerging disease in sub-Saharan Africa. Enteric fever and NTS can be fatal in 20-25 percent of infected individuals without access to medical care.

The researchers transferred circulating and non-circulating memory T cells from mice previously vaccinated into naïve mice. Thanks to fluorescent markers, they were then able to track which of the T cells offered protection against Salmonella infection. They showed that vaccine-mediated protection requires a non-circulating population of liver memory cells that does not circulate through the rest of the body. The unexpected requirement for these liver memory T cells means that generating these cells will form the basis of future vaccines for typhoid and NTS.

Current Salmonella vaccines limited

NTS has really emerged in Africa in the last 10 years, McSorley said, mainly in young children, the elderly and HIV positive individuals–basically people with compromised immune systems. They get a strain that would normally cause gastroenteritis, but in these individuals, it causes systemic infection and can kill them.

“These forms of disease are really impactful for resource-poor communities in Asia and Africa where the vaccines are either nonexistent or terrible,” McSorley said. “They are diseases of poverty.”

Although there are two vaccines currently available for Salmonella, neither are practical for use in these countries and they only protect about 50 percent of people immunized.

“The goal of our lab is to understand the mechanisms of protective immunity in mice to learn tricks of the immune system and then develop a vaccine that could replicate that to use for kids and people who live in these areas,” he said. “We found that you absolutely need these non-circulating T cells to protect against Salmonella. That’s an important milestone because if you’re going to make a vaccine, you have to know what you’re trying to induce with that vaccine. Now that we know these forms of T cells exist and protect against Salmonella, the next goal is to try to develop synthetic ways to induce them to make a vaccine.”

McSorley said they have some ideas about how to do that and that’s where the next phase of their research is going–to try and take vaccine components in a mouse model to specifically focus on these non-circulating cells and see if they can induce them.

“If we can learn how to better induce them and if we can apply that to a new Salmonella vaccine, it should be more efficient at providing immunity than previous vaccines.”

By Hala Tashkandi

The circus — a place that is almost synonymous with joy and delight. Since time immemorial, circuses have been places of celebration and glee, and few as much as the premier name in the industry: Cirque du Soleil.

The show has had a devoted fan in me since 2006, when I attended a performance of their production “Quidam” and my definition of the word “circus” was turned upside-down. Their unique approach to art, performance, costumes and music has secured their status as a household name and a benchmark for all other circus shows to be measured against.

On Sunday night, Saudi Arabia’s National Day, the circus brought their incredible acrobatics to Riyadh’s King Fahad Stadium and it turned out to be a night to remember.

Prior to the event, Cirque’s Vice President of Creation Daniel Fortin offered little in the way of spoilers but hinted that we would see something the likes of which we never had before. With the promises of exclusive new acts, music, costumes and stage tricks piquing my excitement, I joined a throng of green-and white-clad spectators flooding the stadium. Performing to a sold-out crowd, the show kicked off at exactly 8.30 p.m. and the magic truly began.

Barely five minutes into the show, something stole over me as I settled into the rhythm of the music, something I saw flickering over the faces of those in the crowd around me: Recognition. We were seeing ourselves, our identity, echoed back at us, but with a twist. We saw ourselves through someone else’s eyes — someone respectful and admiring.

As a Saudi youth today, it has become an unfortunately common occurrence to face negativity from various outsiders, born of ignorance or fear. It has become dreary and repetitive to have to continually defend my people and my culture from those who have no wish to understand us.

But at this show? I saw my country once more through the eyes of an outsider, but this time, it was different. I saw my culture and my heritage lauded, celebrated, delicately fused with that tangible Cirque du Soleil flair. The attention to detail was careful, almost loving, but also daring and outlandish. It was a glorious fusion of classic Saudi aesthetics with the ethereal, bizarre beauty of Cirque du Soleil.

The symbolism was not always obvious, sometimes it was subtle, constrained to the beat of a drum or hidden in a snatch of song. Other times, it was blatant and bold, in the sloping hump of an elegantly clumsy camel costume, or the billowing of the Bedouin Big Top in the gentle breeze. And yet, unmistakeably, I felt the Saudi influences in every note of the performance. It felt like an homage, and yet it did nothing to diminish its own identity. It remained unquestionably a Cirque du Soleil performance, only below the usual circus frippery, there was a ribbon of something else that lay coiled beneath the surface. Something bright, vibrant green. Saudi green.

The spectacle rounded off with an astonishing display of fireworks, so plentiful that for a moment, the sky glowed bright as day. To me, each one felt like a promise fulfilled. A dream achieved. A miracle witnessed. Here, on my own home soil, it was the perfect tribute to a rich and vivid culture.

By John Feffer*

Donald Trump is the epitome of irrational exuberance.

You might remember that phrase from the 1990s. Alan Greenspan, the head of the Federal Reserve at the time, was describing how the tech boom was creating a bubble by generating enthusiasm way out of proportion to the actual value of the new companies.

Such an unwarranted economic boom was hardly something new, so it was easy to predict what would happen next. Periods of irrational exuberance — whether the dot-com expansion, Dutch tulipmania in the 17^th century, or the housing bubble in America of the 2000s — have always led to a sudden crash and a serious hangover.

And now, here we go again.

Trump, always exuberant when talking about himself and his putative accomplishments, loves to boast about how well the American economy is chugging along. The stock market reached its all-time high at the end of August. In its second quarter this year, U.S. economic growth was 4.1 percent. Unemployment remains below 4 percent, and inflation remains moderate. Even wages are going up.

Irrationality enters the picture because there’s little if any connection between the president’s policies and the outcomes he lauds (since these trends began before he took office). Also, the prosperity that has resulted from this economic expansion has largely been enjoyed by the wealthier sectors of society. Finally, Trump’s economic fever dream is fueled by an enormous and growing amount of debt.

When it comes to irrational exuberance, it’s never if there will be a bust but when. On the tenth anniversary of the financial collapse of 2008, it’s worth looking at the potential pinpricks that will pop Trump’s hot-air balloon and send America crashing back to earth.

Mountains of Debt

Let’s start at the top. It doesn’t take a math whiz to figure out that an expansion of military spending, an overall budget that’s as big as his predecessor’s, and a massive tax cut would produce an enormous budget deficit.

Although Trump promised to balance the books if he became president, he’s done the opposite. The deficit for this year will rise to $890 billion (it was about $660 billion when Obama left office). The shortfall in government expenditures will rise above $1 trillion next year.

Deficit spending makes sense during a recession. What Trump is doing now is essentially allowing the rich to siphon the cream off the top, providing the middle class with some skim milk, and leaving the sour dregs for everyone else. And unlike during earlier economic expansions, government revenues are actually falling, which is what small-government advocates are secretly cheering: less money, less government.

It’s not just the government that’s in hock. Total household debt reached a new high in August: $13.3 trillion. That includes a record amount of student debt ($1.5 trillion), an ever-growing amount of mortgage debt ($9 trillion, which is perilously close to the $10.5 trillion it reached during the mortgage crisis in 2008), and an overall credit card debt that just surpassed $1 trillion for the first time.

Then there’s corporate debt. Companies have taken advantage of low interest rates to borrow like crazy. This summer, corporate debt hit a new high of $6.3 trillion. Worse, the cash-to-debt ratio, which was 14 percent in 2008, has dropped to 12 percent: that’s $1 in cash for every $8 of debt.

Economists are quick to reassure the public that all of this debt is not catastrophic. After all, the economy is humming along. America doesn’t look like Greece.

But all this debt is like the termites eating away at the foundation of your house. You don’t see anything wrong except a bit of sawdust and the faint sounds of consumption. And then one day, you’re sitting at your kitchen table and, boom! You’re sprawled out in your basement with the wreckage of your house around you.

As long as institutions continue to extend credit, debt is manageable, not a crisis. In other words, if creditors are still willing to buy Treasury bonds, then the United States is good to go.

But that’s a big if.

Chestnuts in the Fire

Currently, the U.S. government owes $21 trillion, which is slightly more than the household and corporate debt combined. The owners of U.S. debt include federal agencies like Social Security (which currently runs a surplus that it uses to buy Treasury bonds), the Federal Reserve (which bought a lot of debt during the financial crisis to lower interest rates), mutual funds, and banks.

Foreign countries also hold about a third of the debt. China and Japan own a little more than a trillion dollars each, followed by Brazil, Ireland, the UK, and Switzerland.

In ordinary times, foreign ownership of U.S debt is uncontroversial. Countries with revenue surpluses need a safe place to park their money. And the United States has never defaulted on its sovereign debt, unlike Greece or Argentina.

But these are not ordinary times. With the sharp downturn in U.S.-Russian relations, Moscow decided this spring to unload 84 percent of its holdings of Treasury bonds. That amounts to about $87 billion, a considerable sum.

Russia, of course, is not one of the major holders of U.S. debt. But Russia’s not the only country in a selling mood. Japan got rid of $18.4 billion in Treasury bonds in the spring. In the first half of 2018, Turkey unloaded 42 percent of its holdings in U.S. debt. Both countries currently have trade disputes with Washington.

The big player, however, is China, and right now the Trump administration is escalating its trade war with China. Trump just announced tariffs on another $200 billion in Chinese imports after targeting $50 billion of goods in the first round. If China retaliates with more tariffs of its own, the Trump administration is threatening a third round sanctioning all Chinese imports. China’s counter-sanctions are smaller, since it doesn’t import as much from the United States.

But China could retaliate in other ways, such as devaluing its currency. A potentially more devastating action would be to follow Russia’s example and sell its stake in Treasury bonds.

Again, this wouldn’t necessarily have much effect on the U.S. economy as long as other buyers step in to take China’s place. And that’s when all that other debt comes into play. At a certain point, foreign creditors will no longer support unsustainable U.S. spending. They won’t pull the U.S. chestnuts out of the fire.

Here’s another sign that foreign confidence in the U.S. economy is waning. For much of the post-World War II era, international transactions have been conducted in dollars. That has meant that people — and countries — have wanted dollars. But that situation is changing. The U.S. dollar remains the currency of choice for transactions, but by an ever-diminishing margin. As of July, it was used in 39 percent of transactions. The euro was in second place at 35 percent. Further down the list came the pound, the yen, and the yuan. The fall of the dollar anticipates an eclipse of U.S. global economic hegemony.

It’s hard to predict when all of these indicators will converge. Hedge fund manager Ray Dalio expects a major economic downturn in the United States in two years, after the impact of the tax cuts disappears and the government finds itself short on money. He predicts that:

We have to sell a lot of Treasury bonds, and we as Americans will not be able to buy all those treasury bonds. The Federal Reserve will have to print more money to make up for the deficit, will have to monetize more, and that’ll cause a depreciation in the value of the dollar.

This will be no ordinary downturn. Irrational exuberance has pushed up stocks above their value, sent household and corporate debt into the stratosphere, and burdened the government with debt it will have greater difficulty covering. Interest rates remain low, so there’s no real option to lower rates to stimulate the economy. Martin Feldstein, former chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisors, anticipates a $10 trillion drop in U.S. household assets. “When the next recession comes, it is going to be deeper and last longer than in the past,” he says.

The bottom line: the United States would finally turn into Greece.

The austerity programs Washington has supported all around the world will finally be visited upon the United States. And if the United States goes down, it will drag much of the global economy with it. After all, U.S. debt is only part of a larger problem. As Walden Bello explains:

Financial operators are racking up profits in a sea of liquidity provided by central banks, whose releasing of cheap money has resulted in the issuance of trillions of dollars of debt, pushing the level of debt globally to $325 trillion, more than three times the size of global GDP. There is a consensus among economists along the political spectrum that this debt build-up cannot go on indefinitely without inviting catastrophe.

Forecast: More Inequality

The Trump administration, in addition to its irrational exuberance over the current economic expansion, is taking various steps to make matters worse. It is pushing for greater deregulation of the financial sector: rolling back elements of the Dodd-Frank bill, gutting the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and appointing top regulators who have close ties to Wall Street.

“Instead of draining the swamp,” quips Aaron Klein, policy director of the Center on Regulation and Markets at the Brookings Institute, “the Trump administration is telling the alligators…that the zookeepers are taking a nap.”

Economic inequality is not an unintended consequence of deregulation. It’s one of the goals. You might think that the administration simply wants to move as much money as it can to the 1 percent before the debt hits the fan. But here’s the really depressing part. The wealthy make out like bandits during an economic downturn as well.

As Colin Schultz explains at Smithsonian.com, the stock market did well after the last financial crisis:

Anyone whose finances survived the initial blast had a chance to regain ground in the recovery — or even profit. But families with net worths closer to the average often have a huge portion of their overall wealth invested in their houses. With the value of that gone, they had little wealth left to reinvest. 

So while families hovering around the average net worth lost 36 percent over the past decade — dropping from $87,992 in 2003 to $56,335 in 2013 — people in the top 95th percentile actually gained 14 percent in the same tumultuous period — going from $740,700 in 2003 to $834,100 in 2013.

All that “creative destruction” you hear about when there’s a market “correction”?

Ultimately it’s just the sound of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. The termites are having a feast. But they’re not dining out at mansions.

*John Feffer is the director of Foreign Policy In Focus and author of the dystopian novel Splinterlands.