It is a measure of the continuing brutality of the Chinese government and of the tolerance of mistreatment of Muslims in the name of fighting terrorism around the world that an official Chinese source has admitted the existence of concentration camps for the re-education of Uyghur Muslims.

A communique by the Standing Committee of the Assembly of People’s Representatives of the Xinjiang-Uyghur Autonomous District contained this admission (xjpcsc.gov.cn/1009/t4028e49c665347630166588b8cf40001001.html in Chinese; summarized in Russian at lenta.ru/news/2018/10/10/camps/).

The document specifies that in order to block extremist activities on the territory of the region, the government has set up “special training centers.” Inmates are given ideological training and have their thoughts “put in order,” their behavior “corrected,” and their knowledge of Chinese expanded.

At the same time, the communique said that the centers will only use “a humane approach to re-education.”

During the summer, reports seeped out of the region about the existence of such camps, reports that sparked widespread expressions of horror (lenta.ru/news/2018/08/15/i_c_u/). One might have expected the Chinese to avoid confirming the stories, but apparently Beijing feels that the world is in such a state and its position so powerful that it can admit to these horrors.

By Antony P. Mueller*

Another name for the neo-Marxism of increasing popularity in the United States  is cultural Marxism.” This theory says that the driving force behind the socialist revolution is not the proletariat — but the intellectuals. While Marxism has largely disappeared from the workers’ movement, Marxist theory flourishes today in cultural institutions, in the academic world, and in the mass media. This “cultural Marxism” goes back to Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937) and the Frankfurt School. The theorists of Marxism recognized that the proletariat would not play the expected historical role as a “revolutionary subject.” Therefore, for the revolution to happen, the movement must depend on the cultural leaders to destroy the existing, mainly Christian, culture and morality and then drive the disoriented masses to Communism as their new creed. The goal of this movement is to establish a world government in which the Marxist intellectuals have the final say. In this sense, the cultural Marxists are the continuation of what started with the Russian revolution.

Lenin and the Soviets

Led by Lenin, the perpetrators of the revolution regarded their victory in Russia only as the first step to the world revolution. The Russian Revolution was neither Russian nor proletarian. In 1917, the industrial workers in Russia represented only a small part of the workforce, which mainly consisted of peasantry. The Russian Revolution was not the result of a labor movement but of a group of professional revolutionaries . A closer look at the composition of the Bolshevist party and of the first governments of the Soviet state and its repressive apparatus reveals the true character of the Soviet revolution as a project that did not aim at freeing the Russian people from the Tsarist yoke but was to serve as the launchpad for the world revolution.

The experience of World War I and its aftermath showed that the Marxist concept of the “proletariat” as a revolutionary force was an illusion. At the example of the Soviet Union, one could also see that socialism could not function without a dictatorship. These considerations brought the leading Marxist thinkers to the conclusion that a different strategy would be required to establish socialism. Communist authors spread the insight that the socialist dictatorship must come in disguise. Before socialism can succeed, the existing culture must change. Control of the culture must precede political control.

Cultural Control Rises in Tandem with Political Control

Helping the neo-Marxists was the fact many of their efforts in taking control of culture happened parallel to the encroachment of the state on individual liberties. Over the past decades, at the same time when so-called political correctness has been on the rise, the American government obtained a vast arsenal of repressive instruments. Few Americans seem to know that the U.S. is still under emergency law that has been in force since George W. Bush used the executive privilege to declare a state of national emergency in 2001. In the same year, 9/11 opened also the path to push through the Patriot Act . From a score of around 95 points, the Freedom House “Aggregate Index of Freedom” of the United States has fallen to 86 points in 2018.

Moral Corruption

The way toward the rule of the cultural Marxists is the moral corruption of the people. To accomplish this, the mass media and public education must not enlighten but confuse and mislead. The media and the educational establishment work to put one part of the society against the other part. While group identities get more specific, the catalog of victimization and history of oppression becomes more detailed. To turn into a recognized victim of suppression is the way to gain social status and to obtain the right to special assistance, of respect and social inclusion.

The demand for social justice creates an endless stream of expenditures deemed essential — for health, education, old age, and for all those people who are “needy,” “persecuted” and “oppressed,” be it real or imaginary. The flood of never-ending spending in these areas corrupts the state finances and produces fiscal crises. This helps the Neo-Marxists accuse “capitalism” of all evils when, in fact, it is the regulatory state that provokes the systemic failures and when it is the excess of public debt that causes the financial fragility.

Politics, the media, and the judiciary never pause at waging the new endless wars: the war on drugs or against high blood pressure or the campaigns that assert the endless struggle against fat and obesity. The list of the enemies grows every day whether racism, xenophobia, and anti-Islamism. The epitome of this movement is political correctness, the war against having one’s own opinion. While the public tolerates disgusting expositions of behavior, particularly under the cult of the arts, the list of prohibited words and opinions grows daily. Public opinion must not go beyond the few accepted positions. Yet while the public debate impoverishes, the diversity of radical opinion flourishes in the hidden.

The cultural Marxists drive society morally into an identity crisis by the means of the false standards of a hypocritical ethics. The aim is no longer the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” because this project has failed, but the “dictatorship of political correctness” whose supreme authority lies in the hands of the cultural Marxists. As a new class of priests, the guardians of the new orthodoxy rule the institutions whose power they try to extend over all parts of the society. The moral destruction of the individual is a necessary step to accomplish the final victory.

Opium of the Intellectuals

The believers of neo-Marxism are mainly intellectuals. Workers, after all, are a part of the economic reality of the production process and know that the socialist promises are rubbish. Nowhere was socialism established as the result of a labor movement. The workers have never been the perpetrators of socialism but always its victim. The leaders of the revolution have been intellectual party politicians and military men. It was up to the writers and artists to conceal the brutality of the socialist regimes through articles and books and by films, music, and paintings, and to give socialism a scientific-intellectual, aesthetic and moral appearance. In the socialist propaganda, the new system appears to be both fair and productive.

The cultural Marxists believe that someday they will be the sole holders of power and be able to dictate to the masses how to live and what to think. Yet the neo-Marxist intellectuals are in for a surprise. When socialism should come indeed, the “dictatorship of the intellectuals” will be anything but benign — and not much different from what happened after the Soviets took power. The intellectuals will be among the victims. This was, after all, the way as it had happened in the French Revolution, which was the first attempt of a revolution by intellectuals.  Many of the victims of the guillotine were prominent intellectuals who had earlier supported the revolution — Robespierre among them.

In his play about “Danton’s Death,” the dramatist Georg Büchner famously had a person say: “Like Saturn, the revolution devours its own children.” Yet more appropriately one should say that the revolution eats its spiritual fathers. The very same intellectuals who nowadays promote cultural Marxism will be the first in line if their project of conquest should succeed.

Conclusion

Contrary to what Marx believed, history is not pre-determined. The march through the institutions has gone far but there is not yet been a full take-over. There is still time to change course. To counteract the movement, one must note the inherent weakness of cultural Marxism. To the extent that the neo-Marxists altered classical Marxism and eliminated its basic tenets (deepening proletarianization, historical determinism, total collapse of capitalism), the movement has become even more utopian than previously socialism ever was.

As the successors of the New Left, the “democratic socialists” of the present time propagate a hodgepodge of contradictory positions. Because of the character of this movement as a promoter of group conflict, neo-Marxism is ineffectual to serve as an instrument of gaining coherent political power as it were necessary for a dictatorship. Yet this does not mean that the neo-Marxist movement has no impact. On the contrary: because of its inherent contradictions, the ideology of cultural Marxism is the main source of the profound confusion that has grabbed almost every segment of the modern Western societies and which is about to swell into even more dangerous proportions.

About the author:
*Antony P. Mueller is a German professor of economics who currently teaches in Brazil. See his website www.capitalstudies.org or send e-mail to: antonymueller@gmx.com.

Source:
This article was published by the MISES Institute

By Hannah Brockhaus

Pope Francis accepted the resignation of Washington’s Cardinal Donald Wuerl on Friday, while asking the cardinal to continue leading the Archdiocese of Washington on an interim basis until a permanent successor is appointed.

In a letter to Wuerl obtained by CNA Oct. 12, Pope Francis told the cardinal: “Your renunciation is a sign of your availability and docility to the Spirit who continues to act in his Church.”

“In accepting your resignation, I ask you to remain as Apostolic Administrator of the Archdiocese until the appointment of your successor.”

Wuerl, 77, originally submitted his resignation on Nov. 12, 2015, when he turned 75 years old, as required by canon law.

The pope said Friday that he had also received a Sept. 21 request from Wuerl that his resignation be accepted.

“This request rests on two pillars that have marked and continue to mark your ministry: to seek in all things the greater glory of God and to procure the good of the people entrusted to your care,” Pope Francis wrote.

In the Oct. 12 letter accepting Wuerl’s resignation, Francis defended the cardinal from the widespread criticism he has faced in recent months.

“You have sufficient elements to ‘justify’ your actions and distinguish between what it means to cover up crimes or not to deal with problems, and to commit some mistakes.”

“However, your nobility has led you not to choose this way of defense. Of this, I am proud and thank you.”

“Your renunciation is a sign of your availability and docility to the Spirit who continues to act in his Church,” he added.

In an Oct. 12 statement, Wuerl wrote that “the Holy Father’s decision to provide new leadership to the Archdiocese can allow all of the faithful, clergy, religious and lay, to focus on healing and the future. It permits this local Church to move forward.”

“Once again for any past errors in judgment I apologize and ask for pardon. My resignation is one way to express my great and abiding love for you the people of the Church of Washington.”

The cardinal has been the subject of criticism since late June, when revelations about alleged sexual misconduct on the part of his predecessor, Archbishop Theodore McCarrick, raised questions about what Wuerl knew about McCarrick, and how he responded to that knowledge.

The Aug.14 release of a grand jury report detailing decades of abuse allegations in six Pennsylvania dioceses put under close scrutiny Wuerl’s record as Bishop of Pittsburgh, where he served from 1988 to 2006. Some cases in the report raised concerns that Wuerl had allowed priests accused of abuse to remain in ministry after allegations had been made against them.

Those factors led to calls for Wuerl’s resignation and demonstrations outside of his Washington residence.

After Wuerl made a trip to Rome in late August, media reports said that Pope Francis had instructed the cardinal to consult with Washington clergy about the best way forward for him and the archdiocese.

In a Sept. 11 letter to DC priests written after a private meeting with them, Wuerl said that he would soon meet with the pope to discuss his future, but did not immediately state that he would ask the pope to allow him to resign. A spokesman for Wuerl confirmed to CNA Sept. 12 that the cardinal intended to formally ask Pope Francis to allow him to step down.

It is widely believed that Wuerl hoped to remain in his position at least until the fall meeting of the U.S. bishops’ conference in November. That session is expected to focus on the fallout of the recent sexual abuse crises, and Wuerl is said to want to play an active part in helping the Church respond.

As apostolic administrator, Wuerl will continue to lead the day-to-day activities of the archdiocese, but will not be permitted to make any major changes.

If a successor is not appointed and installed before Nov. 13, the apostolic administrator will attend the bishops’ conference annual meeting as the representative of the Archdiocese of Washington.

The auxiliary bishops of Washington also released a statement Friday, saying the cardinal’s “pastoral and spiritual leadership in the archdiocese is well appreciated.”

“We believe that Cardinal Wuerl’s decision to request that the Holy Father, Pope Francis, accept the resignation he first offered years ago is a clear manifestation of his love and concern for the people of this archdiocese,” wrote Bishops Mario E. Dorsonville, Roy E. Campbell Jr., and Michael W. Fisher.

Kim Viti Fiorentino, chancellor and general counsel of the Archdiocese of Washington, said in a statement Oct. 12 that the archdiocese has “been profoundly blessed to have this great priest as our archbishop.”

“His final decision to act in favor of the people he loved and served for twelve years is the most eloquent witness to the integrity of his ministry and his legacy,” she continued. “I am truly thankful for his steadfast fidelity and his courageous and sacrificial commitment to the future of the Church in Washington.”

A native of Pittsburgh, Penn., Wuerl studied at the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. and at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome. He was ordained a priest for the Diocese of Pittsburgh in 1966 and went on to receive a doctorate in 1974.

In the 1990s Wuerl hosted the television program, “The Teaching of Christ.” He also wrote a best-selling adult catechism of the same name, and has since more than 20 other books.

Wuerl was appointed an auxiliary bishop in the Archdiocese of Seattle in 1986, following a Vatican investigation into Seattle’s Archbishop Raymond Hunthausen. Wuerl was charged with special responsibility for five problem areas in the archdiocese: liturgy, the tribunal, priest formation, moral and bioethical issues in Catholic hospitals, and ministry and teaching concerning homosexuality. The appointment generated serious conflict among Hunthausen’s supporters, and Wuerl was relieved of his responsibility in 1987.

He was appointed Bishop of Pittsburgh in 1988. He held this position until he was appointed in May 2006 to head the Archdiocese of Washington. He was named a cardinal by Pope Benedict XVI on Nov. 20, 2010.

The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that front runners to replace Wuerl include Cardinal Joseph Tobin of Newark, Bishop Robert McElroy of San Diego, and Bishop Frank Caggiano of Bridgeport, Connecticut.

Wuerl is a member of several Vatican departments, including the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and the Congregation for Bishops.

CNA’s Courtney Grogan contributed to this report.

India imported 528,000 bpd of Iranian oil in September, up by 1 percent from August, due to delays of some August cargoes until Indian refiners received the government nod to import Iran’s oil on Iranian tankers with Iranian insurance, a report said.

India’s imports in August stood at 523,000 bpd, down by 32 percent compared to July, after the United States increased pressure on Iranian oil customers to significantly scale down purchases and outright stop buying Iranian oil with the US sanctions on Tehran returning in early November, Reuters reported on Thursday, citing tanker data by shipping and industry sources.

Some 44 percent of the oil from Iran that arrived in India last month was initially planned to arrive in August, according to the tanker data and officials at two Indian state-run refiners.

According to a Reuters source with an Indian state refiner, buyers had to delay some August loadings from Iran to later in August or early September, because they were still waiting for government approval to import Iranian oil with Iranian insurance and tankers.

“We could not lift full volumes in August because of this,” the source told Reuters.

Reports emerged in early September that India had given permission to state-owned refiners to import oil from Iran on Iranian tankers using Iranian-backed insurance, after the biggest Indian shipping company backed out of Iran voyages due to the US sanctions.

India is Iran’s second-largest single oil customer after China and was expected to cut back on Iranian oil purchases, but is unlikely to cut off completely the cheap Iranian oil that is suitable for its refineries.

Earlier this week, Indian officials said that they hoped India could secure a waiver from the United States, because it has significantly reduced purchases of Iranian oil. Late last week, the United States hinted that it was at least considering waivers.

Saudi Arabia’s minister of interior, Prince Abdulaziz bin Saud bin Naif bin Abdulaziz, on Saturday denounced the “false accusations” being circulated in some media outlets linking the Saudi government and people to the disappearance of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

News reports about orders to kill Khashoggi “are lies and baseless allegations”, the minister said in a statement carried by the Saudi Press Agency (SPA).

He said the government of Saudi Arabia is “committed to its principles, rules and traditions and is in compliance with international laws and conventions.”

Prince Abdulaziz noted that Saudi Arabia and Turkey have agree to conduct a joint investigation and it is important for the media to report only the facts and “not to affect the paths of investigation and judicial proceedings.”

“He also stressed the Kingdom’s keenness on the interest of its citizens at home and abroad and its keenness in particular to clarify the whole truth about the disappearance of the citizen Jamal Khashoggi,” the SPA report said.

Khashoggi, a Saudi national and journalist who had been based in the US, has been missing since Oct. 2, when he visited the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul to secure divorce papers.

Turkey said on Thursday it had accepted a proposal from Saudi Arabia to cooperate on the investigation.

A security delegation consisting of Saudi investigators arrived in Istanbul on Saturday to participate in the investigations.

By Faisal J. Abbas*

Let us start with the obvious: There is certainly much more than meets the eye when it comes to the disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi.

As a friend, a fellow journalist — and a former deputy editor of Arab News — his sudden vanishing certainly raises serious concerns, particularly as the incident happened in Turkey, a country known for its hostility toward the media.

Indeed, it is surreal that the Turkish authorities are suddenly championing freedom of expression. One would think they ought to start with looking in their own back garden.

More importantly, Khashoggi is not a Turkish citizen but a Saudi one. We should not forget that the Kingdom has instructed an official investigation to take place. Riyadh has also, through its ambassador in the US, which was Khashoggi’s last place of residence, expressed solidarity and great concern about his disappearance.

The only thing Saudi Arabia is not doing is responding to every piece of unsubstantiated reporting or wild claims out there. Emotions aside, this is the correct thing to do. After all, there is a formal investigation in place and it must be allowed to be conducted without interruptions or distractions.

Of course, the Saudi silence may trigger people to point fingers. This is understandable, given that Khashoggi was last seen entering the consulate in Istanbul more than a week ago. There is also the fact that he had been critical of the government since he moved to the US late last year.

Yet people forget that Khashoggi was part of the establishment until recently. He left the Kingdom — voluntarily — at around the same time the Anti-Terror Quartet (comprising Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain and Egypt) decided to impose a boycott on Qatar which, along with Turkey, supported the Muslim Brotherhood.

Khashoggi also expressed — via his official Twitter account — unfavorable views that could have been deemed sympathetic to Al-Qaeda and Daesh. In other words, he was more than just a journalist and somewhat of a political Islam activist as well.

So, while on one hand concerned journalists have a right to question Khashoggi’s disappearance, we should not ignore that there is also much at play here from a Qatari point of view considering Khashoggi’s political affiliations, and his most recent stance which was critical of Riyadh.

Was his vanishing used to embarrass Saudi Arabia? As we wait for the facts to unravel, what is clear is that this is definitely the case, at least from Al Jazeera and other Qatari media outlets’ way of reporting unconfirmed facts and relying on speculation and anonymous sources.

This is not the first time Doha, in particular, has tried to undermine the change happening in Saudi Arabia. It has resorted to every possible method of standing in the way of Riyadh’s sweeping reforms. It has constantly tried to portray the Kingdom as the aggressor, ignoring — in the case of the boycott — that there are written confessions signed by Qatari Emir Sheikh Tamim himself pledging to stop meddling in the internal affairs of neighboring states.

There is no question that the Saudi authorities are doing — and will do — everything possible to resolve the mystery behind Khashoggi’s disappearance.
There is a team working alongside Turkish authorities to find out what it can. In the meantime, the only thing that can be said is that my thoughts and prayers are with the Khashoggi family at this very difficult time.

• Faisal J. Abbas is the Editor in Chief of Arab News. Twitter: @FaisalJAbbas

Pakistan’s demographic makeup, with ethnic groups spread across borders, contributes to security and governance challenges.

By Riaz Hassan*

Of Pakistan’s many problems nothing is perhaps as enduring or as debilitating as the conflictual relationship between its civilian leadership and the military. Unlike in most democratic countries, Pakistan’s elected civilian government rarely commands the gun. Scholarly debates and analyses have identified multiple reasons including weak political institutions and parties, incompetent political leadership, the entrenched power of the civil-military bureaucracy, and threats to Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Other contingent factors arising from the country’s demography and geography contribute to Pakistan’s difficulties, but are rarely given attention for shaping the civil-military relations, governance and security challenges that the Pakistani state has faced from the onset. The imperatives of geography, demography and security play a critical but varying role in shaping relations between civilian and military leaders in other countries as well.

Weak institutions are often attributed to the lack of well-established political parties headed by competent leaders. This, in turn, has failed to develop the basis for a robust and effective political and constitutional system, seriously impeding the government’s ability to respond to a myriad of internal and external challenges it faces related to national cohesion and integration, ethnic tensions, sectarianism, regional inequalities and international relations. In this space the bureaucratic military elite has become steadily more assertive, increasing its power at the expense of the country’s political elite.

The military is Pakistan’s most trusted, disciplined and cohesive Institution. Its composition closely corresponds to Pakistan’s demography. At 57 percent Punjabis make the majority followed by Sindhis, 17 percent; Pasthun, 15 percent; Kashmiris, 9 percent; and Balochis, 3 percent.

Between 1980 and 2000 four democratically elected governments were dismissed by the country’s presidents on charges of corruption, inefficiency and an inability to meet security challenges. This resulted in the strengthening of the civil-military bureaucracy. Indeed, civilian bureaucrats or military generals have governed Pakistan for almost 45 of its 70 years. These factors have undoubtedly played a role in shaping civil-military relations in Pakistan.

Before the July national elections Pakistani media were replete with stories about the army’s role in the removal of Nawaz Sharif as prime minster and the support of his archrival and now prime minister – Imran Khan, a Pashtun with strong family roots in the Punjab. The army of course vehemently denies these allegations. But perceptions matter.

The Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of the States, a treaty signed in 1933, defines a state as possessing a permanent population, a defined territory and a government capable of maintaining effective control over its corresponding territory and conducting international relations with other states.

The most striking aspect of Pakistan’s demography is that it is made up of six “nations,” each divided between two or, in the case of Balochis, three countries. All are predominantly Islamic, but also endowed with their own distinct, historically grounded cultural identities. The geographical contour of Pakistan and its demographic heterogeneity has had profound implications for Pakistani’s territorial integrity, social cohesion, political stability, security and international relations – and the table shows the geographical contour of the state of Pakistan and the ethnic heterogeneity of its population.

Kashmir has been a source of intermittent military skirmishes and conflicts with India since 1947, and these have been the source of Pakistan’s deteriorating relations with its neighbor. The area remains a major political and security challenge for Pakistan. Baluchistan, Pakistan’s largest province, resource-rich and sparsely populated, straddles Pakistan and Iran. Around 75 percent of the Balochi population resides in Pakistan, while the rest live in Iran and Afghanistan. It too has been a site of decades of ethnic conflict with the Pakistani government over regional inequalities and the exploitation of its mineral and gas resources, which failed to deliver real economic and social benefits to Balochis. The Pakistani army has carried out numerous operations in the province under the rubric of counterterrorism, only serving to heighten ethnic tensions. The province also continues to be a site of incidents carried by Balochi nationalists.

But perhaps the most serious political challenge facing Pakistan concerns the conflict in Afghanistan, which, like the other disputes, also shares a significant demographic dimension. The Pashtun nation consists of approximately 45 million people. Pakistan is home to 31 million Pashtuns, about 70 percent of the population, with Afghanistan home to another 14 million or about 30 percent. The Pashtuns are overwhelmingly a tribal society, their identity grounded in the historical memory of a common lineage, Islam and the over-arching universal tribal code of Pashtunwali. These features constitute the social and cultural “glue” of solidarity among the Pashtuns of both countries.

While Pashtunwali rules are not a detailed legal code, they provide an all-encompassing framework for behavior and managing conflicts in Pashtun society. According to the code, when one’s honor is harmed, a person has a duty to respond by seeking revenge greater than the original slight. This dynamic offers deeper insight into the Taliban insurgency. Most Pashtuns are deeply conservative and strongly attached to their tribal values. Moreover, the majority of Taliban fighters are Pashtuns in culture and character, with a deep sense of shared identity. They are outraged by those who usurp their autonomy and denigrate their culture. The core logic of the Taliban insurgency is that they fight for the defense of their country, honor and religion, to avenge the deaths of relatives killed by Western forces and allies alike.

The proxy wars between the United States and the Soviet Union in Afghanistan following occupation in 1979 by Russia and after 2001 by the United States, its allies and the Taliban have made Pakistan an intersection of several global fault-lines. This, too, has had serious consequences for its economy, political stability, sovereignty and territorial integrity. Under these conditions, and in the face of the external threat of aggression and war, the Pakistani military has been obliged to perform its constitutional duty to ensure national security and unity, and to assist the government in its humanitarian mission. The conditions in Afghanistan, over which Pakistan has no real control, have compounded the problems of chronic political instability and difficult civil-military relations.

In conclusion, weak political institutions and parties and incompetent leadership as well as the country’s geography and demography contribute to governmental failings and complex civil-military relations in Pakistan. This reality is reflected in public opinion polls that show a low level of trust in the government at 36 percent along with parliament, 27 percent; political parties, 30 percent; and politicians, 27 percent. In this context the most trusted institution in the country is Pakistan’s army, which is trusted by 82 percent of the population. But despite the lack of confidence in political intuitions and high trust in the army, most Pakistanis do trust democracy. According to a December 2017 Gallup Poll, 81 percent of Pakistanis prefer democracy, while only 19 percent would rather have a military dictatorship. Recent electoral developments suggest that Pakistan may be heading towards sustainable democracy.

(RFE/RL) — Russia’s space agency says that it has suspended all Soyuz launches pending an investigation into the problem that forced a harrowing emergency landing, but the head of its manned program said Moscow still hopes to send a crew to the International Space Station (ISS) in December.

Meanwhile, Jim Bridenstine, the chief of U.S. space agency NASA, praised the Russian space program and said he also expected a new crew to go to the ISS in December despite the incident.

“I fully anticipate that we will fly again on a Soyuz rocket and I have no reason to believe at this point that it will not be on schedule,” he told reporters in Moscow.

Roskosmos announced the suspension on October 12, a day after U.S. astronaut Nick Hague and Russian cosmonaut Aleksei Ovchinin returned safely to Earth in a “ballistic descent” after their flight was aborted following lift-off from the Baikonur facility in Kazakhstan a day earlier.

The agency said the emergency was caused by a collision of the first and second stages of the rocket during the first stage separation.

Hague and Ovchinin arrived on October 12 at the Russian space center for medical checks following the failed launch.

U.S. and Russian space officials said the two were in good condition even though they experienced a gravitational force that was six to seven times more than is felt on Earth.

The failed launch left it unclear when the next manned mission could be sent to the ISS, whose current crew had been slated to return from the station in December.

Sergei Krikalyov, the cosmonaut who heads the manned spaceflight program at Roskosmos, said that the next manned mission to the ISS had been scheduled for December “and we are still counting on that date,” the state-run news agency TASS reported.

However, he added: “Of course, it will all depend on the results of the [investigation]” into the October 11 debacle.

He said it was likely that, if a crew is sent to the the ISS in December, it will be the astronauts who had been ready as backups for Hague and Ovchinin.

String Of Planned Launches

Meanwhile, Roskosmos chief Dmitry Rogozin said on Twitter that space authorities plan to send Ovchinin and Hague up in the spring of 2019.

The two men “will definitely have their flight,” he tweeted.

“We plan to organize the flight in the spring of next year,” Rogozin tweeted.

While Russian rockets have experienced an array of glitches in recent years, the latest mishap was the first to be experienced by a manned Soyuz space mission since 1983, when a crew narrowly escaped before a launchpad explosion.

The suspension of Soyuz flights could affect a string of planned launches and returns to Earth. While Krikalyov did not give a specific date, the next Soyuz mission had been scheduled for December 20 and was supposed to take a new three-person crew to the International Space Station.

ISS Operations Integration Manager Kenny Todd told a press briefing in Houston late on October 11 that it’s not clear how long the Soyuz operations will be grounded.

“If it’s two months or six, I really can’t speculate on that,” he said. “The fact that this crew didn’t get to orbit, we feel bad for them. But we have confidence that our Russian colleagues will figure out what’s going on and we’ll hopefully see Nick and Aleksei in orbit at the space station soon.”

The European Space Agency is making contingency plans for three current space station crew members — German Alexander Gerst, American Serena Aunon-Chancellor, and Russian Sergei Prokopyev.

They all were scheduled to return to Earth in mid-December, but may have to stay aboard the station longer. There is enough food for the crew to last several months as the station is regularly resupplied by unmanned Japanese and American spacecraft.

But Todd said NASA is dusting off its plans for operating the space station without a crew, just in case the Russian investigation drags into next year.

He said the current space station crew can stay on board only until January — just a month beyond their scheduled December return — because their Soyuz capsule, which has been docked at the station since June, has limited battery life and is only good for about 200 days in orbit.

$100 Billion Asset

If the Russian rockets remain grounded until it’s time for the crew to come home, flight controllers could operate the station without anyone on board, Todd said. It could operate like that for a long time, barring a major equipment failure, he said.

But it will need to be staffed again before private space companies SpaceX or Boeing launch their planned manned missions next year, Todd said.

Given that the space station is a $100 billion asset, he said, it needs to have someone on board for the arrival of the first commercial manned missions, for safety reasons.

NASA mothballed its space-shuttle program in 2011, and since then has been paying Russia about $80 million for each trip ferrying a U.S. astronaut to the station.

The contract with Russia ends in late 2019, and the U.S. space agency has deals with the two American companies to step in at that point.

Sending astronauts to the ISS will be a first for a privately owned company.

Elon Musk’s SpaceX will be using its Falcon 9 rockets. Since 2012, SpaceX has launched satellites for NASA, and has carried out 16 resupply missions to the space station.

An unmanned Falcon 9 rocket carrying a Dragon capsule is scheduled for launch in January 2019, with a similar manned launch set for June 2019.

For Boeing, launches are set for March and August 2019.

Despite NASA’s publicly expressed confidence about the effects of a suspension in Russian Soyuz launches, some space officials expressed concern privately that it could affect important scientific research that is being conducted on board the station, which serves as an orbiting laboratory in space.

Moreover, both SpaceX’s and Boeing’s rocket programs have run into delays, as is often the case in the aerospace industry.

Any further delay of planned launches by SpaceX or Boeing could hold up the approval of their manned launch programs. This could mean that the first astronaut they would send into orbit would not depart until 2020 instead of 2019.

By Peerzada Mohammad Amin

A former PhD student who became a militant leader in Indian Kashmir was shot dead with an aide during a gunfight with security forces on Thursday, while scores of anti-India protesters were injured in clashes that followed the killings, police said.

Manan Bashir Wani, 27, who became a top commander of militant group Hizbul Mujahideen (HM) after quitting his doctoral studies in applied geology early this year, was killed in northern Kupwara district, authorities said. The suspected aide who died alongside him was identified as Ashiq Hussain.

At least two dozen protesters were injured when police used smoke shells to disperse stone-hurling demonstrators in north Kashmir, officials said.

Police opened fire after Wani and his aide refused to surrender in north Kashmir’s Handwara town, authorities said.

“They were offered many chances to surrender and return to the mainstream, but they challenged the security forces and engaged in a gunfight,” Munir Khan, additional director general of police, told BenarNews. ”Both were killed in the retaliatory action.”

“Any local militant who is ready to give up arms and come back to the mainstream will be properly rehabilitated,” he said. “Misguided youth must realize that violence is not a solution to any problem and it can lead to death and destruction.”

Security has been beefed up in the disputed Himalayan region ahead of the third phase of civic polls scheduled for Saturday.

Amid a shutdown of shops and businesses called by militants, barely 3.4 per cent of the registered electorate cast their votes during the second phase of polling on Wednesday. Militants have asked the people of Kashmir to boycott the polls.

‘Chose death over life’

In January, a photo showing Wani holding an assault rifle and bearing a message that he had joined Hizbul Mujahideen – the largest and oldest of the militant groups in Indian Kashmir – went viral on social media, as news circulated that he had abandoned his pursuit of a PhD at Aligarh Muslim University in India’s Uttar Pradesh state to take up the armed separatist cause.

“His decision to join militant ranks has left me shocked and heart-broken. With folded hands I appeal to him to leave the path of violence and return home,” Shamima Begum, Wani’s mother, told BenarNews at the time.

“He has been a top student since his childhood. We were expecting that he would enter the civil service and make the family proud. But his step to join HM has shattered us,” she said.

‘Chose death over life’

On Thursday, separatist leaders in Kashmir condemned the killings of Wani and Hussain and called for a shutdown on Friday in their memory. There were protests in Srinagar too by university students.

Authorities have ordered educational institutions across Kashmir to be closed on Friday, and also suspended mobile internet service in north Kashmir following the killings.

Meanwhile, suspected militants on Thursday shot and killed a separatist leader in south Kashmir’s Shopian district, police said. He was identified as Tariq Ahmad Ganie.

India has deployed thousands of additional troops in the region to safeguard the civic polls currently under way. The polls conclude on Oct.16. Village administration-level polls are scheduled for next month.

Both India and arch rival Pakistan have territorial claims on Kashmir and have fought wars over it. More than 70,000 people, mostly civilians have been killed during the insurgency in the region over the last three decades.

Reacting to Wani’s killing, Mehbooba Mufti, the former chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir state, urged India’s leadership to hold a dialogue with stakeholders including Pakistan to resolve the Kashmir issue.

“Now a PhD scholar, killed in a gunfight, chose death over life. His death is entirely our loss as we are losing young educated boys to violence every day,” she tweeted. “It is high time that all leadership in the country realize the gravity of this situation and facilitate a solution through dialogue with all the stake holders including Pakistan to end this bloodshed.”

Lawmaker Engineer Rashid condemned Wani’s killing and called for an end to bloodshed.

“Every time Indian security forces kill a militant, the leadership claims normalcy was returning to Kashmir,” Rashid said in a statement.

“Killing of militants is not a success but it adds to the alienation among the youths. It is high time India should realize that the Kashmir issue is a major source of discontent in the sub-continent and lasting peace can be restored only after its resolution,” he said.

The decision of global Orthodoxy’s nominal leader to grant the Ukrainian Orthodox Church independence from Moscow will pit Orthodox churches against each other in the Balkans.

By Marcus Tanner

Small actions can have huge consequences when it comes to churches. When a papal delegate slammed a formal notice of excommunication on the high altar of the main church in Constantinople in 1054 – although he surely did not appreciate it – that one act began the “Great Schism” – the separation of the Church into Orthodox and Catholic Churches that has lasted now for almost a thousand years.

The Ecumenical Patriarch’s own act this week in recognizing the independence, or autocephaly, of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine, may turn out to be less seismic – but is still threatens to cause a major split in the world’s Orthodox churches.

The decision made by Patriarch Bartholomew, the nominal leader of global Orthodoxy, flies in the face of the express wishes of the Russian Orthodox Church, which bitterly contests the Ukrainian Church’s right to run its own affairs.

Besides infuriating Russia, Bartholomew’s decree will have knock-on effects all over the Balkans, where churches will now feel pressure to line up behind Constantinople or Moscow.

Besides splitting the Balkan Orthodox churches into pro- and anti-Moscow camps, the Ukrainian Church independence will have another important effect.

The Balkans is home to at least three churches with their own aspirations to autocephaly – in Macedonia, Montenegro and Moldova – which will all now feel emboldened in their own campaigns to win the same privilege as Ukraine.

The Patriarch’s decision, announced on Thursday at the end of a three-day synod in Istanbul, follows a determined campaign by Ukraine’s government to bolster national unity though the creation of a church that is no longer subordinate to the Moscow Patriarchate.

The Kiev government has increasingly accused clerics loyal to Moscow of aiding and abetting the Russian takeover of Crimea in 2014 and of supporting pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine.

Meanwhile, the Russian Church has also upped the ante, warning of bloodshed if what it calls Ukrainian “schismatics” try to take over Russian parishes and monasteries in Ukraine – a land that many Russians still view as the cradle of the Russian nation and the Russian Church.

What percentage of clergy, parishes and laity in Ukraine will go over to the independent church remains a moot point – though it is a safe bet that Russian-speaking congregations will resist enforced separation from Moscow.

Serbia lines up with Russia

But the problem for the Orthodox Church is that the dispute will not be confined to Ukraine, or the two rival patriarchs of Moscow and Constantinople.

Other churches are being drawn into the feud.

Serbia and Russia are historically close Slavic nations and – with an eye on its own breakaway churches in Montenegro and Macedonia – Serbia’s Patriarch has already condemned the Ukrainian Church’s quest for independence.

In a protest letter sent to Bartholomew in September, Patriarch Irinej condemned talk of Ukrainian Church independence as “disastrous”, adding – controversially – that most of the states now claiming their own churches were “created by communists and are led now by atheists”.

Besides its own traditional loyalty to Moscow, the Serbian Church does not want to see any encouragement being given to the Macedonian Orthodox Church, which broke way from the Serbian Church in the 1960s, or to the much smaller Montenegrin Orthodox Church, which revived itself in the 1990s, having been suppressed after Montenegro was united to Serbia after World War I.

The breakaway Montenegrin Orthodox Church is only a small irritant, as most Orthodox believers in this country still remain loyal to the Serbian Church, while the government has not got very involved.

The Macedonian Church’s claim to autocephaly is much more serious. With the strong support of the Macedonian state authorities, the Macedonian Orthodox Church has long had complete control over the local church infrastructure.

The worry in Belgrade is that Bartholomew, alienated by the Serbian Church’s staunchly Russophile views, will start sending approving signals to the Church in Macedonia.

The Bulgarian Church, meanwhile, appears internally divided, with some bishops lining up with Russia and Serbia, and accusing the Ecumenical Patriarch of acting unilaterally – and others preferring to duck the issue, or pass it to an Ecumenical Church Council.

On October 3, the Church’s Holy Synod voted not to discuss the matter of the Ukrainian Church – but three dissenting bishops released their own statement on October 10, denouncing Bartholomew.

“The Patriarchate of Constantinople has no right to enter into a foreign canonical territory and begin communications with Ukrainian schismatics, ignoring the only canonical hierarchy in Ukraine,” the trio said

Romanians and Greeks in a dilemma

The decision presents a dilemma for other churches in the Balkans as well.

The important Greek Church will also be torn; the Ecumenical Patriarchs have always been Greeks, but there is also a strong pro-Russian and pro-Serbian sentiment in the Church.

With the country still locked in a political dispute with Macedonia, over its name, the Greek Church will not want to see such a torch-bearer for Macedonian nationalism as the Macedonian Church getting any encouragement – or reward.

With Serbia and Bulgaria in one camp, and Greece likely feeling torn, the reaction of the Romanian Orthodox Church could be pivotal in determining whether Bartholomew emerges from this fierce dispute with important allies.

The powerful and numerically important Romanian Church is traditionally less allied to Moscow than the churches in Serbia and Bulgaria. It is also engaged in an uneasy face-off with the Moscow Patriarchate over the church in Moldova. It may well, therefore, feel reluctant to take sides.

Interestingly, President Petro Peroshenko of Ukraine’s visit to Romania in 2106 included talks with Romanian Patriarch Daniel, where he expressly brought up the Ukrainian Church’s quest for independence.

Equally interestingly, the Romanian Church’s official website reported the President’s request without comment or any reference to “schismatics”, noting only: “the Ukrainian President requested the Patriarch of Romania to support and facilitate the achievement of the endeavour of Ukrainians to have a united Orthodox Church”.

Even if the Romanians do not join the chorus of condemnation, however, in the short term the Ecumenical Patriarch seems to have isolated himself, with most big guns in the region – Russia, Serbia and Bulgaria – lined up against him.

The Russian Orthodox Church’s guns are by far the biggest of all. The Moscow Patriarch commands the allegiance of more than half of the world’s Orthodox believers and has immense political and financial resources.

His beleaguered rival sits in the hostile territory of Muslim Turkey, which has never concealed its long-term aim of eventually expelling this reminder of Istanbul’s former status as capital of the Christian Byzantine Empire.

As Turkey insists that the Patriarch must be a Turkish citizen – and as only a few thousand Orthodox believers now remain in Turkey – Bartholomew may turn out to be “the last Patriarch of Constantinople”, as a CNN report in 2010 noted. Moreover, Bartholomew himself is now 78.

On the other hand, it is hard to see how a decree of autocephaly – once issued – can now be rescinded or just forgotten.

In that sense, the independent Church of Ukraine is likely here to stay. Last patriarch or not – Bartholomew has certainly left his mark.

*Marcus Tanner is an editor of Balkan Insight and the author of “Albania’s Mountain Queen, Edith Durham and the Balkans” [Tauris].

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton no longer has a security clearance. Five of her former aides also lost theirs, following a scandal over her use of a private email server while running the State Department.

Clinton’s security clearance “has been withdrawn at her request,” the Senate Judiciary Committee revealed on Friday, citing a State Department note dated September 21 .

The State Department document, doesn’t say anything about Clinton’s request, however, only that her clearance was “administratively withdrawn” on August 30, 2018, as part of the ongoing review of how Clinton and her staff handled classified documents using a private email server during her tenure.

“Clearances for five other individuals whom Clinton designated as researchers have also been withdrawn, including close aide Cheryl Mills,” the committee said. The State Department letter shows that this happened on September 20. The names of four other aides were redacted without explanation.

This timeline means that Clinton’s clearance was withdrawn two weeks after the Trump administration announced it would revoke the clearance of former CIA chief John Brennan, citing “the risks posed by his erratic conduct and behavior.” After resigning from the CIA, Brennan launched a career as a cable news pundit, criticizing Trump at every step and even accusing the president of treason over his summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in July.

The White House said it would look into revoking the clearances of several other Obama administration officials, though no further withdrawals have been announced since.

Clinton served as the helm of the State Department from January 2009 to February 2013, when she resigned to launch her 2016 presidential bid. She has not held a government post since. By Washington custom, former officials retain their security clearances in case their successors need advice on sensitive matters, though that practice is being challenged under Trump.

Though she does not have an official role in the DNC, Clinton remains engaged in politics. Most recently, she said that Democrats should forego civility until they win in the November midterms, because Republicans are an “ideological party that is driven by the lust for power.”

“You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about,” Clinton told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour.

The use of a private email server by Clinton and a number of her aides – including confidant Huma Abedin – was first revealed in 2013, when Romanian hacker Marcel Lazar Lehel (aka Guccifer) leaked a number of messages from clintonemail.com.

By 2015, House Republicans investigating the 2012 Benghazi attacks established that Clinton had almost exclusively used the server run from her Chappaqua, New York home instead of the secure State Department network. Clinton finally admitted the private server use in March 2015, months before Trump launched his presidential bid, but said that the messages did not contain classified information and that she meant no harm.

The FBI investigation did find classified messages among the thousands of emails. In July 2016, FBI Director James Comey publicly announced no charges would be filed in the case. The email scandal continued to dog Clinton to the very end of the campaign, however.

Russians are so accustomed to thinking about how cold the climate is in their country that they have assumed that global warming will bring mostly positive changes to their lives, but Stanislav Kuvaldin says that in fact global warning carries with it five serious risks for them, all of which will involve serious expenditures.

In a commentary on the Snob portal today, the Moscow writer outlines five of these risks, most of which are being ignored or at least downplayed by Russians today (snob.ru/entry/166809). They include:

First, while crop yields may go up in some areas if the climate warms, in others, there will be more droughts and far more insect damage. In the country’s prime bread basket regions, in particular, the Altay, Omsk Oblast and Stavropol kray, there will arise the risk of losing all or more of the crops and thus leaving Russians without enough domestically produced food.

Second, global warming in the northern portions of Russia will lead to the melting of the permafrost and the shifting of the ground under existing infrastructure including housing, industry and pipelines. As a result, some of these things will collapse, leaving people without housing or jobs and potentially destroying the ability of Russian firms to export oil and gas.

Third, many assume that global warming will make the Northern Sea Route even more profitable for Russia; but in fact, Kuvaldin says, the appearance of more ice-free water will lead to an intensification of storms making navigation more difficult and destroying much of the infrastructure along the already weakened coastline.

Fourth, there will be more forest fires, reducing Russian exports of lumber and paper products and leading to more erosion and destruction of the environment in large parts of the country. As a result, he says, Russians will have to spend more money to compensate for these losses and will face a reduction in the overall value of the country’s natural wealth.

And fifth, while urban residents may assume that climate change will not hit them as hard as those living in rural areas, they are wrong, Kuvaldin says. Global warming will generate more wild gyrations in temperature and that in turn will mean that urban dwellers will have to spend more to compensate by turning up and then turning down the heat far more often.

Moreover, he continues, such gyrations will force urban residents to invest more money in the upkeep of their buildings and even in the complete reconstruction of some of them, adding both insulation and heating and cooling devices that the residents have long been able to do without.

In short, Kuvaldin says, global warming is going to be anything but a positive development for Russians; and they need to focus on that rather than assume self-confidently that it will only work to their benefit even if it harms others.

As the frail body of 12-year-old Nassir Al-Mosabeh fell to the ground on Friday, September 28, history was repeating itself in a most tragic way.

Little Nassir was not just another number, a ‘martyr’ to be exalted by equally poor refugees in Gaza, or vilified by Israel and its tireless hasbara machine. He was much more than that.

The stream of blood that poured out from his head wound on that terrible afternoon drew a line in time that travelled back 18 years.

Almost 18-years to the day separates Nassir’s recent murder and the Israeli army killing of Mohammed Al-Durrah, also 12, on September 30, 2000. Between these dates, hundreds of Palestinian children have perished in similar ways.

Reports by the rights’ group, B’tselem, are rife with statistics: 954 Palestinian children were killed between the Second Intifada in 2000 and Israel’s war on Gaza, the so-called Operation Cast Lead in 2008. In the latter war alone, 345 child were reportedly killed, in addition to another 367 child fatalities reported in Israel’s latest war, ‘Protective Edge’ of 2014.

But Mohammed and Nassir – and thousands like them – are not mere numbers; they have more in common than simply being the ill-fated victims of trigger-happy Israeli soldiers.

In that single line of blood that links Nassir al-Mosabeh and Mohammed al-Durrah, there is a narrative so compelling, yet often neglected. The two 12-year-old boys looked so much alike – small, handsome, dark skinned refugees, whose families were driven from villages that were destroyed in 1948 to make room for today’s Israel.

Young as they were, both were victims of that reality. Mohammed, died while crouching by the side of his father, Jamal, as he beseeched the Israelis to stop shooting. 18 years later, Nassir walked with thousands of his peers to the fence separating besieged Gaza from Israel, stared at the face of the snipers and chanted for a free Palestine.

Between the two boys, the entire history of Palestine can be written, not only that of victimization and violence, but also of steadfastness and honor, passed from one generation to the next.

“Who will carry on with the dream,” were the words Nassir’s mother repeated, as she held a photograph of her son and wept. In the photo, Nassir is seen carrying his school bag, and a small bottle of rubbing alcohol near the fence separating Gaza and Israel.

“The dream” is a reference to the fact that Nassir wanted to be a doctor, thus his enthusiasm to help his two sisters, Dua’a and Islam, two medical volunteers at the fence.

His job was to carry the alcohol bottle and, sometimes, oxygen masks, as his sisters would rush to help the wounded, many of them Nassir’s age or even younger.

In a recent video message, the young boy – who had just celebrated the achievement of memorizing the entire Holy Quran – demonstrated in impeccable classical Arabic why a smile can be considered an act of charity.

Protesting the Israeli siege and the injustice of life in Gaza was a family affair, and Nassir played his role. His innovation of taping raw onions to his own face to counter the tears induced by the Israeli army tear gas garnered him much recognition among the protesters, who have been rallying against the siege since March 30.

So far, nearly 200 unarmed protesters have been killed while demanding an end to the 11-year long blockade and also to call for the ‘Right of Return’ for Palestinian refugees.

Nassir was the 34th child to be killed in cold-blood since the protests commenced, and will unlikely be the last to die.

When Mohammed al-Durrah was killed 18 years ago, the images of his father trying to shield his son’s body from Israeli bullets with his bare hands, left millions around the world speechless. The video, which was aired by France 2, left many with a sense of helplessness but, perhaps, the hope that the publicity that Mohammed’s televised murder had received could possibly shame Israel into ending its policy of targeting children.

Alas, that was never the case. After initially taking responsibility for killing Mohammed, a bogus Israeli army investigation concluded that the killing of Mohammed was a hoax, that Palestinians were to blame, that the France 2 journalist who shot the video was part of a conspiracy to ‘delegitimize Israel’.

Many were shocked by the degree of Israeli hubris, and the brazenness of their mouth- pieces around the western world who repeated such falsehood without any regard for morality or, even, common sense. But the Israeli discourse itself has been part of an ongoing war on Palestinian children.

Israeli and Zionist propagandists have long claimed that Palestinians teach their children to hate Jews.

The likes of Elliott Abrahms raged against Palestinian textbooks for “teaching children to value terrorism.” “That is not the way to prepare children for peace,” he wrote last year.

In July the Israeli army claimed that Palestinian children deliberately “lure IDF troops”, by staging fake riots, thus forcing them into violent confrontations.

The US-Israeli propaganda has not just targeted Palestinian fighters or factions, but has done its utmost to dehumanize, thus justify, the murder of Palestinian children as well.

“Children as young as 8 turned into bombers, shooters, stabbers,” reported one Adam Kredo in the Washington Free Beacon, citing a “new report on child terrorists and their enablers.”

This is not simply bad journalism, but part of a calculated Israeli campaign aimed at preemptively justifying the killing of children such as Nassir and Mohammed, and thousands like them.

It is that same ominous discourse that resulted in the call for genocide made by none other than Israel’s Justice Minister, Ayelet Shaked, where she also called on the slaughter of Palestinian mothers who give birth to “little snakes.”

The killing of Nassir and Mohammed should not then be viewed in the context of military operations gone awry, but in the inhuman official and media discourses that do not differentiate between a resistance fighter carrying a gun or a child carrying an onion and an oxygen mask.

Nor should we forget that Nassir al-Mosabeh and Mohammed al-Durrah are chapters in the same book, with an overlapping narrative that makes their story, although 18 years apart, one and the same.

By Enrico Trotta

In the wake of the Arab Spring, a fierce competition between regional powers, from Saudi Arabia to Qatar, started to play out in North Africa. While driven by differing and seldom conflicting motives, these competing actors were equally eager to capitalize on the post-2011 tumults to secure a firmer grip on the region. Crisis-laden countries like Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt, where the unrest erupted into full-fledged revolutions, turned into the backdrop against which opposing agendas sought to trump one another in the hopes of shaping post-revolutionary North Africa in the most advantageous way.

A multiplicity of factors contributed to setting in motion such a power struggle, not least the resurgence of political Islam in the Arab world since 2011. Indeed, the ascent of Islamist governments in Tunisia and Egypt, and potential repetitions in other areas of North Africa, opened the Pandora’s box of historical differences between the major Gulf actors. Indeed, on the one hand, the rising tide of political Islam augured well for Qatar and its long-standing ties with Islamist movements and organizations. Conversely, the Islamist turn taken by the Arab Spring constituted an ominous albatross for Saudi Arabia and the Emirates due to their avowed repudiation of political Islam.

As a result, Abu Dhabi, Doha, and Riyadh found themselves on a collision course in the aftermath of the Arab Spring. With an eye toward enhancing its clout in the region, Qatar seized upon the Islamist momentum by cultivating ties with post-Mubarak Egypt and post-Ben Ali Tunisia, where political Islam took the reins. Increasingly perturbed, Riyadh and Abu Dhabi set upon coalescing an anti-Islamist front in order to dilute the meteoric Islamist wave.

As the Gulf actors are still vying for influence and dominance, the North African chessboard has now turned into a no-win labyrinth. Neither the Saudi- and Emirates-led fold nor Qatar managed to piece together a coalition of staunch North African allies capable of furthering their respective agendas, i.e. combatting Islamism and Iranian influence for Saudi Arabia and the Emirates, and mitigating the economic and diplomatic fallout of the June 2017 embargo for Qatar. In Libya, the Emirates gambled on Haftar who, to date, has proved to be an integral component of the North African imbroglio rather than its solution. Following the Arab Spring, Qatar managed to entrench itself in Tunisia; however, its position now seems more precarious than ever as the pressure is mounting on the Islamist party Ennahda and the ongoing political showdown between President Essebsi and Prime Minister Chahed is setting the tone for the looming 2019 elections. While Saudi Arabia has already sensed the possibility of steering Tunisia away from Doha’s camp, Tunis’ fluctuations between Qatar and Saudi Arabia epitomize the adversities faced by the Gulf countries in attempting to firmly entrench themselves in North Africa. The North African actors appear unwilling to fully commit themselves to either camp and, as a consequence, nobody in the Gulf seems capable of coming out on top of the intricacies of the North African arena.

However, amid the intractable fluidity of the region, Saudi Arabia’s trump card in North Africa might be the Kingdom of Morocco. More stable than Tunisia, Algeria, and Libya on the political front, Rabat’s long-souring relationship with Iran complement Saudi Arabia’s agenda. Not only relations between the two kingdoms are historically amiable but, in addition, the North African kingdom seems less prone to fluctuate between the rival camps and more inclined to stick to Riyadh. As talks of an Arab NATO are making the rounds, Riyadh could even decide to build up Morocco as the North African linchpin of this embryonic regional military organization.

Saudi Arabia and Morocco bond over the Shia menace

Undoubtedly, the Saudi Royal family places a premium on Rabat’s confrontational posture vis-à-vis Iran. Morocco is the sole North African state having officially severed diplomatic relations with the Islamic Republic in May 2018, bringing to a close the attempt started in 2015 to normalize relations.

It is worthy of note that the icy relationship between Morocco and Iran dates back decades and the deep-seated animosity between the two countries might be key in preventing Rabat from mending fences with Iran in the foreseeable future. Historically, the 1979 Iranian revolution produced a first strain in Iranian-Moroccan relations, given the working ties between Rabat and the deposed Shah. Reza Pahlavi had assisted Rabat in quelling the Polisario threat and hence the Moroccan decision to shelter the Shah in the aftermath of the 1979 turmoil. After the dust of the Iranian revolution settled, the two countries temporary found themselves on the same page during the 1990 US-led intervention against Saddam Hussein’s occupation of Kuwait. Morocco deployed a contingent to Saudi Arabia to buttress Riyadh’s security vis-à-vis Iraq. For its part, Tehran breathed a sigh of relief at the curtailment of the Iraqi dictator’s expansionist agenda. The fragility of this rapprochement was quickly brought to the fore by the mass pro-Iraq demonstrations held in Morocco on the heels of the military intervention. The portraits of the Saddam Hussein circulating in the demonstrations couldn’t appeal to Iran, which was still picking up the pieces after the destructive Iraqi invasion of 1980. Interestingly, the magnitude of the protests induced King Hassan II of Morocco to speak out in solidarity with the Iraqi population, signaling a mitigation of Rabat’s hitherto wholehearted commitment to the US-led military effort.

The ascent of Mahmud Ahmadinejad in 2005 further loosened Iran’s ties with Rabat, as Tehran was now being accused of colluding with Sunni extremism in Morocco to ratchet up its influence in the region. The severance of diplomatic ties did materialize in 2009, when the Moroccan government accused Iran of destabilizing the North African Kingdom by spreading Shia Islam through its embassy in Rabat and pro-Tehran missionaries. Furthermore, Rabat’s apprehensions over alleged Iran-sponsored Shia agitation were stoked by an Iranian official’s claim that it was Tehran, and not the Sunni, who had sovereignty over the predominantly-Shia Kingdom of Bahrain. Much to the chagrin of Tehran, Morocco decided to take on the seemingly-looming Shia menace by carrying out a vigorous crackdown on schools and cultural organizations presumed to be part of the Iranian-orchestrated diffusion of Shia Islam in the Kingdom.

According to a leaked US diplomatic cable that surfaced in 2010, Morocco’s showdown with Iran served a double-barreled objective. Internally, the suppression of Shia organizations nipped in the bud a potential threat to the Kingdom’s traditional Sunni identity and, importantly, to King Muhammad VI’s credentials as the highest religious authority in the country. Geopolitically, Morocco’s anti-Shia initiatives paved the way for closer links with Saudi Arabia which, according to the cable, was allegedly ready to reward Rabat’s newfound opposition to Tehran with economic assistance and subsidized oil. At this juncture, the two kingdoms seemed determined to parlay their shared frustration with Shia Islam and Iran into an increasingly robust friendship.

The perks of such a consolidated friendship were to materialize in the upcoming years. In 2015, the Moroccan authorities arrested and jailed long-time Saudi dissident Prince Turki bin Bandar, before handing him over to Saudi Arabia. In the same year, Morocco agreed to participate in the Saudi-led military effort against Yemen. Even the July 2017 Qatar diplomatic crisis, which has been described as a source of friction between the two allied kingdoms, didn’t deteriorate their long-standing cooperation. In March 2018, Saudi Arabia Chairman of the General Sports Turki Al Sheikh suggested that Rabat’s neutrality over the diplomatic crisis might cause Saudi Arabia to shun Morocco’s bid to host the 2026 World Cup. However, Turki Al Sheikh himself contributed to defusing the incipient tension between the two kingdoms by throwing his support behind Morocco’s bid to host the 2019 Africa Cup of Nations.

All roads lead to Rabat

In light of its protracted confrontation with Iran, Saudi Arabia’s fortunes in North Africa are inextricably tied to the Kingdom of Morocco. Alternative avenues might turn out to be little more than blind alleys, especially in the Maghreb. Given its recently-renewed state of emergency, building up Tunisia as a bulwark against Iranian influence would most likely be a non-starter. Moreover, Saudi Arabia is expected to loosen ties with Algeria, which has been recently accused by Morocco of teaming up with Iran and Hezbollah in supporting the Polisario Front. To make things worse, Algeria’s political climate remains significantly dicey.

Apparently, Washington has already trodden the path leading to Rabat. To act on Morocco’s face-off with Iran, a bipartisan bill was introduced in the US Congress in September. The bill aims to back Morocco in its recent spat with Iran over the Polisario Front and, from a broader perspective, lay the groundwork for further cooperation to contain Tehran’s inroads in the region. For Washington, drawing closer to Morocco makes a great deal of sense. The proposed Arab NATO might wither on the vine without securing the participation of the most stable actors in the region, especially those that already have a strong incentive to counter Iranian influence. Not only Morocco fits perfectly the mold but, in addition, it has recently embarked on a military buildup of its own, being the second largest importer of weapons in Africa on the verge of reintroducing mandatory military service.

In the ever-precarious North African cauldron, Morocco stands out for being stable, tougher on Iran, less prone to woo Qatar and eager to play a greater role in the region, not only militarily but also in the energy market. Furthermore, while its crisis-laden neighbors tend to look inward to grapple with their domestic issues, Morocco’s internal stability allows it to take the long view in the region. As a case in point, Rabat has taken concrete steps to a long-term strategic cooperation with the US over Iran, which may well culminate into a leading Moroccan role in the embryonic Arab NATO project. The fact that Morocco and the US were the only two non-European countries invited to the EU G6 Summit on terrorism and migration is further evidence that Rabat cannot be left out of the regional equation anymore.

Consequently, if Riyadh is to get the upper-hand over Iran and Qatar, the Moroccan route is seemingly the only one leading to tangible gains. Nevertheless, Rabat is not completely immune to political unrest. Should the simmering discontent erupt, the North African kingdom would find itself in the same boat as its regional neighbors, being compelled to look inward to maintain stability instead of devoting its energy to addressing the outstanding issues plaguing the region as a whole. Such a shift in focus would signify a reduced Moroccan commitment to Riyadh’s regional thrust against Iran. To obviate this prospect, Saudi Arabia will likely step up efforts to provide the North African ally with economic assistance, given that the deteriorating standards of living constitute a recurrent catalyst for demonstrations in the Kingdom. If Saudi Arabia wants to uphold Morocco’s newfound stature in the region, the goal of shoring up Rabat’s economy may now rank very high on the Saudi Family’s agenda.

The opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints expressed by the authors are theirs alone and don’t reflect the official position of Geopoliticalmonitor.com or any other institution.

By Gary Galles*

Recently, I read a Los Angeles Times article that referred to high-deductible health plans as “much hated by employees.” That struck me as incongruous, since high-deductible — or catastrophic — plans are what insurance principles support. If that is true, why would employees hate them?

How do insurance principles support high-deductible, or catastrophic, plans?

Insurance’s rationale is reducing risk from uncertain events. Insuring what would certainly occur, say, annual checkups, offers no risk reduction — no benefits to weigh against the added costs of insurance administration — yet such coverage is frequently included. Similarly, small health care risks are cheaper to cover with modest levels of savings than by bearing the administrative costs of utilizing insurance. If those are insured, it is not because of the principles of insurance.

The benefits from risk reduction must also outweigh the costs of over-consumption of health care induced by the artificially low prices for care insurance faces health care consumers with. But when health care costs are primarily borne by insurers, there are many margins at which individuals will want both more and better care (e.g., better and more specialized doctors and hospitals, more costly newer drugs, tests and treatment, etc.). Much of that care will be worth far less than its cost. For example, someone with 80% coverage who valued a $5,000 medical procedure at $1250 would face a bill of $1000, and would find it personally worthwhile, even though it wastes $3750 in value.

People’s differences also point away from coverage mandates which increase costs, when many see little or no benefit from them. For example, teetotalers would not willingly insure for alcoholism treatment and those certain they would never use drugs would not insist on addiction treatment.

Coverage for pre-existing conditions also fails as insurance. It doesn’t reduce people’s exposure by pooling uncertain risks, but instead forces one subgroup to cover a different subgroup’s costs after they are already known to be higher.

All of the above support high-deductible plans as sensible applications of insurance principles. Certain, highly predictable and small medical expenses escape the administrative costs of insurance. People need not pay for coverages they expect to gain too little from. And the most important things risk-averse people wish to insure against—catastrophes—are covered, but since many medical services are not, the insurance-induced overconsumption of medical care that results is far smaller than for more expansive coverage.

So why would employees hate such exemplars of health insurance principles? The tax deductibility of employer-provided health insurance (even when it is really pre-paid, predictable health care rather than true insurance against uncertainty) can provide the answer.

If the administrative costs of utilizing insurance, even in the case of expenses that will be certain, is less than the subsidy via the tax code — equal to one’s combined marginal tax rate (from federal payroll taxes and federal and state income taxes) — individuals would still want coverage, even though it cannot be justified in terms of insurance principles. And that is true for everyone who pays income taxes, though the subsidy is strongly tilted toward higher income individuals facing higher marginal tax rates.

Consequently, the tax code subsidy has induced employers and employees to find health care coverage that exceeds what is defensible by insurance principles as still in their interests. Of course, it advances those interests only because tax deductibility “exports” much of the costs to others.

Therefore, employees may indeed “hate” high-deductible policies, not because they are in accord with insurance principles, but because they involve scaling back the magnitude of the tax-code subsidies they had been getting before. But that hatred, triggered by reductions in subsidies that were always questionable (remember that employer-paid health plans were not created in response to some assertion of “market failure” in health care, but to find a way to give employees higher compensation in the face of government-imposed wage and price controls in World War II), is not a reliable indicator of justifiable health care policy “reform.” After all, to the extent Americans realize the burdens of others’ coverage forcibly imposed on them through the tax code, many would hate them with far more justification than workers disgruntled by getting reduced amounts of unjustified subsidies.

About the author:
*Gary M. Galles is a professor of economics at Pepperdine University. He is the author of The Apostle of Peace: The Radical Mind of Leonard Read.

Source:
This article was published by the MISES Institute

South Africa’s Police Minister Bheki Cele has welcomed the arrest of nine cash-in-transit heist suspects on Friday.

The suspects were arrested in Riviera Park in the North West after the Mafikeng Tactical Response Team (TRT) received a tip-off from Crime Intelligence.

Police spokesperson Vish Naidoo said the suspects were in the midst of planning a cash-in-transit robbery.

Six firearms, including one AK-47 rifle, handguns, an Uzi and several rounds of ammunition were recovered during the operation. A fleet of luxury vehicles, among them a black Jeep, an Audi Q5, a Mercedes ML and a Ford Ranger, was also recovered.

“Earlier today, the team acted on information that a group was gathered at a house in Riviera…where they were planning a heist. While at the house arresting six suspects, four more suspects arrived. They noticed the presence of the police and fled, resulting in a high speed car chase. During the chase, police fired shots at the suspect vehicle forcing it to a halt,” Naidoo said.

A further three suspects were arrested while the fourth escaped.

The major breakthrough is the latest following the arrest of 12 suspects in Midrand a week ago. They also allegedly planned a cash-in-transit heist.

Naidoo said police were investigating a docket of conspiracy to commit robbery, possession of unlicensed firearms and ammunition. A case of possession of suspected stolen motor vehicles was also being registered.

The firearms recovered at the house will be sent for ballistic testing to establish if they were used to commit other crimes.

Cele said the arrests reaffirmed the police’s commitment to ensuring the creation of a safe and secure South Africa.

“Crime prevention is a national priority. As we approach the festive season, we are more than ready as the South African Police Service to take on any act of criminality.

“Our mission of zero tolerance to criminality is in full gear. All our members are on high alert to squeeze the space for criminals and to prevent and solve crime,” he said.

“We will as the South African Police Service continue to ensure we put a permanent stop to the scourge of cash in transit crimes. We are very serious about turning the tide and we will not rest until we win the war on criminals,” the Minister said.

It will take a very prolonged series of successful trust building before more sensitive issues like Kashmir are even discussed with any credibility.

By Samir Saran

India and Pakistan made some significant overtures since the formation of new government in Islamabad, which rekindled hopes of peaceniks in both the countries. But the parleys proved short-lived. The battle lines are drawn again as accusations and counter-accusations fly thick and fast. This week, the foreign ministers of the two countries took their war of words to the UN General Assembly.

The following is an interview of Samir Saran with the Tehran Times.

The formation of a new government in Islamabad had rekindled hopes of peace and reconciliation between India and Pakistan, after the two sides made a series of overtures and looked interested in opening a new chapter in their bilateral ties. But, now it has again been put on the backburner. What makes this relationship so fragile?

The relationship remains fragile for structural reasons. Issues of identity and a shared sense of historical animosity have hardcoded themselves into both countries’ politics. And in today’s polarised media environment, opinions on these issues are sharper and more amplified than ever before. These factors make any true reconciliation very difficult.

Imran Khan in his victory speech said he will take two steps if India took one. And Narendra Modi had called to congratulate him on his thumping victory in Pakistan general elections. Do you think the two leaders were really sincere in improving bilateral ties?

No, it is unlikely that they were. This welcoming rhetoric is often visible when new administrations take office, but rarely lasts very long for the reasons outlined in my first response.

Everything seemed to be going as per the script until India called off foreign minister level talks on the side lines of UNGA, citing killing of policemen in Kashmir and release of stamps in Pakistan commemorating a Kashmiri militant commander. Do you think there are shadowy forces working overtime to sabotage peace process?

The Pakistani Army remains a key interlocutor in Pakistan-India relations. Their overwhelming control over most aspects of Pakistan’s political and social life is built on a hardline Islamic identity and hostility towards India. Prospects of peace with India always threaten these realities — and the Army has often attempted to sabotage any attempts at constructive outreach.

Some experts opine that PM Modi decided to call off talks since he doesn’t wish to antagonise his loyal Hindu vote bank in India ahead of next year’s general election. What is your take on it?

Talks with Pakistan are always politically sensitive in India — irrespective of which party is in power. Having said that, no administration has ever hesitated to take this risk if real and constructive outcomes were on the horizon. At this time, it is evident that there was no such possibility — and any administration in India would have rather called off talks.

Pakistan’s foreign minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi speaking at the UN accused India of “financing, facilitating and orchestrating terrorism in Pakistan,” citing the case of Kulbushan Yadav, who he called “Indian state-sponsored terrorist.” How would you react to that?

This is not new rhetoric in Pakistan, nor will it be the last time it is used. It is merely a very weak attempt to delegitimise India’s credible complaints over the extent to which terrorism has been mainstreamed in Pakistan.

The crossborder shelling and ceasefire violations continue unabated. In recent years, the violations of the ceasefire accord the two countries signed in 2003 have assumed alarming proportions. What according to you is the most important trigger for it?

Unlike 2003, the global order today is far more strained and uncertain. With Pakistan now being bankrolled by the Chinese and India preparing to take on a global leadership role, both countries are likely more confident in their strategic capability to gain the upper hand against the other.

The civil society and think tanks in both the countries, including yours, are very strong and they have been relentlessly campaigning for peace and dialogue between the two countries. Do you think the strong political will is missing to resolve outstanding issues including Kashmir?

Political will is certainly important. As I have said earlier, however, the India-Pakistan relationship is held hostage by many structural impediments. It will take a very prolonged series of successful trust building before more sensitive issues like Kashmir are even discussed with any credibility.

Russian President Vladmir Putin visited India this week for 19th India-Russia summit. How do you view prospects of India-Russia defense cooperation taking into account US sanctions?

Russia is, and will remain in the foreseeable future, India’s primary defense partner. And American sanctions are unlikely to change India’s choices. In fact, India is likely to make a strong case for exceptions from Washington’s sanctions even as it continues security cooperation with Moscow.

India is yet to take the final decision on oil trade with Iran, although reports suggest that New Delhi will seek waivers from US to continue importing oil from Tehran. Why is there so much suspense and delay?

India will continue to expand its energy and development cooperation with Tehran. Unfortunately, however, Indian firms and businesses are quite dependent on the American financial system. Therefore, while the political rhetoric makes clear that India will pursue its independent strategic interests, commercial realities are often difficult to overcome.

The Bank for International Settlements has attributed the volatility of the price of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies to the lack of a crypto central bank. This column examines the implications of this and the increasing, but bounded, supply of Bitcoin for the cryptocurrency’s price. It also discusses how the price of Bitcoin interacts with monetary policy for traditional currencies.

By Linda Schilling and Harald Uhlig*