As is true with RT’s listing of top Russophobes for 2017, I take issue with some of its choices for that grouping in 2018.

When compared to the leading hardcore Russophobes, Michael McFaul comes across more as being a diva, seeking to maintain a niche within the anti-Russian leaning US establishment. McFaul is on record for saying that he doesn’t accept the notion that Russia is inherently prone to negative attributes and bad relations with the West. Given that view and the existing status quo of folks out there, he’s arguably not a top ten Russophobe.

Bill Browder is considered a Russophobe by a twist of fate. Prior to his falling out of favor with the Russian authorities, Browder was characterized by some anti-Russian leaning elements as a Kremlin shill. Browder’s main focus of criticism is the Russian president and government at large. As is true of McFaul, the available choices indicate that Browder is arguably not a top ten Russophobe.

Several names come to mind that IMO should make a top ten Russophobe list for 2018. Granted, the difficulty in choosing people for such, as there’re numerous individuals worthy of consideration.

Whether in 2017 or this year, it’s surprising that the outgoing Trump administration UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, didn’t get a top Russophobe ranking by RT. During her time as UN ambassador, Haley has spoken about the need to slap Russia, adding that the US and Russia can never be friends.

An acquaintance describes the Washington Examiner’s Tom Rogan, as exhibiting the worst Anglo-American ignorance and arrogance against Russia. Rogan’s often enough, unchallenged, Russia related commentary at some leading American media venues, is a tell all sign of US mass media shortcomings – when it comes to having a reasonably balanced presentation of views.

Rogan called for the Kiev regime to bomb the bridge linking Crimea with the rest of Russia. That advocacy of his received attention in Russia.

Rogan recently wrote a very inept piece on the situation with Orthodox Christianity in Ukraine. Whether he likes it or not, a noticeable number of people in the former Ukrainian SSR, don’t oppose the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which is loosely affiliated with the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (ROC-MP). That established Ukrainian Orthodox Church (also known as the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, UOC-MP) didn’t ask for the Kiev regime and/or the Constantinople (in Istanbul) Patriarchate to get involved with its matters. Note that the Washington Examiner appears to be otherwise prone to support the desire for a separation between church and state.

In conjunction with the Kiev regime, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (formed in 1992) that sought autocephaly approval from the Constantinople Patriarchate, is headed by Filaret Denisenko, who for decades supported the Moscow Patriarchate’s ties with the Orthodox churches in Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova. He changed course after not getting a promotion within the Moscow Patriarchate. A noticeable number of individuals in Kiev regime controlled Ukraine support Denisenko’s changed position. That aspect doesn’t deny the noticeable existence of those in that territory who support the UOC-MP.

The Constantinople Patriarchate doesn’t have the same centralized authority as the Vatican. There’s good reason to believe that some form of payola might be at play between the corrupt nationalist Kiev regime and the Constantinople Patriarchate. One is hard pressed to find any of the national Orthodox churches (recognized by the Constantinople Patriarchate) supporting the Constantinople Patriarchate’s decision to grant autocephaly to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. If anything, there’s a near unanimous to complete agreement of these national Orthodox churches, favoring the position of the UOC-MP and ROC-MP, to not have the Constantinople Patriarchate grant an autocephaly status to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

Among the UOC-MP and ROC-MP faithful (as well as some others), there’s a reasonable concern that the Kiev regime and Denisenko’s church will use the Constantinople Patriarchate’s decision as a basis to seize UOC-MP property. Further complicating matters is the existence of a third and smaller Ukrainian Orthodox Church, known as the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church.

Contrary to Rogan, the ROC-MP and Russian government aren’t nationalistically interwoven with each other, in the way that he so very inaccurately suggests. Despite the Kremlin’s recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states, the ROC-MP recognizes Orthodox Christian property in these areas as being with the Georgian Orthodox Church. Likewise, the UOC-MP continues to maintain jurisdiction over Orthodox Christian property in Crimea, which is now part of Russia.

As I noted, the sports world has experienced a good deal of overtly anti-Russian advocacy. This situation leads to three individuals with top ten anti-Russian credentials.

Travis Tygart is a US legal sports politico, who has repeatedly sought a collective ban on all Russian athletes – something he has never collectively advocated against any other national group of athletes.

Sebastian Coe heads the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), that still has a ban on Russia, unlike the International Olympic Committee. In 2016, Coe actively sought to have Russian drug cheat turned “whistleblower”, Yulia Stepanova compete in the Rio Summer Olympics, unlike the clean medal contending Russian track and field athletes, who were unfairly banned from that competition. Coe apparently approves of Stepanova uncritically participating in a German aired propaganda film, that made a broad unproven claim against Russia’s top track and field athletes.

Rune Andersen serves under Coe at the IAAF. Andersen suggested the possibility of banning clean Russian track and field athletes from competing as neutrals, if the Russian sports authorities don’t acknowledge all of the core claims made in the quite faulty McLaren report.

*Michael Averko is a New York based independent foreign policy analyst and media critic. Under the title of “Naming the Top Russophobes”, this article initially appeared at the Strategic Culture Foundation’s website on October 23.

By Carmen Elena Dorobăț*

Rumors of a future financial crisis are spreading once more, as subprime mortgages have made a return under new labels such as “impaired credit” or “complex prime.” On an international level, the latest report by the IMF warns against the “risks of rollback, waning multilateralism, and regulatory fatigue” that may bring about a slowdown in global economic activity and a destabilization of global financial markets. The Economist’s October cover story argues that the cause of the next global recession is likely to be uneven momentum: “This divergence [in growth rates] between America and the rest means divergent monetary policies, too. The Federal Reserve has raised interest rates eight times since December 2015. The European Central Bank is still a long way from its first increase. In Japan rates are negative.”

What “convergent” monetary policies involve, at a global level, is easily deduced from what occurred over the last 10 years. The three rounds of quantitative easing initiated by the Fed in 2013 provided liquidity injections not only in U.S. domestic bank vaults, but also in foreign banks (approximately half of the $US 1.3 trillion). This operation, sometimes dubbed a ‘stealth bailout’, was possible due to the highly connected world capital markets. Once U.S. QE3 ended in October 2014 and the dollar began to appreciate, it was the turn of the ECB, and soon after of the Bank of Japan, to begin their own rounds of purchases of asset-backed securities. Emerging economies joined the game, and either offset the outflow of capital with domestic credit expansion, in order to prevent their currencies from rising and hurting exports, or allowed a slight increase in government bond yields compared to U.S. Treasuries, to attract more foreign funds as a buffer in case interest rates abroad were to rise further. Countries aligned themselves to a level of ‘global inflation’, compensated its reduction or stimulated its growth with additional monetary injections keeping interest rates as low as possible.

“Divergent monetary policies” or “uneven momentum” are only euphemisms for a more disturbing trend: in simpler terms, central banks appear now to be temporarily mis-coordinating monetary inflation and credit expansion. As Mises amusingly explained to his students,

There is a proverb that says: “One doesn’t talk about the gallows in the home of a family, one of whose members was executed.” In this way, one doesn’t talk about the international problem in terms of inflation. When one talks about an international monetary problem, one says there is not enough “liquidity,” not enough “reserves.” (Mises 2010, 78).

With central bank coordination and flexible exchange rates, relative depreciation of currencies is much reduced and relatively painless—and financial markets look quite still on the surface. In its (temporary) absence, some of the inherent deficiencies of the system, the dirty waters lurking underneath, are exposed. If some central banks’ balance sheets expand at higher rates than others, a sharper relative depreciation of their currency makes price inflation more visible domestically, foreign debt more burdensome—particularly for emerging economies—and produces turmoil in financial markets.

But the cause of the next recession cannot be uneven growth momentum or the unequal tightening of monetary policies. What causes financial crises, domestic and global, is the underlying, continuing credit expansion. Central banks acting in unison in this expansion across the world only worsen and augment its effects. Therefore, uneven coordination or destabilized financial markets can at most serve as the trigger or catalyst of a financial meltdown.

The more important point to be made here is that the attempt to avoid a meltdown from occurring in the first place—through renewed regulation or stronger multilateral cooperation—is futile in the long run. Central banks’ free reign over monetary matters has not only brought about the greatest age of inflation in human history, but has led to the exacerbated development of financial markets and financial instruments, no longer connected to sound money or to the ‘real’ economy. The rotten core of the system was only briefly exposed in 2007 during the financial crisis, but bailouts and the regulatory patchwork of the following years have calmed the waters once more. But this cannot last forever. It is naïve to think that the corroded roots of the financial system will last for long, or that real financial stability is achievable without producing at least a partial implosion of the current system built on money produced out of thin air.

A healthy, restructured, and ‘sustainable’ financial system is only possible with sound money whose production is no longer arbitrarily and politically determined:

We must realize that money can operate, it can work, only if we have a system in which the government is prevented from manipulating the value of the money… we ought not to have a system of money in which the value of the monetary unit is in the hands of the government so that the government can operate, manipulate the money market in the way it wants to. If the government destroys the monetary system it destroys perhaps the most important foundation of inter-human economic cooperation. (Mises 2010, 83)

Unfortunately, we are now likely too late, and past the point of no return. Tracing our steps back to a healthy monetary and financial system will undeniably be very painful. Nevertheless, postponing the inevitable collapse is only going to make it much worse.

About the author:
*Carmen Dorobăț has a PhD in economics from the University of Angers, and is Assistant Professor of Business at Leeds Trinity University.

Source:
This article was published by the MISES Institute

Pakistan has assured Iran that it will make every effort to secure the release of the Iranian border guards abducted at a border region inside Iran and taken into Pakistan, Commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Ground Force said.

Speaking to reporters at PAF Base Nur Khan in Pakistan’s Rawalpindi at the conclusion of a one-day visit to the neighboring country, Brigadier General Mohammad Pakpour said the Pakistani authorities have promised to use their full potential to ensure the health of the Iranian hostages and secure their release.

General Pakpour said he has held talks with various Pakistani officials, including Chief of Army Staff of the Pakistan Army General Qamar Javed Bajwa, to express Tehran’s concern about the fate of the abductees.

The IRGC commander then slammed the terrorist who have kidnapped the Iranian forces as the “proxies of the Iranian nation’s enemies and of foreign espionage services” that seek to harm Iran-Pakistan relations.

“It seems there is a third party that seeks to upset the relations between the two countries,” the general added, calling for vigilance to foil such hostile attempts.

General Pakpour traveled to Pakistan on Monday to pursue the issue of the Iranian border guards.

Pakistani-based terrorists kidnapped 14 Iranian forces at a border post in Mirjaveh region in Iran’s southeastern province of Sistan and Balouchestan on October 15.

Iranian military forces along the southeastern border areas are frequently attacked by terrorist groups coming from Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Tehran has frequently asked the two neighbors to step up security at the common border to prevent terrorist attacks on Iranian forces.

What do the Clintons, Obamas, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, George Soros, Maxine Waters and CNN have in common? They’re all outspoken critics of President Donald Trump, and recipients of pipe bomb packages. Is there a connection?

A pipe bomb was delivered to the CNN headquarters in New York City on Wednesday morning. It was addressed to former CIA chief John Brennan – who is actually a MSNBC pundit – and had the return address of Rep. Wasserman Schultz. The envelope had insufficient postage, and misspelled Brennan’s name and Florida.

The former DNC chair Schultz’s office in Florida received a similar device. So did the congressional mailroom in Maryland, addressed to Rep. Waters (D-California). Another was sent to the home of former President Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary in Chappaqua, New York – and Barack and Michelle Obama’s residence in Washington, DC.

New York City Mayor Bill deBlasio and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo called the packages “an act of terrorism” at a press conference on Wednesday, placing them squarely in the context of the upcoming midterm elections. Leaders of Democrats in Congress, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-New York) and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-California) blamed Trump’s “statements that condone acts of violence” and attack the press. CNN president Jeff Zucker also lashed out at the White House, denouncing Trump’s “continued attacks on the media.”

Democrat activists were quick to blame Trump and claim this was the work
of his supporters, coining the hashtag “MAGAbomber.”

Some conservative commentators countered by saying that the timing of the bomb scare – just two weeks before the contentious midterm elections – suggested a Democrat play for sympathy, and that the vast majority of violent incidents over the past two years were aimed against Republicans.

Hillary Clinton, who was in Florida, was quick to make political hay out of the suspicious packages, saying that America is divided and “we have to do everything we can to bring our country together” – by electing Democrats, of course. She conveniently forgot her own argument against civility towards Republicans, aired on CNN earlier this month.

Earlier in the day, the New York Times ran an op-ed by Alexander Soros, son of the billionaire mega-donor funding the Democrats in the US and like-minded parties in Europe and elsewhere. Decrying the explosive that was sent to his father’s New York residence earlier this week, Soros blamed Trump and called for a Democrat victory in the coming midterms.

“We must find our way to a new political discourse that shuns the demonization of all political opponents. A first step would be to cast our ballots to reject those politicians cynically responsible for undermining the institutions of our democracy. And we must do it now, before it is too late.”

President Trump and his family have condemned the bomb packages as “cowardly attacks” and “despicable acts,” with Trump promising to bring the “full weight of the government” to bear on those responsible.

“In these times we have to unify, we have to come together and send one very clear, strong, unmistakable message that acts or threats of political violence of any kind have no place in the United States of America,” he said at the White House on Wednesday afternoon.

It is difficult to tell whether the suspicious packages are the work of an individual or a group, retired US Marshal Matthew Fogg told RT. However, if there are multiple perpetrators, the authorities will have an easier job tracking them down, because odds are greater that “somebody’s going to make a mistake.”

Former CIA officer Philip Giraldi was more skeptical, saying that tracking down the would-be bomber will be “very difficult, unless they were dumb enough to include fingerprints on the bombs or in the packaging.”

The authorities will be looking at small details that laymen usually don’t even notice, Fogg said. He believes evidence resulting from the investigation will be definitive enough to satisfy the public.

The packages “might be an attempt to create negative sentiment against right-wing groups just before the election to create some kind of shift to the left, but there is no evidence of that,” Giraldi told RT. “And I don’t think it would be successful,” he added, as most people complaining about the bombs are “committed progressives who are already on board to hating Trump and his supporters.”

By Ken Bredemeier

U.S. CIA Director Gina Haspel, in Turkey to investigate the death of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, has reportedly listened to the audio recording of his torture and killing, The Washington Post said Wednesday.

The Post cited “a person familiar with the audio” who claimed it was “compelling” and could put more pressure on the United States to hold Saudi Arabia accountable for the death of Khashoggi, who was a contributing columnist for the newspaper.

U.S. President Donald Trump, who has reiterated that he views Saudi Arabia as a great ally and an important purchaser of U.S. tanks, bombs and planes, seems to have grown more suspicious of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s role in Khashoggi’s death.

Trump told The Wall Street Journal, “Well, the prince is running things over there more so at this stage. He’s running things and so if anybody were going to be, it would be him.”

Trump’s latest assessment of the death of Khashoggi came after he told reporters Tuesday that Saudi authorities had staged “one of the worst cover-ups” in history with their response to the killing of Khashoggi, a critic of the crown prince in columns he wrote for The Washington Post.

“They had a very bad original concept. It was carried out poorly, and the cover-up was one of the worst cover-ups in the history of cover-ups,” Trump said. “The cover-up was horrible. The execution was horrible. But there should have never been an execution or a cover-up because it should have never happened.”

​Crown Prince: Khashoggi’s death ‘heinous’

On Wednesday, the crown prince called the killing of Khashoggi a “heinous crime that cannot be justified.”

In his first public comments on Khashoggi’s death three weeks ago inside the Saudis’ Istanbul consulate, he told a Riyadh investment conference, “The crime was very painful to all Saudis. And it is painful, heinous to every human being in the world.”

The crown prince, Saudi Arabia’s de facto ruler, said, “Those behind this crime will be held accountable … in the end justice will prevail.” Saudi authorities have fired five officials linked to Khashoggi’s death and arrested 18 others while Crown Prince Mohammed said Saudi officials would continue to investigate the killing with Turkey.

On Wednesday, Britain joined the U.S. in revoking visas of those suspected of killing the 59-year-old Khashoggi, while the United States and several Western governments weigh further action against Riyadh, including possibly cutting off arms sales.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the revocation of the visas “will not be the last word on this matter from the United States. We will continue to explore additional measures to hold those accountable. We’re making very clear that the United States does not tolerate this kind of ruthless action to silence Mr. Khashoggi, a journalist, through violence.”

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has cut off future weapons sales to Riyadh and is considering whether to halt delivery of arms already approved for export but not yet sent to Saudi Arabia. British Prime Minister Theresa May said its Saudi arms sales were “under review,” a stance similar to that expressed by Australia.

But Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez said Madrid would fulfill its commitment to sell Riyadh 400 precision bombs despite his “dismay” over the “terrible murder” of Khashoggi.

On Capitol Hill Wednesday, a bill was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives that would stop most U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia.

Language in the bill stated that President Trump could request exceptions to the arms sale ban if he also submitted a report on a U.S. investigation into anyone involved in “the murder of journalist and United States permanent resident Jamal Khashoggi.”

​Erdogan weighs in

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan vowed Wednesday that those responsible for Khashoggi’s killing will not “escape justice.”

Speaking in Ankara, Erdogan said Turkey will “not allow the murder to be covered up” and will be transparent in sharing any evidence it uncovers. Turkish authorities said Saudi Arabia has now granted police permission to search a well in the garden of the consulate where Khashoggi was killed, after Riyadh had previously refused to allow a search.

Erdogan on Tuesday described for parliament what he said was a premeditated plot by Saudi Arabia to kill Khashoggi when the journalist visited the Saudi consulate in Istanbul Oct. 2 to get documents he needed to marry his fiancée, Turkish national Hatice Cengiz.

Erdogan dismissed Saudi Arabia’s claim that “rogue agents” were responsible.

“All evidence gathered shows that Jamal Khashoggi was the victim of a savage murder,” Erdogan said. “To cover up such savagery would hurt the human conscience.”

The Turkish leader said “to blame such an incident on a handful of security and intelligence members would not satisfy us or the international community.”

Erdogan told Turkish lawmakers “Saudi Arabia has taken an important step by admitting the murder. As of now, we expect of them to openly bring to light those responsible, from the highest ranked to the lowest, and to bring them to justice.” The Turkish president described Khashoggi’s death as a “murder” 15 times in his speech.

Erdogan gave new details surrounding the killing that involved 15 Saudi agents who started arriving in Turkey the day before Khashoggi was killed, while largely confirming earlier news accounts of Khashoggi’s disappearance, including that Saudi agents deployed a body double with Khashoggi’s clothes, glasses and beard to walk out of the consulate to make it appear he had left the diplomatic outpost alive.

Saudi officials at first said that Khashoggi walked out of the consulate and that they did not know his whereabouts. Then they said he died in a fistfight in the consulate. Most recently, the Saudis said Khashoggi was killed in a chokehold when he tried to leave the consulate to call for help.

By Ben Flanagan and Noor Nugali

“Justice will prevail” in the death of Jamal Khashoggi and no one will be allowed to drive a wedge between Saudi Arabia and Turkey, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman pledged on Wednesday.

Khashoggi’s killing was the first issue the crown prince raised after he strode on to the stage at the Future Investment Initiative conference in Riyadh.

“The incident was very painful for all Saudis. I believe it is painful for every human in the world. It was a repulsive incident, and no one can justify it,” Prince Mohammed said.

The crown prince said Saudi Arabia and Turkey would work together “to reach results” in their joint investigation into Khashoggi’s death, and he described cooperation between the two countries as “special.”

“There are now those who are trying to take advantage of this painful situation to create a rift between the Kingdom and Turkey,” he said.

“I want to send them a message that they cannot do this as long as there is a king named Salman bin Abdul Aziz and a crown prince named Mohammed bin Salman in Saudi Arabia, and a president in Turkey named Erdogan.

“We will prove to the world that the two governments are cooperating to punish any criminal, any culprit, and in the end justice will prevail,” Prince Mohammed said, to widespread applause from conference delegates in the hall.

Khashoggi, 59, a Saudi journalist resident in the US, was killed in the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul on Oct. 2, after he visited to complete paperwork related to his divorce. Saudi Arabia has said his death was the result of a “rogue operation” by people acting beyond the scope of their authority, and 18 Saudis have been arrested. The investigation continues.

Speaking at FII, Prince Mohammed said it is time for Saudi Arabia to ‘restructure’ its security services.

The state-run Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) announced Wednesday that it had won a $777-million contract to supply India with an air- and missile-defense system, according to Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth.

“IAI has signed a deal to sell the Barak-8 aerial-defense system to India,” the paper reported, adding that the Indian Navy had agreed to purchase the system for seven of its vessels for a total of $777 million.

The Barak-8 is an air- and missile-defense system used by the Israeli Navy and by Indian naval, air and land forces.

Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman praised the purchase agreement, describing it as “more proof that security is an investment and not a liability to the State of Israel”.

“IAI is a national asset that we should maintain and enhance,” Lieberman said.

According to IAI, total revenue from sales of the Barak-8 system in recent years — including the latest deal with India — amounts to over $6 billion.

Last year, IAI signed a deal worth almost $2 billion to supply India’s army and navy with missile-defense systems.

Shortly afterward, the company won a $630-million contract to supply Barak-8 surface-to-air missile systems for four Indian naval vessels.

In a statement, IAI Chief Executive Officer Nimrod Sheffer said the company’s partnership with India “dated back many years”.

“India is a major market for IAI and we plan to… reinforce our positioning there,” he said.

Original source

By Andrew Hammond*

Shinzo Abe on Thursday starts the first official trip to China by a Japanese prime minister in seven years. Amidst brewing bilateral tensions, and a legacy of bitter memories of World War II, a Donald Trump-sized window of opportunity may nonetheless now exist for a significant thawing of ties.

Both Beijing and Tokyo have been disorientated by Washington in the two years since Trump was elected. Especially following Vice President Mike Pence’s hard-hitting speech against China this month, in which he launched an unexpectedly stinging attack, Beijing does not anticipate any significant warming of ties with Washington in the immediate future.

Meanwhile, despite the apparent personal positivity between Trump and Abe, Tokyo has been increasingly alarmed by the US administration’s continued undermining of the post-war economic and political order. This includes US sanctions that threaten key national industries, including the auto sector.

It is in this disruptive context that this week’s talks take place between Xi Jinping and Abe. They will discuss the latest moves to rebuild relations, including through potentially shared agendas like building economic infrastructure in Asia-Pacific. Yet, while the mood music is positive, for now at least, distrust and competition continue to define much of their relationship.

The sensitive and precarious nature of the trip is underlined by the changing start date. It was previously scheduled to commence on Tuesday — the 40^th anniversary of former Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping’s visit to Japan in 1978 to ratify the Sino-Japanese peace and friendship treaty. But it was ultimately pushed back to Thursday. This was, in part, because Tuesday also marked the 150^th anniversary of the Meiji Restoration, which paved the way for Japan to become an important player on the international stage.

For China this is an understandably sensitive date, given that the Meiji era saw the first war between the two nations, which saw Japan winning new territory in 1894-95. And it also, in turn, began a series of conflicts that were the precursors for the 1931 Manchurian Incident and the Second Sino-Japanese War of 1937-45.

This underlines that, while bilateral relations are no longer in the deep freeze, there remains significant scope for tension. Only last week, for instance, Tokyo submitted its latest official protest to Beijing after Chinese ships cruised around disputed islands in the region, which are called Senkaku by Japan and Diaoyu by China.

Going forward, the strategic dilemma over future relations is particularly acute for Abe as he seeks to navigate a domestic and foreign policy pathway through the economic and security minefield of retaining relations with Washington while seeking better bonds with Beijing. With Xi now set to be in power into the 2020s, this headache could become more acute for Tokyo if Trump is re-elected in 2020 too.

Abe has to work out how best to respond to China’s growing influence in Asia-Pacific in the context of the uncertainties that Trump’s presidency has brought, including its departure from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which has provided a new opportunity for Beijing to assert itself. In the current fluid geopolitical landscape, which is being constantly reshaped as key countries maneuver for advantage, Abe had been seeking to align his long-standing foreign policy plans around that of Trump’s agenda.

Thus, in a context whereby the White House appears to want a more internationally assertive Japan, the prime minister has been seeking to overturn many of the remaining legal and political hurdles that underpin the country’s post-war pacifist security identity so that it can become more externally engaged. But this comes at the risk of potentially significantly inflaming regional tensions with China. For instance, as part of its commitment to a Free and Open Indo-Pacific vision, which is shared by Western countries, Tokyo received Beijing’s ire in September by conducting anti-submarine exercises in the South China Sea, including with destroyers from the Maritime Self-Defense Force.

Moving forward, one big, specific measure Abe wants to push for is the abolition of Article 9. This is the clause in Japan’s post-war constitution that constrains the country’s military to a strictly defensive role, rather than that of a conventional army, and has meant that defense spending has mostly remained below 1 percent of gross domestic product.

To overturn this, Abe will need not just a two-thirds majority in the nation’s lower house and upper house, but also a simple majority in a national referendum. Straightforward as that may sound, it could yet prove a major challenge given the large body of public opinion that still values post-war pacifism in the only country ever to have been attacked with nuclear weapons.

Taken overall, this week’s meeting shows that, while China and Japan are seeking to set aside disputes and focus more on common agendas in the Trump era, this comes amidst a legacy of distrust and competition. Going forward, the dilemmas are especially acute for Abe who, six years into his second prime ministership, is finding that Japan’s strategic choices are more complex, and narrower, as he navigates a pathway through the minefields that lie between Washington and Beijing.

*Andrew Hammond is an Associate at LSE IDEAS at the London School of Economics

Russia’s various nationality policy strategy documents in the past have been about social policies, but the new one, prepared by the Federal Agency for Nationality Affairs and slated to be approved by the Presidential Council on Inter-Ethnic Relations is all about national security.

On the one hand, this shift is nothing more than part of a general trend in Russian policy pronouncements under Vladimir Putin in recent years to stress the way in which they contribute to national security, as a means of gaining the Kremlin’s attention and suggesting that those working in a particular area see security questions as paramount.

But on the other, it also reflects an increasing understanding that nationality issues really are at the core of Russian national security not only because they could once again threaten the territorial integrity of the state but also because they create problems that outsiders could exploit or that undermine Russian programs like the military draft.

In Kommersant, journalist Natalya Gorodetskaya says that the document may be changed again before it is promulgated by Vladimir Putin but that, in the words of Aslambek Paskachev, a member of the presidium of the Presidential Council, it is a very different document than its predecessors (kommersant.ru/doc/3779077).

It is far briefer than they were, perhaps in order to avoid raising some of the issues on which there is little agreement such as the relationship between ethnic and non-ethnic Russianness. And it is, Paskachev says, “a document of strategic planning in the sphere of national security.” Aleksandr Brod, another presidium member, confirms that.

Among the challenges the document lists, Gorodetskaya continues, are “the influence of international terrorism and extremism, the dissemination of radical ideas based on national and religious exclusiveness,” and tensions within Russian Federation arising from regional conflicts beyond the borders of the country.

Among the specific threats the strategy paper lists are “an overemphasis on regional interests and separatism, including support from abroad, illegal migration and problems with the system of adaptation of migrants, the formation of closed ethnic enclaves, social and wealth inequality, regional economic differentiation, the results of inter-ethnic conflicts, and the outflow of ethnic Russians from the North Caucasus, Siberia and the Far East.”

One particularly tricky issue for those who prepared the document is the relationship between the concept of ethnic Russians (russkiye) and that of non-ethnic Russians (rossiyane) and the role of the former as “the state-forming” people around whom all the others have been grouped.

The new document specifies that “the Russian state was formed as a unity of peoples, the system forming core of which was historically the Russian people. Present-day Russian society,” it continues, “is unified by a single cultural (civilizational) code based on the preservation and development of Russian [russkaya] culture and language, the historical-cultural legacy of all the peoples of Russia.”

The new document spends a great deal of time defining key terms, because, as sociologist Leokadiya Drobrizheva says, research shows that “people understand in different ways unity and a unified political nation.” Now with these definitions, she suggests, “people will know that a unified nation is not about the suppression of peoples and languages.”

One reason for the delay in the production of this strategy paper was that Vladimir Putin asked Academician Valery Tishkov to prepare a law on a single non-ethnic Russian nation. His efforts sparked opposition from many non-Russians. As a result, the document did not appear as scheduled in August 2017 but may now be worked on again.

An innovation in the new document, Gorodetskaya says, is that it called for “strengthening the non-ethnic Russian nation,” a goal that will require a reduction in the number of conflicts, the elevation of the status of the Russian language, support for numerically small peoples, and increasing inter-regional cooperation.

Vyacheslav Mikhaylov, a former nationalities minister, says it would be wrong to draw sweeping conclusions as the document may be changed before Putin signs it. In any case, he suggests, “discussions will continue.” And while he doesn’t say so, its stress on a non-ethnic Russian nation and on national security will provoke both Russians and non-Russians alike.

By Nazir Ahmad Mir*

Imran Khan kept tradition alive by undertaking the very first prime ministerial visit to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It is generally believed that Pakistani Prime Ministers seek spiritual guidance from the holy places in Saudi Arabia. As Imran Khan starts his innings, he surely needs the Almighty’s blessings to start the arduous task of steering the economy back from the brink, dealing with the deteriorating relationship with the United States which holds the purse strings of international financial institutions, and managing the challenges of instability in Afghanistan, among others. However, it is also true that Pakistani prime ministers make their first official visit to Saudi Arabia because of the practical reason of that country being a significant political and economic benefactor. Khan was genially welcomed by the Saudis and the doors of the Ka’ba were opened for him, which otherwise remain closed for other visiting Muslims.

Saudi Arabia’s importance to Pakistan is reinforced by two other aspects of Imran Khan’s visit. First, Khan’s visit took place in spite of his announcement that he would not undertake any foreign visit during the first three months as part of an ‘austerity’ drive. Khan making an exception to visit Saudi Arabia underlined that country’s importance “for which,” according to him, “the people of Pakistan have special love.” Second, Khan chose to visit Saudi Arabia even though it was President Hasan Rouhani of Iran who had extended an invitation to him first. Iran wants to have better ties with Pakistan. Iranian Foreign Minister Javed Zarif was the first foreign official of his rank to meet Imran Khan in Islamabad to talk about improving bilateral relations.

Economic and Strategic Aspects

Pakistan has benefited enormously from Saudi Arabia – the Muslim world’s wealthiest nation – through generous financial aid, the supply of oil on a deferred payment basis and aid during crises. For instance, the Saudis provided a grant of US$10 million during the 2005 earthquake, $170 million during the 2010/11 floods, and a $1.5 billion grant when Pakistan faced an economic crisis in 2014. Of late, Saudi Arabia has once again come to Pakistan’s rescue by promising assistance worth $2 billion to stabilise a falling economy.

Besides, there are around two million Pakistani expatriates in Saudi Arabia, and they send back remittances worth over $5 billion every year. Though the trade balance is heavily skewed in favour of Saudi Arabia, the two countries are negotiating a bilateral treaty to help correct the imbalance to some extent. Pakistan has been arguing that “there is huge potential of bilateral trade lying unrealized between the two countries.” It has been importing mainly oil from Saudi Arabia and exports rice, meat, meat products, spices and fruits, footwear and leather goods, and chemicals. Pakistan’s service sector, it is said, has much more potential to expand.

Not only has Saudi Arabia helped Pakistan avoid major economic crises, it has also supported Pakistan’s defence by providing logistic support and financial assistance. For instance, the Kingdom assured Islamabad that it would supply 50,000 barrels of crude oil per day on a deferred payment basis in case Pakistan’s nuclear tests resulted in US and other European sanctions in 1998. In return, Pakistan has stood with Saudi Arabia diplomatically and militarily whenever the latter required such support. Nawaf Obeid, a former advisor to the Saudi Government from 2004 to 2015, summed up the relationship in 2004 thus: ‘We gave money and [the Pakistanis] dealt with it as they saw fit… There is no documentation, but there is an implicit understanding that on everything, in particular, on security and military issues, Pakistan will be there for Saudi Arabia’.

Strains in the Relationship

When, in 2015, Saudi Arabia asked Pakistan to join the coalition it was leading to undertake the ground offensive in Yemen against the Iran-backed Houthis, Islamabad refused and let it be known that it would prefer to stand “neutral” in the Iran-Saudi rivalry. The decision was taken keeping in mind the possible implications of joining the coalition on domestic politics and on bilateral relations with Iran. To pacify an upset Saudi Arabia, Pakistan subsequently allowed former Army chief General Raheel Sharif to head the Saudi-led coalition named “Islamic Military Alliance to Fight Terrorism (IMAFT)”. This latter decision was seen by many in Pakistan as not in the national interest and as violating the resolution passed by parliament in 2015 spelling out Pakistan’s “neutrality” in the Saudi Arabia-Iran conflict.

The Saudi-Iran conflict in West Asia has serious ramifications for Pakistan’s relationship with Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia sees Iranian involvement and growing salience in regional politics as a threat to its security. Saudis argue that “Iran is at the root of numerous security problems now plaguing the Middle East” and that it should be prevented from challenging “1,400 years of majority Sunni domination.” The Saudis feel that their long-term ally, the United States, has grown disinterested about continuing to support the current regional order. To ensure its own dominance in the region, Riyadh has undertaken several measures to secure its interests in the region. It has initiated an expansion in its military capability, for which it allocated $64 billion in 2016. It has also formed IMAFT to check any challenge to its dominance.

Pakistan, for its part, is worried about India’s improving relations with West Asian countries in general and Saudi Arabia in particular. While Pakistan wants to maintain a delicate balance between Saudi Arabia and Iran, the Saudis are not happy with this balancing game and want Pakistan to support them. In March 2018, Pakistan approved the despatch of 1,000 troops to Saudi Arabia as part of their extensive defence cooperation. The decision was taken immediately after General Qamar Bajwa’s visit to Riyadh on 2 February, which was his second in two months and came only a few days before Indian Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj’s visit to Saudi Arabia on 6 to 8 February 2018. The decision to send troops to Saudi Arabia raised some eyebrows within the country, with some arguing that it would make Islamabad look like joining one of the camps in the Saudi-Iran rivalry, which was not in the national interest. It is also said that the decision was taken not only because of India’s growing ties with Saudi Arabia but also due to Iran’s engagement with India. Thus the move was directed at both countries. On one hand, it signalled Iran that Pakistan can jettison its “neutral” stand in the Riyadh-Tehran rivalry. And on the other, it was meant to convey to Saudi Arabia that Pakistan would be there when required.

Conclusion

By undertaking his maiden visit as Prime Minister to Saudi Arabia, Imran Khan underscored that Riyadh is going to remain a priority for Pakistan’s foreign policy. During the visit, Khan reiterated the traditional position that ‘We stand with Saudi Arabia’ in case of need. Highlighting that “Pakistan has tremendous opportunities of investment”, he sought a further strengthening of relations by inviting the Kingdom to invest in Pakistan. While the invitation to invest in the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) was later retracted by pointing out that CPEC is a bilateral project, Saudi investments in an oil refinery in Gwadar and the Reko Diq gold and copper mines in Balochistan are seen as positive developments.

While Pakistan clearly seeks to maintain cordial relations with Iran, it is unlikely that it would be willing to incur the displeasure of Saudi Arabia with which it has greater economic and strategic links. It remains to be seen how the Khan Government is going to retain the trust of the Saudis while at the same time not angering Iran which is an immediate neighbour.

Views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IDSA or of the Government of India.

About the author:
*Dr Nazir Ahmad Mir is a Research Assistant at Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses

Source:
This article was published by IDSA

By Md. Muddassir Quamar*

Jamal Khashoggi’s killing in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on October 2, 2018 has become a diplomatic embarrassment for the Kingdom. After news broke of his disappearance, Saudi authorities initially denied any knowledge of Khashoggi’s whereabouts and claimed that he had left the consulate within an hour. However, Turkish police began an investigation into the matter after receiving a complaint from Khashoggi’s Turkish fiancée, Hatice Cengiz, and revealed on October 6 that it has evidence of Khashoggi being tortured and killed inside the consulate. This news enraged global public opinion against Saudi Arabia including in the United States, leading to President Donald Trump demanding an explanation from Riyadh. Meanwhile, Turkish authorities demanded that they be granted access to the consulate for completing the investigation. Riyadh and Ankara eventually agreed to form a joint team which completed investigations including inside the Saudi consulate on October 18.

After over two weeks of silence and denials, Saudi Arabia confirmed on October 19 that Khashoggi was killed. A Saudi Press Agency report stated that preliminary investigations by the Kingdom’s Public Prosecution found that Khashoggi was killed in a brawl that “took place between him and the persons who met him during his attendance in the Kingdom’s consulate in Istanbul.” The report further stated that 18 “individuals who are all Saudi nationals” are under investigation for their involvement in the killing. The same day King Salman issued a royal decree relieving from their positions Saud al-Qahtani, an adviser in the Royal Court, Ahmed al-Asiri, the deputy chief of intelligence, and three other intelligence officers.

President Trump’s initial response to these developments was to observe that the Saudi explanation seems “credible”. But he soon changed his stance under domestic pressure and said that it is “not-satisfactory.” The fact that Khashoggi was a permanent resident of the United States and a Washington Post columnist to boot has led to clamour among Trump’s political opponents and in the US media for holding Saudi Arabia responsible and taking punitive measures against the Kingdom. The administration, however, has been willing to give more time to Riyadh. While demanding a further explanation and through inquiry, President Trump has not blamed King Salman or Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman for the killing. He has refused to cancel the US$110 billion weapons deal that he had concluded with King Salman during his May 2017 visit to Riyadh, stating “I don’t like the concept of stopping an investment of [US]$110 billion into the United States…things that create jobs.”

In the meanwhile, Turkey has kept up the pressure on Saudi Arabia by revealing details of the investigation to the media. Given Khashoggi’s proximity to some of the leaders of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) including close associates of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkish authorities have refused to participate in a cover up. Though Ankara has refrained from making any direct allegations against the Saudi leadership, President Erdogan has said that he will issue a statement on October 23 during the AKP’s weekly group meeting in parliament. He has also stated that several questions remained unanswered and need explanation. The semi-official Anadolu Agency has reported that during their October 22 telephonic conversation, Erdogan and Trump agreed on the need to “clear up” all the aspects of the case. However, given that Erdogan has been in touch with Trump on the issue and has been willing to talk to Saudi officials, he is unlikely to press for any punitive action against Riyadh.

Nonetheless, for President Trump, in addition to the domestic pressures, concerns of European allies have also become a factor. Many European leaders have called for a review of ties with Riyadh. Germany, for example, has urged all members of the European Union to stop selling weapons to Saudi Arabia. In a television interview, the German Economy and Energy Minister Peter Altmaier said that Germany “would not approve any new arms sales to Saudi Arabia and would urge other EU member states to follow this example.” He further said that Berlin believes that “it is important to adopt a common European stance,” and that “only if all European states are united, it would make an influence on the government in Riyadh.”

Despite the domestic and international pressure, the Trump administration is not inclined to take any significant punitive action against Riyadh. Two important factors explain Washington’s lack of enthusiasm for sanctioning Saudi Arabia over the Khashoggi affair. Firstly, sanctions will have a serious economic impact not only on the United States which has strong bilateral trade links with Saudi Arabia but also on the global oil market and might lead to a sharp rise in oil prices. Neither the United States nor other rising powers including India want oil prices to rise. Further, Saudi Arabia is one of the major contributors to trade and business in the US and Europe. Notably, Riyadh has vowed to retaliate against any international sanctions with a reminder that the world’s top oil exporter “plays an impactful and active role in the global economy.” More importantly, Riyadh is one of the top buyers of US defence equipment and weapons, which, in Trump’s view, brings much needed business and jobs to the United States and should not be hampered.

Secondly, Riyadh (along with Tel Aviv) is central to US policy in the Middle East. It has been a historical ally of the US and has been welcoming of Trump’s policies in the region. Since assuming office, President Trump has made several policy departures including the Obama policy of forging reconciliation with Iran by unilaterally withdrawing from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) signed between the P5+1 and Iran. While this was disliked by many, Riyadh and Tel Aviv welcomed the move as a significant step in curbing Iran’s growing regional influence and “expansionism.” Riyadh has also been forthcoming in showing support on the issue of the resumption of the Middle East peace process to resolve the longstanding Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Washington sees Riyadh as an important actor that has the ability to influence Arab and Islamic public opinion. And though King Salman was leading the Arab-Islamic opposition of the US move to shift its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, that has not affected the alliance between the two countries. The United States and Saudi Arabia are on the same page on various regional issues including Syria, Yemen and Libya.

Finally, Saudi Arabia has shown willingness to accommodate US concerns on the killing of Jamal Khashoggi by promising to thoroughly investigate the matter and punish those found guilty. King Salman has initiated action against intelligence operatives who, Turkey had revealed, were present in the consulate when the incident took place. The King has taken a reconciliatory approach towards Turkey by sending Prince Khaled al-Faisal, the governor of Mecca, to meet with President Erdogan and Turkish leaders to placate Turkish anger. Saudi Arabia has also denied the role of Crown Prince Bin-Salman in the entire issue. That means the three stakeholders, that is, Saudi Arabia, United States and Turkey, are willing to discuss and be accommodative of each other’s concerns.

Even though Trump remains unconvinced about taking serious punitive action against Saudi Arabia despite strong domestic and international pressure, the Khashoggi affair is indeed a serious breach of international diplomatic norms. It has not only momentarily affected Riyadh’s relations with Ankara and Washington but has also dented Saudi Arabia’s international credibility. Nevertheless, given the strong strategic and economic partnership between Washington and Riyadh, the Khashoggi affair is unlikely to affect US-Saudi relations.

Views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IDSA or of the Government of India

About the author:
*Md. Muddassir Quamar is Associate Fellow at Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi

Source:
This article was published by IDSA

A kilometer above Fort Morgan, Alabama, small migratory birds face a critical decision. Ahead lies a thousand kilometers of open water, the Gulf of Mexico, and a 22- to 24-hour flight without rest or food. On the other side, if they make it, they’ll continue the journey to their South American winter habitat. For some, the journey will end in the waters of the Gulf.

With many migratory birds in decline, ornithologists are keen to identify “choke points” along their routes. Large geographic barriers like the Gulf are likely suspects, but survival rates across these barriers are difficult to estimate. A new study published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B provides the first survival estimates for small migratory birds crossing the Gulf, and the factors that explain whether or not they survive the crossing.

“We know a lot of birds die going across the Gulf because we see birds floating up on shore and in the stomach contents of sharks. We just don’t know how many and how risky it is to go across the Gulf,” says Mike Ward, lead author of the study, an associate professor in the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences at U of I, and avian ecologist at the Illinois Natural History Survey. “We figured out that survival depends on a combination of how fat they are – the fatter the better – and how much wind they have at their back.”

Ward and his colleagues focused on Swainson’s thrushes, small sparrow-sized birds that travel between Canada and South America twice each year. Some avoid the Gulf, opting to fly over Texas and mainland Mexico, but many more brave the treacherous shortcut between Fort Morgan and the Yucatan Peninsula. Why take the risk?

“They want to get to their wintering location as soon as possible because birds are territorial in the wintering grounds. They want to get to Columbia or Venezuela to get the best habitat for the winter,” Ward explains.

In the study, Ward’s colleagues captured Swainson’s thrushes at Fort Morgan each fall for five years. For each of the 139 birds they caught, the researchers gauged fat reserves, determined sex, and used eyelash glue to attach a tiny radio transmitter to the bird’s back. Meanwhile, Ward was on the Yucatan side erecting radio towers to pick up signals from the birds’ transmitters.

Using sophisticated analyses, the team estimated survival probabilities for all departing birds. Using data from both the birds detected and not detected on the Yucatan side, they were able to determine the factors that predicted which individuals were likely to survive the crossing.

The researchers state, “Survival estimates varied with wind profit and fat, but generally, fat birds departing on days with favorable wind profits had an apparent survival probability of greater than 0.90, while lean individuals with no or negative wind profits had less than 0.33.” In other words, the fatter the bird and the stronger the tailwind, the greater the probability of survival.

Going back to that moment of decision above Fort Morgan – to cross or not to cross – Ward says birds can usually tell if they’re ready to make the trip.

“Birds that aren’t fat enough know it. When they fly up in the sky at dusk, they circle around a little bit and head back north to find more food. The really fat ones – we call them little butterballs – fly up in the sky then start heading south. As long as they don’t have a strong wind in their face, they should be fine. Individuals with intermediate levels of fat have to make a tough decision,” he says.

Ward says that from a conservation perspective there’s not much people can do to control the wind, but conservation efforts can improve birds’ chances of surviving the journey across the Gulf. The action that people can do is help birds get fat.

“If people throughout the migration corridor provide habitat and food sources for birds to add fat, they’re facilitating their ability to cross the Gulf even if the winds aren’t ideal. Whether it’s planting native shrubs in your backyard, or setting aside a big tract of forest, I’m a big proponent that every small thing helps.”

A closed door is just one of many obstacles that poses no barrier to a new type of flying, micro, tugging robot called a FlyCroTug. Outfitted with advanced gripping technologies and the ability to move and pull on objects around it, two FlyCroTugs can jointly lasso the door handle and heave the door open.

Developed in the labs of Mark Cutkosky, the Fletcher Jones Chair in the School of Engineering at Stanford University, and Dario Floreano at the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne in Switzerland, FlyCroTugs are micro air vehicles that the researchers have modified so the vehicles can anchor themselves to various surfaces using adhesives inspired by the feet of geckos and insects, previously developed in Cutkosky’s lab.

With these attachment mechanisms, FlyCroTugs can pull objects up to 40 times their weight, like door handles in one scenario, or cameras and water bottles in a rescue situation. Similar vehicles can only lift objects about twice their own weight using aerodynamic forces.

“When you’re a small robot, the world is full of large obstacles,” said Matthew Estrada, a graduate student at Stanford and lead author of a paper on FlyCroTugs, published Oct. 25 in Science Robotics. “Combining the aerodynamic forces of our aerial vehicle along with interaction forces that we generate with the attachment mechanisms resulted in something that was very mobile, very forceful and micro as well.”

The researchers say the FlyCroTugs’ small size means they can navigate through snug spaces and fairly close to people, making them useful for search and rescue. Holding tightly to surfaces as they tug, the tiny robots could potentially move pieces of debris or position a camera to evaluate a treacherous area.

Taking a cue from nature

As with most projects in Cutkosky’s lab, the FlyCroTugs were inspired by the natural world. Hoping to have an air vehicle that was fast, small and highly maneuverable but also able to move large loads, the researchers looked to wasps.

“Wasps can fly rapidly to a piece of food, and then if the thing’s too heavy to take off with, they drag it along the ground. So this was sort of the beginning inspiration for the approach we took,” said Cutkosky, who is a co-author of the paper.

The researchers read studies on wasp prey capture and transport, which identify the ratio of flight-related muscle to total mass that determines whether a wasp flies with its prey or drags it. They also followed the lead of the wasp in having different attachment options depending on where the FlyCroTugs land.

For smooth surfaces, the robots have gecko grippers, non-sticky adhesives that mimic a gecko’s intricate toe structures and hold on by creating intermolecular forces between the adhesive and the surface. For rough surfaces, these robots are equipped with 32 microspines, a series of fishhook-like metal spines that can individually latch onto small pits in a surface.

Each FlyCroTug has a winch with a cable and either microspines or gecko adhesive in order to tug. Beyond those fixed features they are otherwise highly modifiable. The location of the grippers can vary depending on the surface where they will be landing, and the researchers can also add parts for ground-based movement, such as wheels. Getting all of these features onto a small air vehicle with twice the weight of a golf ball was no small feat, according to the researchers.

“People tend to think of drones as machines that fly and observe the world, but flying insects do many other things – such as walking, climbing, grasping, building – and social insects can even cooperate to multiply forces,” said Floreano, who was senior author on the paper. “With this work, we show that small drones capable of anchoring to the environment and collaborating with fellow drones can perform tasks typically assigned to humanoid robots or much larger machines.”

Interacting with the world

Drones and other small flying robots may seem like all the rage these days but the FlyCroTugs – with their ability to navigate to remote locations, anchor and pull – fall into a more specific niche, according to Cutkosky.

“There are many laboratories around the world that are starting to work with small drones or air vehicles, but if you look at the ones that are also thinking about how these little vehicles can interact physically with the world, it’s a much smaller set,” he said.

The researchers can successfully open a door with two FlyCroTugs. They also had one fly atop a crumbling structure and haul up a camera to see inside. Next, they hope to work on autonomous control and the logistics of flying several vehicles at once.

“The tools to create vehicles like this are becoming more accessible,” said Estrada. “I’m excited at the prospect of increasingly incorporating these attachment mechanisms into the designer’s tool belt, enabling robots to take advantage of interaction forces with their environment and put these to useful ends.”

Groundbreaking new technology could allow 100-times-faster internet by harnessing twisted light beams to carry more data and process it faster.

Broadband fiber-optics carry information on pulses of light, at the speed of light, through optical fibers. But the way the light is encoded at one end and processed at the other affects data speeds.

This world-first nanophotonic device, just unveiled in Nature Communications, encodes more data and processes it much faster than conventional fiber optics by using a special form of ‘twisted’ light.

Dr Haoran Ren from RMIT’s School of Science, who was co-lead author of the paper, said the tiny nanophotonic device they have built for reading twisted light is the missing key required to unlock super-fast, ultra-broadband communications.

“Present-day optical communications are heading towards a ‘capacity crunch’ as they fail to keep up with the ever-increasing demands of Big Data,” Ren said.

“What we’ve managed to do is accurately transmit data via light at its highest capacity in a way that will allow us to massively increase our bandwidth.”

Current state-of-the-art fiber-optic communications, like those used in Australia’s National Broadband Network (NBN), use only a fraction of light’s actual capacity by carrying data on the colour spectrum.

New broadband technologies under development use the oscillation, or shape, of light waves to encode data, increasing bandwidth by also making use of the light we cannot see.

This latest technology, at the cutting edge of optical communications, carries data on light waves that have been twisted into a spiral to increase their capacity further still. This is known as light in a state of orbital angular momentum, or OAM.

In 2016 the same group from RMIT’s Laboratory of Artificial-Intelligence Nanophotonics (LAIN) published a disruptive research paper in Science journal describing how they’d managed to decode a small range of this twisted light on a nanophotonic chip. But technology to detect a wide range of OAM light for optical communications was still not viable, until now.

“Our miniature OAM nano-electronic detector is designed to separate different OAM light states in a continuous order and to decode the information carried by twisted light,” Ren said.

“To do this previously would require a machine the size of a table, which is completely impractical for telecommunications. By using ultrathin topological nanosheets measuring a fraction of a millimeter, our invention does this job better and fits on the end of an optical fiber.”

LAIN Director and Associate Deputy Vice-Chancellor for Research Innovation and Entrepreneurship at RMIT, Professor Min Gu, said the materials used in the device were compatible with silicon-based materials use in most technology, making it easy to scale up for industry applications.

“Our OAM nano-electronic detector is like an ‘eye’ that can ‘see’ information carried by twisted light and decode it to be understood by electronics. This technology’s high performance, low cost and tiny size makes it a viable application for the next generation of broadband optical communications,” he said.

“It fits the scale of existing fiber technology and could be applied to increase the bandwidth, or potentially the processing speed, of that fiber by over 100 times within the next couple of years. This easy scalability and the massive impact it will have on telecommunications is what’s so exciting.”

Gu said the detector can also be used to receive quantum information sent via twisting light, meaning it could have applications in a whole range of cutting edge quantum communications and quantum computing research.

“Our nano-electronic device will unlock the full potential of twisted light for future optical and quantum communications,” Gu said.

As the midterm election nears and the fallout of the Supreme Court nomination rings across the political divide, a new study presents a unique angle of American politics: how party affiliation affects charitable donations.

In that study, published this week in Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, researchers from IUPUI, University of Georgia, NC State University and Brigham Young University break down the philanthropic giving of voters in red counties vs. blue counties across the country. What they found: voters who live in counties where political competition is high give less to charity.

“The more politically divided we get in our communities, the more we’re going to see consequences of that spill over into other facets of life, including our charitable giving,” said Rob Christensen, associate professor of public management at BYU. “The more political competition in a county, the more suspicion there seems to be in how we spend our charitable dollars.”

According to the researchers, the findings may indicate a sense among voters that they’re unsure if their charitable contributions are going to go to like-minded people. The good news for charities is that donations will likely increase in red counties that get redder and in blue counties that get bluer — something we are increasingly seeing in America.

“Lower levels of competition may be an indication that we’re sorting into enclaves of like-minded political preferences,” said study co-author Rebecca Nesbit, associate professor of nonprofit management at the University of Georgia.”While this sorting may lead to higher levels of charity, it may not help heal the political divisions in our country.”

Researchers analyzed 2012 and 2013 itemized deduction tax data from the Internal Revenue Service’s Individual Master File, which aggregates information from individual income tax returns at the county level. To measure political ideology, they looked at the percentage in each county that voted Republican in the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections.

The research revealed counties with a higher proportion of Republican-voting residents give more to charity than counties with a higher proportion of Democrat-voting residents. However — and here is a major caveat — the researchers also found that the proportion of those voting Republican actually decreases charitable giving in counties that are not Republican-dominated.

“If we ignore other things like tax burden and political competition, then Republicans appear more generous,” Christensen said, which, on the surface “supports the notion that conservative communities prefer to redistribute resources through private rather than public efforts.”

In other words, Republicans don’t love taxes and if taxes are high in a county, they tend to give less to charity. On the flip side, the study revealed Democratic-leaning counties are less stingy overall in redistributing their money, both through charity and government channels.

Researchers believe the findings are increasingly important as major shifts in political competition and philanthropy continue. Other research has shown, for example, that younger generations are giving less to institutional charities (think United Way) and more to charitable causes that are more closely connected to them (GoFundMe for a social-media friend).

University students in the US are showing increasingly higher rates of diagnosis for a range of mental health conditions, potentially putting their academic success at risk, suggests new research published in the Journal of American College Health.

Using a national American College Health Association dataset consisting of over 450,000 undergraduate students, researchers investigated whether mental health diagnoses and treatment among university students changed between the years 2009 and 2015.

The researchers found a significant increase in the diagnosis and treatment for eight of the 12 mental health conditions examined, with the biggest increases in anxiety, depression, and panic attacks.

Treatment and diagnoses of anxiety increased by 5.6% over the study period, closely followed by depression (3.2%) and panic attacks (2.8%). Anxiety is now the most common mental health concern among university students in the US, affecting almost 15% of students nationally.

Speculating on the reasons behind this upsurge in mental health treatment and service usage, the study’s authors suggest a combination of deteriorating mental health and increased willingness to seek help, driven by reduced stigma surrounding mental health and greater awareness of college services among students.

As lead author Dr Sara Oswalt, from the University of Texas at San Antonio, explained: “We don’t know that the college environment is causing or even contributing to the increase in these conditions, but campuses are going to have to address it. Higher education institutions want students to be successful in college, but if mental health issues aren’t adequately addressed, it will make student success more difficult to achieve.”

As the study also revealed, students are becoming more willing to use university-based mental health services. By 2015, almost one-fifth of survey respondents reported using their university’s mental health services, an increase of more than 4% over the seven-year study period. And almost three-quarters of students would consider using these services in the future, an increase of over 6.5%.

Dr Oswalt warned that, while there is more that universities can do to safeguard the wellbeing of students, they must do so in a way that is manageable, using alternative resources if they cannot cope with demand themselves.

“Universities should first examine the overall culture surrounding mental health on their campus. If the overall culture is not one that promotes health, that will need to be considered before step two, which is providing support for prevention in a variety of areas. This may include sleep instruction, stress reduction, and exercise. Step three needs to be adequately staffing counselling and health centers so those in need of services can be seen. If institutions don’t have counselling services, then partnering or identifying community resources is critical to supporting their students.

“Each institution will need to develop strategies that work for their culture and location, and solution-focussed conversations need to happen with the highest levels of administration to adequately implement and support these strategies.”

With 75% of all serious adult psychiatric illnesses starting by the age of 25, universities have a key role to play in addressing mental health concerns at an early stage. It is hoped that this research will encourage universities to ensure they are doing enough to address their students’ wellbeing.

As the universities included in the study were self-selected, and participants self-reported their mental health diagnosis and treatment, the authors urged caution with interpreting their findings. Further research should consider whether students’ mental health is actually deteriorating, or whether increased service usage is the result of improved health-seeking behavior and reduced stigma.

Through excavation of a site in Texas, researchers have identified a particular style of projectile point – or triangular blade often attached to a weapon that would be thrown- dated between 13,500 and 15,500 years ago, they say.

This is earlier than typical Clovis-style technologies dated to 13,000 years ago.

The finding suggests that projectile points changed over time from the stemmed form found here into the more widespread, Clovis-style lanceolate fluted projectile point.

It’s also possible, say the study’s authors, that the projectile point style they found in Texas is a distinct style created by people of an earlier, separate migration into the Americas.

Clovis points – thought to date as early as 13,000 years ago – were once thought to reflect the earliest occupation of North America. However, more recent excavations in western North America have identified a different style of point technology- the Western Stemmed Tradition.

The connections between the artifact assemblages of Clovis and Western Stemmed Traditions, however, remain unknown. Here, Michael R. Waters and his colleagues report more than 100,000 artifacts, including 328 tools and 12 complete and fragmented projectile points, excavated from the Buttermilk Creek Complex horizon of the Debra L. Friedkin site, which dates earlier than the Clovis history.

From 19 optically stimulated luminescence dates of sediments, they determined the artifacts were between 13,500- and 15,500- years-old. The Buttermilk Creek Complex featured bladed projectile points that exhibited similarities to artifact assemblages of the Clovis, with lanceolate features.

Waters and colleagues suggest that once developed, the lanceolate fluted point technology (associated with Clovis) could have spread over much of North America into northern Mexico, or alternatively, the stemmed and lanceolate point traditions may be evidence of two separate human migrations into North America.

The “mass grave” hoax is back. The Irish government is planning to exhume the remains of babies allegedly buried in a mass grave in Tuam, Ireland. According to the New York Times, Ireland’s Minister for Children, Katherine Zappone, is leading this campaign. The so-called mass grave is on the grounds of the Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home in the County Galway town of Tuam.

The Times reports that this story began in 2014 when “a local amateur historian, Catherine Corless, said she had found death certificates for 796 children who died in the home from 1925 to 1961—but whose burial places were not officially recorded.”

There are several factual errors in this news story by Ed O’Loughlin. He has a history of distorting the record.

Earlier this year O’Loughlin referred to Corless as a “dogged local historian” who made headline news when “she published evidence” that nearly 800 children had died in the Tuam home, and that the remains of “some” were found in the septic tank. (My emphasis.)

As I have noted several times before, the “mass grave” story is a cruel myth promoted by those whose agenda it is to smear the Catholic Church.

The myth began when Corless published a 2012 article titled, “The Home,” in the Journal of the Old Tuam Society. In it, Corless made no mention of any “mass grave.” If anything, she offered evidence that contradicts what she later claimed.

Here is what Corless said: “A few local boys [in 1975] came upon a sort of crypt in the ground, and on peering in they saw several small skulls.” She mentioned there was a “little graveyard.” That is not the makings of a mass grave.

The primary source for her “mass grave” thesis is Barry Sweeney. When he was 10, he and a friend stumbled on a hole with skeletons in it. In 2014, he was asked by the Irish Times to comment on Corless’ claim that there are “800 skeletons down that hole.” He said, “Nothing like that.” How many? “About 20,” he said. He later told the New York Times there were “maybe 15 to 20 small skeletons.” Is O’Loughlin aware of this? It was printed in the newspaper that employs him.

Corless herself admitted in 2014 that she learned from local residents that the Tuam graveyard outside the Home was dotted with “tiny markers there.” There were “bits of stones left to indicate graves.” Those “tiny markers” suggest this was a cillin graveyard, or a graveyard for children. A “mass grave” is not dotted with “tiny markers” or “bits of stones.” Yet Corless has been able to get away with these contradictory explanations.

In a 2014 news story by Douglas Dalby of the New York Times, he says of Corless’ account that she “surmised that the children’s bodies were interred in a septic tank behind the home.” (My italic.) His verb is accurate. To surmise is to guess—it is proof of nothing.

As for Corless, she is neither an “amateur historian” nor a “local historian.” She is not a historian—local, regional, or national. She doesn’t even have an undergraduate degree. She is a typist.

Furthermore, last year, when Zappone released her second Interim Report on this subject, she never used the term “mass grave,” or implied anything like it. So why is she so dogged about this issue?

She now says it is important to “demonstrate our compassion and commitment to work towards justice, truth and healing for what happened in our past and, most especially, for those who were previously abandoned.” She should instead worry about the wellbeing of children in Ireland today, beginning with child abuse in the womb.

Zappone’s alleged interest in protecting the welfare of children would be more persuasive were it not for her rabid pro-abortion record. She is an activist, not a health minister. “Married” to her girlfriend, an ex-nun, she is part of the effort to besmirch the historical record of Irish nuns. Yet were it not for the care these nuns gave to abandoned children, they would have died in the street. No one else wanted them in the early part of the last century.

Just as in the United States, pro-abortion and pro-gay activists seek to discredit the Catholic Church, thus making it easier for them to succeed. To accomplish their agenda, they are prepared to lie about the Church’s past so as to marginalize its voice today.

By Hannah Brockhaus

Pope Francis Wednesday removed Bishop Martin D. Holley from the pastoral government of the Diocese of Memphis and appointed Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz of Louisville to oversee the diocese until further notice.

The Vatican announced Oct. 24 that Pope Francis “has relieved” Bishop Holley “from the pastoral government of the diocese of Memphis” and appointed Archbishop Kurtz temporary apostolic administrator “ad nutum Sanctae Sedis,” meaning “at the disposition of the Holy See.”

The removal follows a Vatican investigation into the Diocese of Memphis in June to address concerns about major changes Bishop Holley, 63, had made. Among these was the reassignment of up to two-thirds of the 60 active priests in the diocese, according to local media reports.

The apostolic visitation, as it is called, was carried out by Archbishop Wilton D. Gregory of Atlanta and Archbishop Bernard A. Hebda of St. Paul-Minneapolis. They spent three days “fact-finding” in the diocese, including conducting interviews with Memphis-area clergy and laypeople, according to Memphis newspaper The Commercial Appeal.

The outcome of the apostolic visitation has not been made public.

In a letter to his priests in June, reported on by The Commercial Appeal, Holley said: “Many of you may have read, seen or heard news this week that an apostolic visitation was made to our diocese.”

“We are respectful of the confidentiality of the Apostolic Nunciature’s process and are thankful that some of you were invited to participate in that process,” he said.

Holley was installed as bishop of Memphis Oct. 19, 2016, after serving as auxiliary bishop of Washington, D.C. for 12 years.

In July, he was one of three Tennessee bishops who issued a letter to the state’s governor encouraging him to halt the then-pending execution of Billy Irick, who died by lethal injection August 9.

The bishops emphasized the value of all human life, even that of those convicted of horrendous crimes, offering themselves a resource to the governor for any questions regarding Catholic teaching on the subject.

While in Washington, Bishop Holley had served on multiple committees for Cultural Diversity, as well as subcommittees for Africa; African-American Catholics; Laity, Women, Children and Youth; and Migration.

He had also been a member of the International Catholic Foundation for the Service of Deaf People and been on a number of committees for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, including the Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth; Pro-Life Activities; and the Subcommittee for Hispanic Affairs.

Holley was born Dec. 31, 1954, in Pensacola, Fl., and ordained a priest for the diocese of Pensacola-Tallahassee in 1987.

By Swati Dev

India’s pro-Hindu Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has named two former Christian pastors to contest Nov. 28 elections in Mizoram, a move widely seen as an attempt to wrest power in the Christian-dominated eastern state.

R. Colney and H. Lalruata are among the BJP candidates in the running for the 40-seat state legislature, where the rival Congress party won 34 seats in the previous election five years ago.

“It is not true that the BJP is a pro-Hindu and an anti-Christian party. This is one reason I decided to contest the elections,” Colney told ucanews.com.

“I am confident that people are with me,” the former pastor said, indicating that 87 percent of the state’s 1 million people are Christians.

Himanta Biswa Sarma, a senior BJP leader, said his party will win the poll. He said Lalruata joined the party as he was impressed by development happening under the BJP-led federal government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Sarma, the finance minister of neighbouring Assam state, told reporters that Christians would not face any problems from the BJP. He accused the Congress party of trying to use religious sentiments for political advantage.

Mizoram is the only state among the eight northeastern states where the BJP and its allies have a miniscule presence. The pro-Hindu party and its allies are part of the government in six states in the region but so far have not won a legislative seat in Mizoram.

“We are here to contest in all 40 constituencies, and we hope we will form a government led by the BJP,” party general secretary Ram Madhav told media on Oct. 3 while touring the state.

However, state BJP leaders admit that their party faces hurdles with its pro-Hindu stance.

They said the party will repeat what it did in two other Christian-dominated northeastern states — Nagaland and Meghalaya — to become part of the government early this year.

In Nagaland, the BJP won 12 of the 60 seats in the house but joined another local party to form a coalition government. In Meghalaya, the BJP won only two seats in the 60-seat house but stitched up a post-poll alliance to form the government, outwitting the Congress party which won 21 seats.

During the Nagaland polls, the Nagaland Baptist Church Council had warned Christians of the threat posed by the BJP, which pushes for a theocratic Hindu nation.

In Mizoram, no social organisations have come out openly against the BJP so far.