By Luis Liwanag

About 5,000 alleged drug addicts and pushers have been killed since President Rodrigo Duterte launched his anti-drug war two years ago, a spokesman for the government’s drug enforcement agency said Wednesday, as the effort showed no signs of slowing down despite sustained international criticism.

From July 31, 2016 to Sept. 30 this year, the government had launched more than 110,000 anti-drug operations, according to the most-recent police data. Various groups, including the Human Rights Watch, have placed the deaths at about 12,000, a figure that Duterte and the police describe as exaggerated.

About 158,424 “drug personalities” have so far been arrested in the nationwide campaign, according to Derrick Carreon, spokesman for the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, as he confirmed police figures that the death toll stood at 4,948 to date.

More than 500 government officials and about 60 policemen and soldiers were among those who have been arrested on suspicion of drug links, Carreon told BenarNews.

He described the drug war as a success, despite international criticism and two cases filed before the Hague-based International Criminal Court against Duterte,

“President Duterte recently appealed that aside from intensifying our anti-drugs campaign, we must also fight against corruption,” Carreon said, adding that corruption and lack of a stronger law such as death penalty against drug offenders worked against their campaign.

By reimposing capital punishment, the government stood a better chance of defeating the traffickers, Carreon said.

“Those who bring in drugs through large volumes corrupt our system,” he said. “There should be something stronger against them rather than just a prison term.”

The release of the official death toll came as a congressional probe was underway over the alleged successful smuggling of a ton of methamphetamine hydrochloride into the country.

Duterte and his officials had earlier warned that the country risked becoming a narco-state if he abruptly stopped his war on drugs.

The president has carried a list containing the names of politicians, judges, police and military officers who were allegedly involved in the drug trade.

He has so far not explained how he came up with the list, but at least three mayors whose names appeared on it had been gunned down, including one who died in an alleged shootout in jail.

Jeoffrey Maitem in Cotabato City contributed to this report.

By Samuel Stolton

(EurActiv) — Tim Cook, the head of tech giant Apple, has rallied the US to “follow the lead” of the EU in privacy rules, saying that humanity is living amid a “data industrial complex” in which “our own information is being weaponised against us with military efficiency”.

Cook’s comments came as global tech leaders and regulators gathered at a high-level conference on privacy ethics hosted by the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) in Brussels on Wednesday (24 October).

Speaking at the event, Cook came out fiercely against “rogue actors and even governments [that] have taken advantage of user trust to deepen divisions, incite violence, and even undermine our shared sense of what is true and what is false.”

“Technology can magnify our worst human tendencies,” he said. “It can deepen divisions, incite violence, undermine our shared sense of what is true and what is false. This crisis is real.”

US privacy law: Four fundamental rights

In a move that prompted a standing ovation from the European Parliament’s Brussels seat, Cook directly advocated for a “comprehensive federal privacy law in the US”, after praising EU efforts in data protection as part of the General Data Protection Regulation.

Such a law in the US should feature four fundamental rights, Cook said, a right to privacy, knowledge, access and security.

Other speakers at Wednesday’s event included Sir Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the world wide web, and the EU’s data protection chief, Giovanni Buttarelli.

Video messages were delivered by King Felipe of Spain, as well as Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and Google’s Sundar Pichai, but both spoke more mildly than Cook on the importance of data protection.

“Privacy is an individual right that we must continue to work together to uphold,” Pichai said. “Today, there is real momentum to develop rules for data protection around the world. We welcome this trend.”

Zuckerberg, meanwhile, struck a more defensive tone, in a speech that made no direct reference to the Cambridge Analytica scandal that has tarred Facebook’s reputation.

Instead, he highlighted the steps that Facebook has done to bolster its privacy and data protection standards, while calling for EU citizens to maintain “trust” in Facebook’s service.

“You do need to trust us,” Zuckerberg said. “We have to think about striking the right balance between speech, security, privacy and safety.”

Pope Francis speaks out

On the EU’s side, Buttarelli called for more responsibility from regulators and governments in the field of data privacy, stating that technology systems are not intrinsically ‘ethical’ systems.

“Digitisation is not sensitive to human boundaries,” he said. “It injects itself into our most intimate spaces.

In an unconventional move, the bloc’s privacy chief then drew attention to a letter from Pope Francis, in which the head of the Catholic church stated the importance of technology serving mankind, and not the other way around.

MEPs take a stand

The EDPB conference comes at a time when data protection is high on the European agenda. MEPs are set to adopt a resolution on Thursday (25 October) that will see them urge Facebook to allow EU bodies to carry out a full audit assessing data protection and security of users’ personal data.

Speaking ahead of Thursday’s vote, Justice Commissioner Věra Jourová spoke of a “digital arms race” in which “our personal data can be misused, abused and used against us,” during a debate with MEPs on Tuesday (23 October).

The US has recently been caught in Jourová’s crosshairs, after the suggestion earlier this year that American companies had been failing to comply with European data protection rules under privacy shield agreement.

However, last week, senior officials at the Commission told EURACTIV that the US is making a number of steps in the right direction in order to fall in line with European regulations.

The continuing rise of fascism around the world is drawing increasing attention particularly as it takes firmer grip within national societies long seen to have rejected it.

Some recent studies have reminded us of the characteristics of fascist movements and individuals, particularly as they manifest among politically active fascists. For example, in his recent book How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us And Them Professor Jason Stanley has identified ten characteristics shared by fascists which have been simply presented in the article ‘Prof Sees Fascism Creeping In U.S.’

These characteristics, readily evident in the USA, Europe, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Myanmar and elsewhere today, include belief in a mythic (false) past, propaganda to divert attention and blame from the true source of corruption, anti-intellectualism and a belief in the ‘common man’ while deriding ‘women and racial and sexual minorities who seek basic equality as in fact seeking political and cultural domination’, promotion of elite dogma at the expense of any competing ideas (such as those in relation to freedom and equality), portrayal of the elite and its agents as victims, reliance on delusion rather than fact to justify their pursuit of power, the use of law and order ‘not to punish actual criminals, but to criminalize “out groups” like racial, ethnic, religious and sexual minorities’ which is why we are now ‘seeing criminality being written into immigration status’, and identification of “out groups” as lazy while attacking welfare systems and labor organizers, and promoting the idea that elites and their agents are hard working while exploited groups are lazy and a drain on the state.

In an earlier article ‘Fascism Anyone?’, published in the Spring 2003 issue of Free Inquiry Magazine, Professor Laurence W. Britt identified fourteen shared threads that link fascists. These include powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism, disdain for the importance of human rights, identification of enemies/scapegoats (such as communists, socialists, liberals, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals and ‘terrorists’) as a unifying cause, obsession with national security and avid identification with the military, sexism, a controlled/compliant mass media that promotes the elite agenda, a manufactured perception that opposing the power elite is tantamount to an attack on religion, corporate power protected by the political elite while the power of labor is suppressed or eliminated, disdain for intellectuals and the arts, expanded police power and prison populations in response to an obsession with the crime and punishment of ordinary citizens (while elite crimes are protected by a compliant judiciary), rampant cronyism and corruption, and fraudulent elections defended by a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

Offering a more straightforward characterization of fascism in the US context, which also highlights its violence more explicitly than the characterizations above, the eminent Norwegian peace research scholar Professor Johan Galtung explains it thus: ‘US Fascism? Yes, indeed; if by fascism we mean use of massive violence for political goals. US fascism takes three forms: global with bombing, droning and sniping all over; domestic with military weapons used across race and class faultlines; and then NSA-National Security Agency spying on everybody.’ See ‘The Fall of the US Empire – And Then What?’

Among other recent commentaries, one draws attention to a recent fascist gathering in the USA – see ‘Davos For Fascists’ – another to the ways in which fascism, under various names, is being effectively spread – see ‘How the new wave of far-right populists are using football to further their power’ – and another warns of focusing too narrowly on one issue and missing the wider threat that fascism poses. See ‘Fascism IS Here in USA’.

In any case, for those paying attention to what is happening in places like the United States, Europe, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Myanmar and elsewhere, it is easy to see that the rush to embrace fascism is accelerating.

But why? Surely, in this ‘enlightened’ age, notions such as freedom, democracy, human rights and equality are deeply embedded in our collective psyche, particularly in the West. We believe that elections should be, and are, ‘free and fair’ and not determined by corporate donations; we believe that the judiciary is independent of political and corporate influence. But are they?

Well, in fact, the evidence offered by the casual observation of events in the places mentioned above, as well as elsewhere around the world, tells us that none of this is any longer, if it ever was, the case. Let me explain why.

Fascism is a political label but, like any such label, it has a psychological foundation. That is, the political behavior of those who are fascists can be explained by understanding their psychology. Of course, all behavior can be explained by psychology but I will focus on the psychology of fascist behavior here.

There have been attempts to understand and explain the psychology of fascism, starting with the early work of Wilhelm Reich in The Mass Psychology of Fascism. So what is the psychology of individuals who are fascists?

You might not be surprised to read that the psychology of fascists is complex and is a direct outcome of the nature of the extraordinary violence to which they were subjected as children.

The Psychology of Fascists

Let me briefly identify the psychological profile of fascists and the specific violence (‘visible’, ‘invisible’ and ‘utterly invisible’) that generates a person with this psychology. For a thorough explanation and elaboration of this profile, and explanations of the terms ‘visible’, ‘invisible’ and ‘utterly invisible’ violence, see ‘Why Violence?’ and ‘Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice’.

First, fascists are terrified and they are particularly terrified of those individuals who perpetrated violence against them when they were a child although this terror remains unconscious to them. Second, this terror is so extreme that fascists are too terrified to consciously identify to themselves their own perpetrator (one or both parents and/or other significant adults who were supposed to love them) and to say that it is this individual or individuals who are violent and wrong.

Third, because they are terrified, they are unable to defend themselves against the original perpetrator(s) but also, as a result, they are unable to defend themselves against other perpetrators who attack them later in life. This lack of capacity to defend themselves leads to the fourth and fifth attributes – a deep sense of powerlessness and a deep sense of self-hatred. However, it is too terrifying and painful for the individual to be consciously aware of any of these feelings/attributes.

Sixth, because they are terrified of identifying that they are the victim of the violence of their own parents (and/or other significant adults from their childhood) and that this violence terrified them, fascists unconsciously delude themselves about the identity of their own perpetrator. They will unconsciously identify their ‘perpetrator’ as one or more individuals of whom they are not actually afraid from an existing ‘legitimized victim’ group such as children or people from a different gender, race, religion or class. This is also because their unconscious terror and self-hatred compels them to project onto people who are ‘controllable’ (because their original perpetrators never were). For this reason, their victims are (unconsciously) carefully chosen and are always relatively powerless by comparison.

This is easy to do because, seventh, children who become fascists have been terrorized into accepting a very narrow-minded and dogmatic belief set that excludes consideration of those in other social (including gender, racial, religious or class) groups. The idea that they might open-mindedly consider other beliefs, or the rights of those not in the ‘in-group’, is (unconsciously) terrifying to them. Moreover, because they have been terrorized into adopting their rigid belief set, fascists develop an intense fear of the truth; hence, fascists are both bigoted and self-righteous. In addition, the belief set of fascists includes a powerful and violently reinforced ‘lesson’: ‘good’ means obedient; it does not mean intrinsically good, loving and caring.

Eighth, and as a result of all of the above, fascists learn to unconsciously project their self-hatred, one outcome of their own victimhood, as hatred for those in the ‘out-groups’. This ‘justifies’ their (violent) behavior and obscures their unconscious motivation: to remain unaware of their own suppressed terror and self-hatred.

Ninth, fascists have a compulsion to be violent; that is, they are addicted to it. Why? Because the act of violence allows them to explosively release the suppressed feelings (usually some combination of fear, terror, pain, anger and powerlessness) so that they experience a brief sensation of delusional ‘relief’. Because the ‘relief’ is both brief and delusional, they are condemned to repeat their violence endlessly.

But the compulsion to be violent is reinforced by another element in their belief set, the tenth characteristic: fascists have a delusional belief in the effectiveness and morality of violence; they have no capacity to perceive its dysfunctionality and immorality.

And eleventh, the extreme social terrorization experience to which fascists have been subjected means that the feelings of love, compassion, empathy and sympathy, as well as the mental function of conscience, are prevented from developing. Devoid of conscience and these feelings, fascists can inflict violence on others, including their own children, without experiencing the feedback that conscience and these feelings would provide.

What Can We Do?

There is no simple formula for healing the badly damaged psychology of a fascist (or those who occupy a proximate ‘political space’ such as conservatives who advocate violence): it takes years of violent parental and adult treatment to create a fascist and so the path to heal one is long and painful, assuming the support for the individual to do so is available. Nevertheless, fascists can heal from the terror and self-hatred that underpin their psychology. See ‘Putting Feelings First’. And they can be assisted to heal by someone who is skilled in the art of deep listening. See ‘Nisteling: The Art of Deep Listening’.

Unfortunately, given their cowardice, fascists are unlikely to have the courage to seek the appropriate emotional support to heal. In the meantime, those of us so inclined must resist their violence and, ideally, this should be done strategically, particularly if we want impact against fascist national leaders. See Nonviolent Campaign Strategy or Nonviolent Defense/Liberation Strategy.

The good news is that we can avoid creating fascists. If you want to nurture a child so that they become compassionate and caring, live by their conscience and act with morality and courage in all circumstances, including when resisting fascists, then consider making ‘My Promise to Children’.

You might also consider joining the worldwide movement to end all violence, fascist or otherwise, by signing the online pledge of ‘The People’s Charter to Create a Nonviolent World’.

In essence: Fascists are terrified, full of self-hatred and powerless. But, too scared to feel their own terror, self-hatred and powerlessness, they unconsciously project this as fear of, and hatred for, the people in one or more ‘legitimized victim’ groups, including their own children (thus creating the next generation of fascists). They then try to ‘feel powerful’ by seeking violent control over these people themselves or by seeking to have violent control exercised over these people by various ‘authorities’, ranging from school teachers and religious figures to the police, military and various corporate and government agencies.

No matter how much control they have over others, however, it is impossible to control their own terror, self-hatred and powerlessness. So they are unconsciously and endlessly driven to seek (delusional) ‘relief’ by violently controlling those in legitimized victim groups. It is because their own children are the most immediately available ‘uncontrollable’ target that fascism is readily perpetuated.

India and the US may have policy differences on Russia and Iran, but keep big-picture focus on defense cooperation.

By Harsh V Pant*

Defying threats of US sanctions, India signed a $5.4 billion deal to buy the S-400 Triumf air defense missile system from Russia during President Vladimir Putin’s visit to New Delhi in early October. This is one of the biggest Indo-Russian defense deals in recent times with expectation in some quarters that it could revive an otherwise flagging Indo-Russian relationship. During the visit, the two nations “reaffirmed their commitment to the Special and Privileged Strategic Partnership between India and Russia,” and underscored the value of multipolarity and multilateralism.

The US response to the deal was quick and terse, and India’s move could attract sanctions under the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act on defense purchases from Russia, approved by US Congress 98 to 2 in 2017. While underlining that act is not aimed at stymieing military capabilities of American “allies or partners” and that the intent is “to impose costs on Russia for its malign behavior, including by stopping the flow of money to Russia’s defense sector,” the United States made it clear that waivers would be considered on a “transaction-by-transaction basis.” More ominously, US President Donald Trump suggested that India would soon “find out” if the punitive sanctions apply over the Russian deal as the State Department argues such deals are “not helpful” and the US is reviewing them “very carefully.”

Indian defense planners view the S-400 as a key capability enhancer as it can track multiple incoming targets including aircraft, missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles up to 400 kilometers in distance and 30 kilometers in altitude. With the deal, India has ensured that Russia will remain the main supplier of high-tech defense equipment for the foreseeable future while challenging Washington on an issue now regarded as the primary national security challenge by many in the United States.

It’s no surprise, therefore, that this was among the main issues during September’s inaugural 2+2 dialogue between the foreign and defense ministers of India and the United States. Officials signed a Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement, or COMCASA, one of four foundational agreements that the United States signs with its closest defense partners to facilitate interoperability between militaries and sale of high-end technology. The General Security of Military Information Agreement was signed in 2002 and the Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement in 2016, and so this one had been pending for some time. The final agreement required is the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement facilitating geospatial exchange, and negotiations have yet to start. COMCASA is expected to facilitate access to advanced defense systems and enable India to optimally utilize its existing US-origin platforms.

Even under an administration as mercurial and transactional as President Donald Trump’s, Indo-US relations have managed to gather momentum, shaped by the underlying strategic logic of the convergence between the two nations. India has managed to find a central place in the Trump administration’s strategic worldview as outlined in the National Security Strategy and National Defense Strategy. Both on China and Pakistan, the Trump administration has demonstrated a willingness to push the boundaries – this is reflected in its approach to make India more integral to Asian balance of power as outlined in the US Indo-Pacific strategy as well as in an attempt to reshape the contours of America’s South Asia strategy, which acknowledges India’s centrality in the future of Afghanistan while recognizing Pakistan as the source of the problem.

The US position in the Indian defense matrix has also evolved with India buying $18 billion worth of defense items from the United States since 2008, though the much-hyped Defense Technology and Trade Initiative aimed at boosting joint development and co-production of defense equipment fails to live up to expectation so far. The 2+2 dialogue saw the two nations focusing on enhancing private defense industry collaboration, helping Indian defense manufacturers to join the US military supply chain, thereby boosting the Modi government’s “Make in India” initiative as well as placing innovation at the heart of this defense collaboration. Given these high stakes, both US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Secretary of Defense James Mattis have supported waivers for India on its weapon deals with Russia.

By Rakesh Sood

Addressing a campaign rally in Nevada on 20 October, US President Donald Trump declared that the US would be withdrawing from the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty), a bilateral nuclear arms control treaty signed by President Ronald Reagan and Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev on 8 December 1987. US National Security Adviser John Bolton was in Moscow on 22-23 October to formally communicate the decision to the Russian authorities.

Under the INF Treaty ^[1], both the US and the USSR agreed to eliminate all shorter range and intermediate range ground launched missiles with ranges between 500 km and 5500 km. By 1991, all such missiles, launchers and support structures as listed in the MoU ^[2] attached to the INF Treaty were eliminated. It should be noted that the treaty did not cover elimination of any nuclear warheads. The missiles eliminated covered both nuclear and conventional capable missiles.

A new and remarkable feature of the INF Treaty was the extensive verification provisions introduced, including the establishing of a Special Verification Commission ^[3] to manage on-site inspections and resolve differences. These included baseline inspections to verify declarations, inspections of the missile bases and the production facilities, destruction under monitoring and a limited number of short notice inspections, also known as ‘challenge inspections.’ Following the break-up of the USSR, Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan were also brought into the INF Treaty as these republics had hosted either a production or an operational of the missiles covered under the treaty.

The INF Treaty had been implemented by mid 1991 with the destruction of 2,692 missiles; the US destroyed 846 GLCMs (Ground Launched Cruise Missiles) and Pershing IIs while the USSR eliminated 1846 SS-4s, SS-5s and SS-20s. Incidentally, the Special Verification Commission has been meeting regularly though the frequency of meetings has come down. The last meeting was held in December 2017.

The US decision was not entirely unexpected, particularly after the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) ^[4] came out in February this year. The NPR provided a much harsher assessment of the security environment faced by the US and envisaged a more expansive role for nuclear weapons than had been the case in the past. Both Russia and China were described in the NPR as countries seeking “to substantially revise the post-Cold War international order and norms of behaviour.”

The NPR states that “Russia continues to violate a series of arms control treaties and commitments. In the nuclear context, the most significant Russian violation involves a system banned by the INF Treaty.” Suspicions regarding Russian violation arose in 2008 when it tested a new ground launched cruise missile. In 2014, the Obama administration accused Russia of violating the INF Treaty but refrained from withdrawing from the treaty, in persuasion of the European countries. Russia has denied that the SSC-8 (Novator 9M 729) missile violates the INF Treaty though it has been reluctant to share the technical specifications.

There have been reports that the US is increasingly concerned about China’s nuclear modernisation and its nuclear buildup in the Indo-Pacific. Included in the Chinese arsenal is the DF-26 missile ^[5], with a range of 3000-4000 km, a range that is prohibited under the INF Treaty. However, the INF Treaty is a bilateral treaty and China is not a party to it. Chinese position regarding arms control is that it would be ready to engage once the US and Russia reduced their arsenals to levels comparable to China’s holdings.

In the NPR, in order to implement its growing emphasis on deploying more flexible and usable nuclear forces, the US has also announced its modernisation plan. These include a new air launched cruise missile and a new sea launched cruise missile to offset the Russian violation of the INF Treaty.

The US announcement has been received with dismay in Europe. German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas called the decision “regrettable’, adding that it poses difficult questions for Europe. French President Emmanuel Macron spoke with President Trump on the phone and emphasised the importance of the treaty for European security. EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini described the treaty as “a pillar of European security” and cautioned against a new arms race. Nikolai Patrushev, Secretary of Russia’s National Security Council, said that Russia would respond with necessary measures to maintain parity but added that Russia remained ready to engage in dialogue.

Unlike his predecessor, President Trump has been dismissive of arms control agreements, an opinion shared by his NSA, John Bolton. This was evident in US’s unilateral repudiation of the P 5+1 nuclear agreement with Iran (JCPOA) in May. The New START agreement which restricts both countries to 1550 launchers each is set to expire in February 2021, unless renewed for another five years which appears highly unlikely, given the present mood. The US decision sends a clear signal that raises the salience of nuclear weapons in its security calculus.

^[1] INF Treaty Text

^[2] MOU Text

^[3] Verification Protocol

^[4] US Nuclear Posture Review 2018

^[5] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/19/us/politics/russia-nuclear-arms-treaty-trump-administration.html?action=click&module=RelatedCoverage&pgtype=Article®ion=Footer

By Brendan Brown*

The publication of the latest Treasury semi-annual report on foreign exchange manipulation (under title of “Macroeconomic and Foreign Exchange Policies of Major Trading Partners of the United States”) got its usual big reception in the media even though its analysis is so flawed as to be farcical.

Treasury Secretary Mnuchin signed off on the findings which concluded there is no manipulation anywhere. Yes, there is a list of countries including Japan, Germany, and six other countries, where standard test results merit their inclusion in a list for special monitoring, China not included. That country is singled out for a separate ongoing monitoring based on wider concerns, and recommended reforms are wide-ranging (including dismantling of handicaps to foreign investors in China).

By contrast, the general prescription for countries on the regular monitoring list is to take measures, budgetary and structural, to boost domestic demand. The currency manipulators in Berlin, Frankfurt, Tokyo, Zurich, London and yes, Beijing, must secretly be laughing at this ineffectiveness of the US Treasury. The most powerful means of waging currency war — first monetary policy and secondly various forms of financial repression — are largely unmentioned in, and non-threatened by, the report. This is bizarre.

Take the economic policy of Japanese Prime Minister Abe: His central bank chief holds down the yen by administering negative interest rates, notwithstanding a domestic capital spending boom, while strictly pegging long-term interest rates at a few basis points above zero. This is all ostensibly for the greater purpose of driving CPI-inflation up to 2 percent in defiance of a continuing powerful rhythm of prices downward. That weakness of goods and service prices reflects integration with East Asia, digitalization, and metamorphosis in the labor market (de-regulation and waning of the seniority pay system). Simultaneously financial repression diminishes further the attractions of Japanese monetary assets, thereby boosting the strength of capital outflows. The US Treasury Report does not criticize any of this.

Separately, Chief Mnuchin has said that the US-Japan FTA (free trade agreement) must include a chapter outlawing currency manipulation. But there should be no excitement either about its content or more broadly the speed of reaching an overall deal. Tokyo, like Bern, is a master of delaying tactics.

Does no senior official in the Trump administration economics team get the monetary plot?

Well, non-inspired and — some would say — crony influenced officials tend to stick with the guidelines and established protocol. And the Obama administration already put this in place here. Very belatedly Chief Mnuchin has hinted at (in Jerusalem, October 21) a review of all this, dissatisfied with its lack of teeth with respect to China. But there is no basis for expecting the essential issue of monetary weapons to top any re-vamped anti-currency manipulation policy framework.

The Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 calls for the Treasury Secretary to monitor the macroeconomic and currency policies of major trading partners and engage in advanced analysis of these partners if they trigger certain objective criteria that provide insight into possibly unfair currency practices. The Obama Treasury (under Secretary Lew) accordingly established three objective criteria.

• First: is the bilateral trade surplus of the given country with the US above $20 billion?
• Second: is the current account surplus above 3 percent of GDP?
• Third: is foreign exchange intervention persistent and one-sided, cumulating to over 2 percent of GDP over a 12 month period?

In both theory and in practice, these tests are nonsense.

Bilateral trade surpluses with the US may be large — and indeed offset by other bilateral trade deficits — without any currency manipulation being present. Rather international supply changes and comparative advantage could be the chief explanatory variables.

A large current account surplus could be fully consistent with underlying divergences in savings and investment behavior between countries as under a sound money regime; students of history know that France and Britain ran current account surpluses of near 10 percent of GDP in the two decades leading up to World War One under the full gold standard.

And as regards foreign exchange market intervention, this should surely be expressed in stock terms rather than flow. Japan has not intervened significantly for many years in currency markets. But why is that country still holding massive foreign exchange reserves accumulated during previous bouts of intervention to keep currency markets orderly, rather than gradually reducing this to normal levels? (And who did it specifically at times when the yen carry trade was imploding as most recently in the early part of this decade?)

If meaningful tests for currency manipulation were applied — such as to detect monetary weapons and financial repression — actual charges (not just placement on monitoring list) would be justified not just against Japan, but also China and Europe.

China defends persistently aggressive easy-money policies by the pursuit of its 3-percent inflation target (with measured inflation usually somewhat below this). But why should an emerging market economy with fairly rapid productivity growth aim for 3 percent inflation rather than say stable prices? And as regards financial repression, the reality of state control of financial institutions and regulations which depress returns to savers are so well-known as to explain elevated demand for foreign assets (notwithstanding exchange restrictions) and only weak foreign demand for Chinese financial assets.

In Europe we still have the Draghi ECB, with the all-important authorization from the Berlin Chancellery, administering negative interest rates and aggressive monetary base expansion despite the German economy in full long-time boom and inflation there at 2 percent. This is all on the pretext that the outer area of the eurozone requires a long period of relative downward price adjustment and this is easiest to effect if German prices are rising significantly. Alongside, financial repression means that German savings are in effect mobilized via domestic banks toward financing the weak sovereigns — most of all Italy.

Yes, this is what Sig. Draghi had in mind when he boasted about doing whatever it takes to “save the euro.” But should the US just passively accept the consequences of a super cheap euro and a giant German trade surplus? Don’t look to the Treasury report for an answer!

There is no basis for imagining that the Trump administration is preparing for a new more effective policy against the foreign currency manipulators even after the mid-terms. Any gearing up of anti-manipulation policy would mean bringing monetary and international monetary reform on to the policy agenda from where it has long been absent, Moreover, if the US is to censor foreign monetary policies which ostensibly could be justified by membership of the 2 percent inflation standard, then this latter has to come under question and scrutiny rather than enjoy uncritical respect.

At very least the US would have to take aim at the IMF and its exchange rate surveillance teams which justify all exchange rates as in line with “underlying equilibrium” if they are indeed the corollary of respective central banks scrupulously striving to attain their 2-percent inflation target. Bashing the IMF could have obvious appeal to the Trump administration. All will be sound and fury though if domestic and international monetary reform does not take place in earnest.

About the author:
*Brendan Brown is the Head of Economic Research at Mitsubishi UFJ Securities International.

Source:
This article was published by the MISES Institute

Here are my thoughts on what then we must do with our relationship with Saudi Arabia, especially in our dealings with the current regime. I wrote these notes on my Facebook page the day I read about the torture and murder of the Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

The Guardian of Mecca and the bearer of the flag that says “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah” (La ilaha ILallah Muhammadar Rasul Allah). This is inscribed on a green flag, with the sword as a symbol of the tool of the spread of Islam. What then are we to do with this kingdom-orchestrated assassination, if confirmed?

Not in the name of Islam should this kind of murder be committed, not even in the name of any godless ideology, especially in times of high-speed Internet-information dissemination technologies. Down with brutal regimes! What a story to read early that morning in preparation for a lecture on “Global Issues and Complexity Theory”.

According to the news report, the Washington Post journalist was murdered because he knew too much about the Saudi royal family. He was also said to be working on a report to enhance and expand the circle of Twitter community critical of the regime of Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman (photo).

But what else did he know that led to his horrific murder? He was still alive when the killers dismembered him and one of them who cut him into pieces even said that he listens to music while doing this sort of thing and that others should also do the same!

But what is it that makes monarchs of this world, including in Malaysia, dislike those who know too much about their families and try to expose the world of disparity between the intellect, character and spirituality? In doing so, they put a dent into the whole idea that a “king can do no wrong” and that there are two sets of laws, even in Islam – one for the royalty and the other for the commoner.

In today’s world, the hudud may not apply to sultans but its implementation and administration on the powerless and the poor will keep the idea of the Islamic state still alive.

Therefore, Islamic leaders from the royal houses can do whatever they want that demonstrate the exact opposite of what the prophet of Islam prohibits. The sharia law and its methods of punishment must be carried out in the framework of justice in Islam, as claimed.

In a post-modern, post-truth, post-post everything age of governance, the monarchy, whether absolute or constitutional, cannot continue to plunder, rape, kill or do whatever it wishes, using the state apparatuses and instruments of authority and absurdity at their disposal while they sit gleefully on their golden thrones.

The more people know about the abuse of power in the name of the divine rights of king, the more there will be mounting dissatisfaction and ultimately disgust and mass anger that will eventually translate into an uprising and revolution. In the case of the Middle East and North Africa, that was what the “Arab Spring” was all about.

That is an example of Complexity Theory as applied to the story of the monarchy. The French Revolution, the American Revolution and the Chinese Revolution were all about that. So was the Iranian Revolution that toppled the Peacock Throne.

In the case of Malaysia, the 1988 Constitutional (or Judicial) Crisis was meant to educate Malaysians of the excesses of power, of the disparity between character and the intellect and why no one should be above the law, albeit consolidating the power of Dr Mahathir Mohamad vis-a-viz Umno.

Malaysian brutality

While we were all horrified by the brutal assassination of Khashoggi, perhaps killed by his own government in the name of silencing his criticism, especially of the royalty and also of US President Donald Trump, we must also demand the truth into the murders of Altantunya Shaariibuu, Kevin Morais, Teoh Beng Hock and of what happened to the good souls that went missing – Pastor Koh, Peter Chong, Joshua and Ruth Hilmy, and Amri Che Mat (photo).

What are we to do with our own brand of brutality? Will the Pakatan Harapan government tell us the truth, especially of the missing persons? Of who were involved? Is the government an accomplice too? What is the motive behind the disappearance of Koh, Chong, Joshua and Ruth Hilmy, and Amri? If the current government is quick at investigating the 1MDB scandal and sending the filthy and the corrupt to jail, we expect it to solve the missing person mystery with urgency.

So, as a country vocal on the issues of the Palestinians and the Rohingya Muslims, in light of our commitment to be known as a champion of international human rights however lousy our records are back home, what are we to do with the Saudis? We are not selling weapons to them like the United States which sold 18 percent of its arms to Saudi Arabia. Unlike the US, our prime minister does not have any personal interest in selling luxury properties in Saudi Arabia. We are not like the US whose former president George W Bush was once best friend with the Saudi royal family.

The US invaded Iraq in the aftermath of the attack on the Twin Towers in New York, and rebuilt the country with the help of Halliburton and other American companies. And then there was the war in Afghanistan. These two make the US military-industrial complex alive and well.

What about Malaysia? We only have perhaps some investment deals and our people go to Saudi Arabia yearly for religious tourism activities.

As for the Khashoggi case, what then must we do? Why have we not condemned the kingdom and why are we not at least hinting that we cannot tolerate being an ally with a state that carried out such brutalities in the name of Islam? Once the Turkish investigations are over, and the truth ascertained, we must make a statement, especially when it concerns the degeneration of Islamic nations.

We are too tied to religious sentimentality. Let us look at things objectively and disengage ourself from such as country as well as worshiping some brand of ideological brutality

The shuttle train linking the capital, Rabat, to the town of Kenitra that derailed last week left at least seven people died and 86 were injured official sources reported. However the tragic derailment created an overwhelming line of blood donors, especially among young Moroccans, that overcrowded blood donation centers in the capital of Morocco as an incredible sign of solidarity with the victims. As the nation responded to that terrible tragedy, those close to the scene – not only firefighters, law enforcement officials, government officials- but also taxi drivers who offered free rides to commuters, doctors opened their offices to offer free medical checkups to victims with minor injuries and families living near the scene hosted travelers and their families.

Local media posted poignant photos of hundreds of citizens especially the youth lined up Rabat streets in an effort to donate blood to the victims of the crash. The spontaneous response was so overwhelming that some donation centers mobilized all their staff and called off duty-doctors and nurses to assist with this noble humanitarian initiative. Facebook and Instagram users kept mobilizing their friends and followers to join massively this initiative in an act of bravery and heartwarming human solidarity.

The solidarity of Moroccans mesmerizes outsiders and the international media, how the community comes together to help friends and strangers in this time of solidarity. It’s an awe-worthy expression of the meaning of community – an alliance helping other citizens because they share one common bond as citizens of Morocco. The togetherness of Moroccans demonstrates, if need be, what it means to be Moroccan. Everyone fulfills his/her duty as a citizen by ensuring that in such difficult times, the community should come together. The courage, strength, and unity is an inspiration to all of us and reminds cities and countries to never forget that they are one big family.

Richard Horton’s note in an October 2015 issue of The Lancet was cautiously optimistic. It described the launch of Doctors for Climate Change Action, led by the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) in the lead-up to the UN Climate Change Conference COP21. The initiative had arisen from a statement endorsed by a range of medical and international health organisations (some 69 in all), specifically emphasising that ancient obligation for a doctor to protect the health of patients and their communities. But, as if to add a more cautionary tale of improvement, the 2015 Lancet Commission also concluded that the response to climate change would, in all likelihood, be “the greatest global health opportunity of the 21st century”.

A more sombre note tends to prevail in such assessments. The RACP has itself made the observation that, “Unchecked, climate change threatens to worsen food and water shortages, change the risk of climate-sensitive diseases, and increase the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. This is likely to have serious consequences for public health and wellbeing.”

In recent years, the link to a rise in temperatures has been associated with specific medical events, such as the transmission of infectious diseases. The Lancet notes one example specific to mosquitoes and their increasingly energised role: “Vectorial capacity of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus has increased since 1990, with tangible effects – notably the doubling of cases of dengue fever every decade since 1990.”

Mona Sarfarty, director of the Medical Society Consortium on Climate and Health, could only be gloomy at this month’s International Panel on Climate Change report, releasing a statement rich with claims. “As a physician, I know that climate change is already harming the health of Americans. Doctors and medical professionals see it daily in our offices, including the effects of extreme weather events like Hurricane Florence to droughts, smoke from large wildfires, spreading Lyme disease, and worsened asthma.”

What, then, to be done? The RACP’s November 2016 position statement outlines a set of canonical objectives still deemed profane by climate change sceptics, notably those coal deep: a decrease in fossil fuel combustion in the generating of energy and transport; a reduction of fossil fuel extraction; decreasing emissions from food production and agriculture; and the improvement of emergency efficiency in homes and buildings. Not exactly scurrilous stuff, but highly offensive to fossil fuel fiends.

The Morrison Government, hived off from such concerns, is more focused on immediate, existential goals. Its own electoral survival, shakily built on the reduction of energy costs to pacify a disgruntled electorate, has featured a degree of bullying on the part of the prime minister towards energy companies. Energy retailers, Morrison warns, must drastically reduce prices from January 1 or face the intrusive burdens of regulation. The considerations of the planet, and the health of its inhabitants, have been put aside, a point made clear in the Australian government’s response to the IPCC findings.

The note of the report is one of manageable mitigation, shot through with a measured fatalism: “Limiting global warming to 1.5ºC would require rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society”. While admitting that, “Some impacts may be long-lasting and irreversible, such as the loss of some ecosystems (high confidence)” stabilising temperatures at 1.5ºC would at least draw a ring around the catastrophe. “The avoided climate change impacts on sustainable development, eradication of poverty and reducing inequalities would be greater if global warming were limited to 1.5ºC rather than 2ºC, if mitigation and adaptation synergies were maximised while trade-offs are minimised (high confidence).”

For the Morrison government, these words, admittedly technical and dry, are the stuff another galaxy, pressed to the outer reaches of the cosmos. The IPCC report did not, according to the prime minister, “provide recommendations to Australia”, leaving his government to pursue policies to “ensure electricity prices are lower”.

Fossil fuel lobbyists and advocates were comforted by this retreat from environmental reality. “There is a role,” insisted former Coalition energy minister and Queensland Resources Council chief Ian Macfarlane, “for high-quality Australian coal and it’s compatible with meeting Paris emissions reduction targets.” An interesting omission on emissions here is that the richer the quality of coal, the more concentrated the carbon. Poorer quality brown coal, curiously enough, is less of a culprit. But Macfarlane wants it both ways, if not all ways. “Our economy depends on the coal industry, and we can have both a strong coal industry and reduce carbon emissions.”

Such dismissive, a deluding behaviour, has been seen to be nothing short of “contemptuous” by a group of Australian health experts, whose Thursday letter in The Lancet suggests a disregard for “any duty of care regarding the future wellbeing of Australians and our immediate neighbours”.

The signatories, including Nobel Laureates Peter Doherty and Tilman Ruff, suggested that, like “other established historical harms to human health [such as tobacco], narrow vested interests must be countered to bring about fundamental change in the consumption of coal and other fossil fuels.” They urge the adoption of a “call to action”, including the phasing out of existing coal-fired power stations, a “commitment to no new or expanded coal mines and no new coal-fired power stations” and the removal of “all subsidies to fossil fuel industries”.

A damp lettuce response came from the near invisible federal environment minister, Melissa Price, who insists that the Morrison government remains aware of the IPCC findings. This same minister, when asked about what she is doing in her portfolio, persists in praising the blessings of the good divinity that is coal, a spectacle as curious as a wolf at a sheep convention. “We have consistently stated that the IPCC is a trusted source of scientific advice that we will continue to take into account on climate policy.” To account, it would seem, is to ignore; to acknowledge is to dismiss.

During the past several months the situation around the Syrian Kurdistan remains tense. The protests of the locals from the city of Manbij in Aleppo province against the actions of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) are happening on a regular basis.

Last week Asayish, the Kurdish local police forces arrested more than 50 civilians who had been protesting against the closure of the Arab schools and forced mobilization to the side of SDF in Manbij. In fact, the presence of the Kurdish militia in this region is illegal, as in mid-June 2018, the United States and Turkey agreed on complete withdrawal of the Kurdish formations from the area to reduce the tensions.

It worth noting that the illegal practices of Kurds are also underway in other cities in northeastern Syria both in Raqqa and Hasakah provinces. Under the pretext of fighting sleeping cells of ISIS, Asayish security service personnel burned down some glossary stores in Suwaidan Jazira village, whose owners had refused to pay taxes in favour of the Kurds. The meetings of locals, which broke out in response to this outrage, were dispersed with the use of weapons. During the action, several people were killed, including women and children.

At the same time, according to the local activists, the arrests of local authorities participating in the Syrian governmental local council elections from settlement of al-Khatuniyyah in Raqqa province have become more frequent.

In addition to the Kurds, Turkey is another party that is involved in destabilizing situation in northeastern Syria. Turkish President during his visit to the U.S. announced about the creation of a number of safe zones within Syria to include the east of the Euphrates River as it happened with the Idlib province. The noticeable increase of the Turkish presence near the border with the Syrian province of Hasakah speaks in favour of the seriousness of the Ankara decision.

It is also noteworthy that the Kurdish militia backed by the international coalition stopped combating ISIS terrorists that call into question the desirability of their presence in the region.

Thus, on October 13, 2018, the jihadists attacked the refugee camp in the area of Al-Bahra resulting in the capture of 700 civilians.

The U.S. policy can explain such behaviour of the Kurds towards the local population. First, the American leadership announced its intention to leave the country after the defeat of ISIS terrorists, and now Washington intends to stay in the country for an indefinite period. Mostly, this kind of actions provokes the anarchy from Kurds, since they understand the presence of Western patrons let them to feel unpunished.

The expansion of the Turkish influence will not bring the stability in the region either. However, Erdogan’s intention can be understood, as he is not ready for any growth of Kurdish influence as well as granting them any political rights. Unfortunately, he also rejected the option of giving them a cultural autonomy.

Finally, if Erdogan begins to implement what he claimed, and the Kurds in turn with the patronage of the Americans continue to create chaos and feel their impunity, it may lead to a new confrontation in the region between them, the United States and Turkey that will adversely affect the course of the Syrian conflict.

In a new half-hour interview with host Sophie Shevardnadze at the RT show SophieCo, College of William & Mary Professor Lawrence Wilkerson discussed in detail his thoughts concerning United States foreign policy toward Iran, including his judgement that the claim that Iran is the greatest state sponsor of terrorism in the word — a claim used to justify US antagonism toward the nation — is a lie.

Wilkerson, who retired from the United States Army as a colonel and was chief of staff for Secretary of State Colin Powell in the George W. Bush administration, examines in the interview a variety of aspects of US policy regarding Iran. Matters discussed include how antagonism toward Iran influences the US military’s continued presence and activities in Syria, the draconian sanctions the US imposes on Iran and how nations are seeking to circumvent those sanctions, and the possibility that President Donald Trump will announce shortly before the November midterm election that he will be meeting with Iran President Hassan Rouhani and Iran Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif.

Perhaps Wilkerson’s most eye-opening observation comes when he addresses a frequently offered justification for the US government’s antagonism toward Iran — that Iran is the greatest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. That claim, says Wilkerson, is a lie. Here, from near the end of the interview, is Wilkerson’s exchange with Shevardnadze regarding that claim:

Shevardnadze: I just don’t get it. Why is America so hellbent on fighting Iran for decades and decades now? I really don’t get the reasons for all this anti-Iran sentiment. I mean, nothing stopped these two countries from living normally with each other, like it had been under the Shah. And, you know, when they use the pretext of terrorism, I was just like, “I yet have to see one Shia terrorist blowing up something in Paris, Madrid, London, Brussels, or Berlin.” What is this all about?

Wilkerson: When you find the answer to that question, please email me. I ask the same question. I did the war-planning for the principal force provider command in the United States military for years. I’ve worked on this region for years. I do not understand this. Saudi Arabia is the greatest state sponsor of terrorism in the world, still today, and yet we call Iran that. We lie when we say that. We outright, blatantly lie when we say that. Moreover, we know we’re lying. So I don’t understand this either. I am as perplexed as you are at this fascination we have for the tyranny in Riyadh and the hatred we have for the theocracy, partial democracy in Tehran. In geopolitical, in geostrategic terms, it makes no sense whatsoever.

Watch Wilkerson’s complete interview here:

Wilkerson is an Academic Board member for the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.

This article was published by RonPaul Institute

Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif deplored the latest US sanctions targeting a number of Iranian individuals, describing the move as an attempt to divert the world’s attention from Saudi crimes in Yemen and the brutal murder of dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

“To deflect from headlines on Saudi brutality in Istanbul and across Yemen, US Treasury—while in Saudi Arabia, no less—sanctions Iran for “supporting” anti-Iran Taliban,” Zarif said in a post on his official Twitter account on Wednesday.

“Conveniently omitting that US is negotiating with the very same Taliban now& its clients have long backed it,” he added.

The US Treasury Department on Tuesday imposed sanctions against eight individuals, including two allegedly linked to the Quds Force of Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) and accused Iran of providing material and financial support to the militants and supporting terrorism.

The US allegations that Iran supports the Taliban come as Tehran has on numerous occasions denied training or backing the militant group.

“The Islamic Republic of Iran has been standing for nearly four decades alongside the friendly and brotherly government and people of Afghanistan to defend their sovereignty and independence, and the statements made to satisfy outsiders and invaders have no congruity with these friendly relations,” Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Bahram Qassemi said earlier this year.

Khashoggi, a Saudi citizen and newspaper columnist at The Washington Post, went missing on October 2 when he entered the consulate in Istanbul. After weeks of denying knowledge of his fate, Saudi officials said the prominent journalist was killed in what they describe as a “rogue operation”.

After denying any involvement in the disappearance of Khashoggi for two weeks, Saudi Arabia on Saturday morning said he had died in a fistfight at the consulate. An hour later, another Saudi official attributed the death to a chokehold.

The death of Khashoggi has snowballed into a massive crisis for the kingdom, forcing the 82-year-old monarch, King Salman, to personally get involved.

National Treasury says South Africa is at a crossroads, as revenue is projected to fall short of the budgeted estimate by R27.4 billion this year.

This, according to the National Treasury’s Medium Term Budget Policy Statement (MTBPS), is due to the fact that economic growth took a knock, coupled with a once-off payment of value-added tax (VAT) refunds.

“Revenue collection for the first six months of 2018/19 grew by 10.7% compared with the same period last year.

“However, the technical recession experienced in the first half of the year has begun to feed through to revenue collection, which has slowed.

“Weaker economic growth, alongside a once-off payment of overdue VAT refunds, will result in an in-year revenue shortfall now estimated at R27.4 billion, relative to the 2018 Budget estimate,” National Treasury said.

It said during the 2017/18 financial year, for the first time since the 2008 global financial crisis, tax revenue growth did not exceed GDP growth.

Revenue shortfalls have widened over the past four years, with under-collections rising from R7.4 billion in 2014/15 to R49 billion in 2017/18.

“These shortfalls would have been larger were it not for increases in personal income, dividend withholding, capital gains and other taxes.

“Revenue collections in 2017/18 were R0.8 billion lower than estimated in the 2018 Budget.”

Treasury said a backlog of VAT refunds at SARS and an underestimation of refunds due has led to an overly optimistic view of revenue growth.

“Net VAT collections account for about R20 billion of the in-year revenue shortfall. Two factors account for the revision in net VAT. The VAT refund estimate has been revised upwards by R9 billion, and about R11 billion will be paid out to clear the backlog in the VAT credit book,” National Treasury said.

The remaining R7.4 billion of the shortfall in the current year mostly reflects slower corporate income tax collections due to weak growth in wholesale and retail trade, manufacturing and transport.

“Personal income tax continues to be negatively affected by job losses, moderate wage settlements, lower bonus payments and a slower expansion of public sector employment.

“Public testimony at the Nugent Commission of Inquiry has underlined concerns about severe governance and administrative weaknesses within SARS over the past several years.

“The commission has submitted an interim report to the President, with the final report due on 30 November 2018.

“Government is committed to tackling concerns related to SARS in an open manner. Ensuring transparency in tax administration will help to rebuild

taxpayer confidence and compliance,” Treasury said.

(RFE/RL) — Saudi Arabia’s public prosecutor has said the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the kingdom’s consulate in Istanbul was premeditated, reversing previous official statements that his death was unintended.

Khashoggi, 59, a U.S. resident and Washington Post columnist, was critical of the Saudi rulers. He disappeared after walking into the consulate on October 2 to obtain marriage documents.

“Information has come from the Turkish side indicating that the suspects in the Khashoggi case embarked on their act with a premeditated intention,” the prosecutor Saudi bin Abdullah said in a statement carried by the Saudi news agency SPA on October 25.

The Saudi change of tack came after CIA director Gina Haspel reportedly heard an alleged audio recording of the killing during a fact-finding visit to Turkey this week. Haspel was due to brief President Donald Trump about Khashoggi on October 25.

It also came after Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman on October 24 called the murder “repulsive” and vowed that justice will prevail, in his first public comments on a case that has provoked an international outcry.

The prince himself has faced international criticism, with many officials charging he must have known about Khashoggi’s killing, allegedly by Saudi security agents, and some saying he may have ordered his death.

In a separate development, Human Rights Watch said Khashoggi’s son, Salah, and his family have left Saudi Arabia after the government lifted a travel ban.

“Salah and his family are on a plane to (Washington) DC now,” Sarah Leah Whitson, HRW’s executive director for the Middle East and North Africa, told the media.

Saudi Arabia’s King Salman held telephone conversations with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Russian President Vladimir Putin on Thursday.

During his phonecalls, the King discussed with Mrs. Merkel and Mr. Putin means of developing and strengthening relations between the two countries across all fields.
The King also briefed Merkel and Putin on the latest developments in the investigation into the death of Jamal Khashoggi.

He stressed that the actions of those involved in this crime do not represent the principles and values ​​of the Kingdom, stressing that justice will take its course fully and resolutely.

For her part, the German Chancellor expressed the hope that the ongoing investigation uncovered all the circumstances in the case.

Putin expressed confidence in the integrity of the measures taken by the Kingdom and in the transparency of the ongoing investigation.

By Frank Kane*

For all that was said in the build-up to the 2018 “Davos in the Desert,” from where I’m sitting writing this — the foyer of the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Riyadh — it does not look very deserted.

Saudi business people are saying their goodbyes to their visitors from the four corners of the world, and there is still a buzz of transactional activity about the place that belies all those doomsayers.

From personal experience over the past few days, the Future Investment Initiative (FII) has been every bit as interesting and thought provoking as the inaugural event last year. The flavor has been different and the geopolitical context more challenging, but with the eyes of the world on the Kingdom as never before, it was the only place to be.

Here are my six key takeaways from the 2018 event.

1. Don’t read too much into attendance figures. Last year’s official estimate was 3,800; this year — according to the event’s official app — it was more than 4,100. If last year was a big enough event to earn the “Davos” accolade, what exactly would you call this year’s version? Will we have to invent a new category on the Davosian register? Or maybe just drop the whole silly Davos comparison altogether — they are entirely different events anyway.

2. Variety is the spice of life. While FII 2017 was a triumphal procession of the big beasts — mainly American — of the corporate world, this was a far more nuanced affair. The big beasts from the US and Europe stayed away, but virtually all of them sent quite senior beasts in their stead to do their business for them. On top of that, there were plenty of new faces from Asia to make up for the Caucasian stay-away. It was probably better for business — all those huge egos often get in the way of the transactional nitty-gritty.

3. The media corps stayed true to their news-gathering roots. While most of the editors, marketing men and proprietors decided to give the event a miss, pulling out of sponsorship and presentation duties, the hard-nosed news hacks of the world’s press and TV were there in as much force as last year. In fact, many of them were very happy at the opportunity to get down to the real news, rather than being adjutants to their bosses. With the crown prince of Saudi Arabia putting in two appearances at the event this year, there was plenty to write about, and they took advantage of the fact.

4. The Russians are coming — in fact, they’ve already arrived in Saudi Arabia. The Russians were at FII in great strength, taking advantage of the business opportunities presented by the stay-aways from their great rivals in the US. The Russian Direct Investment Fund made most of the financial headlines, but there was a great example of Russian “soft power” as well — a display of works by the Russian avant-garde artist Wassily Kandinsky. In partnership with the Saudi Public Investment Fund, the Russians put on a show every bit as stunning as last year’s headline-grabbing female robot Sophia — if a little more abstract.

5. The Arabs can circle their wagons just as well as the American cowboys. The event turned into a display of fraternal solidarity between the leaders of virtually every Middle East country, disappointed at what they perceive to be disproportionate hostility from the West. One Saudi joked that only two things can bring so many Arabs together in such a show of communality: An American threat, and a wedding.

6. The Ritz-Carlton has a lot more going for it than just a rich history. It is the perfect place to do business, and to network. During the FII, the lobby and dining areas around the entrance were a trove of contacts and power-brokers to rival the famous Belvedere in Davos. One good way to spend an FII would be to check into the hotel for the duration and spend the whole time just cruising the hotel’s cavernous halls and filling the contacts book with illustrious names.

• Frank Kane is an award-winning business journalist based in Dubai. Twitter: @frankkanedubai

Tall people are at a greater risk of cancer because they have more cells in their body, new research has suggested, according to CNN.

A person’s risk of developing cancer increases by 10% for every 10 centimeters (4 inches) they are over the average height, the study said, because they have more cells which could mutate and lead to cancer.

Average height was defined in the study as 162cm (5 feet, 4 inches) for women and 175cm (5 feet, 9 inches) for men.

The findings match with previous research, which has also connected height to an increased risk of developing a range of health problems including blood clots, heart problems and diabetes.

Leonard Nunney, a professor of biology at the University of California Riverside, analyzed previous sets of data on people who had contracted cancer — each of which included more than 10,000 cases for both men and women — and compared the figures with anticipated rates based on their height.

He tested the hypothesis that this was due to the number of cells against alternatives, such as possible hormonal differences in taller people, which could lead to an increased rate of cell division.

A link was found between a person’s total cell number and their likelihood of contracting cancer in 18 of the 23 cancers tested for, the study says.

The research also found that the increase in risk is greater for women, with taller women 12% more likely to contract cancer and taller men 9% more likely to do so. Those findings matched with Nunney’s predicted rates, using his models, of 13% for women and 11% for men.

Colon and kidney cancer and lymphoma were among the types of cancer for which the correlation was strongest.

Responding to the presence of suspicious packages sent to some liberal-left politicians and activists, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio condemned these expressions of hatred.

Cuomo said that “political differences” were “actually good for our democracy,” and went on to slam “overheated rhetoric.” De Blasio said the same thing, arguing “you can disagree, but you have to show respect” for everyone.

Both men are rank hypocrites. In 2014, Cuomo said that “right-to-life” conservatives “have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.” De Blasio, who frequently feuds with Cuomo, said he agreed with the governor “100 percent.”

Cuomo and de Blasio are masters of “overheated rhetoric,” and are not content to “disagree” and “show respect” for all New Yorkers. No, they, and they alone, will decide who is a bona fide New Yorker, telling those they disagree with to get out. They wear their phoniness on their sleeves.

By Kevin Jones

Some opponents of broad religious freedom protections have spent over $500,000 on advocacy and public relations campaigns related to the Masterpiece Cakeshop Supreme Court decision, a CNA analysis of recent foundation grantmaking has found.

The spending is among at least $2.4 million in new anti-religious freedom grants since October 2017, according to CNA’s analysis. Since 2014 at least $9.9 million in grants from multiple sources have been earmarked to oppose religious freedom protections. The grants generally come from backers of LGBT political causes, legal abortion and mandatory contraception coverage.

After a six-year legal battle, the U.S. Supreme Court backed Phillips, the bakery owner, who in July 2012 had declined a request to create a cake celebrating a same-sex wedding due to his religious beliefs. The court ruled 7-2 in his favor in the June 4, 2018, decision Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

While the state civil rights board had ordered him to serve same-sex weddings and undergo anti-discrimination training, the Supreme Court overruled the order, saying some commissioners “showed elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs motivating his objection.” The decision did not address broad constitutional questions.

That court case was the focus of the Evelyn and Walter Haas Jr. Fund, a San Francisco-based private family foundation with half a billion dollars in assets. Its website lists multiple grants from 2017 and 2018 dedicated to messaging related to the Masterpiece Cakeshop Case.

The Haas, Jr. Fund gave $200,000 to the National Center for Lesbian Rights for a campaign to “educate the LGBT community” about the importance of the case, and $100,000 to the Equality Federation Institute for the same purpose. It gave $100,000 to the Movement Advancement Project, a key LGBT strategy and communications think tank funded by Colorado entrepreneur Tim Gill, “to develop and test ads and other tools to educate and engage the LGBT community” about the case.

Another $100,000 went to the ACLU Foundation for its LGBT & HIV Project “to coordinate a public education campaign around the Masterpiece Cakeshop Supreme Court case,” while $34,500 went to the Horizons Foundation to “help LGBT Leaders and organizations prepare for a unified response to the Masterpiece Supreme Court decision.”

It is possible that additional grants related to the case will be made public in later documents.

The funding has drawn criticism from the bakery’s supporters.

“Organizations that initially supported gay marriage made the argument that they simply want the same right to marry as everyone else,” said Jeffrey Hunt, director of the Centennial Institute and vice-president of public policy at Colorado Christian University, a self-described interdenominational Christian institution.

“What we are seeing today is an effort to punish, by government force, anyone who doesn’t share their opinion on gay marriage,” said Hunt. “Even Justice Kennedy in his decision to legalize gay marriage condemned such activities by LGBT activists.”

The university is only miles from the Lakewood, Colorado bakery at the center of the case. It has held rallies in support of bakery owner Jack Phillips, has invited him to be a speaker, and has purchased from the bakery.

“It’s no surprise to us that many foundations are pouring money into the effort to restrict religious freedom,” Hunt told CNA. “The truth is the work of the church and the teachings of the Bible are always counter-cultural. They have been since the beginning of Christianity. The founders of our country understood that religious beliefs should be protected, even if they are counter-cultural.”

Denis Chicola, communications director for the Haas Jr. Fund, told CNA that the fund both believes in religious freedom and believes that the actions of the cakeshop were discriminatory.

“Religious freedom — the right to practice one’s religion and to know that society will make reasonable accommodations for people to do so — is a bedrock American value. It’s something each and every one of us should defend,” Chicola said. “We became involved in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case because we and our partners believe that allowing a private business to discriminate against a gay couple is discriminatory. Nobody should be turned away from a business simply because of who they are.”

When the Supreme Court announced it would hear the Masterpiece Cakeshop Case, Chicola said, the fund’s grantees reported “many LGBT people did not understand the case, let alone the potential harmful ramifications it could have for marriage equality and for the ongoing work of securing broader nondiscrimination protections.”

“For this reason, we supported long-time grantees to conduct a public education campaign targeting the LGBT community,” he said. “This campaign was focused on the facts about the case, and we were heartened by how our grantees were able to broaden people’s knowledge and understanding on this vitally important issue.”

According to Hunt, Phillips’ opponents missed the point.

“Not a single Christian wants to treat a member of the LGBT community as a second-class citizen. We are called to love and serve all people,” he said. “In Jack’s case, he would have served any person who sought to purchase a product from his shop. He simply did not want to use his artistic talent to celebrate a ceremony that violated his deeply held religious beliefs.”

“Jack’s case has nothing to do with failing to serve a member of the LGBT community,” Hunt added. “In fact, if I as a Bible-believing conservative asked Jack to bake a cake that violated his religious beliefs, he would have said no. It is not about the people, it is about the message.”

“We are losing our sense of civic friendship in our communities. Too often, activists seek to use the law to punish those they disagree with in an effort to create uniformity,” he continued. “I believe we can live in society where members of the LGBT community are respected and religious freedom is protected.”

Phillips, the baker, has since faced another complaint from a prospective customer, an attorney who asked for a cake to mark a gender transition anniversary. The request was for a cake that was pink on the inside and blue on the outside, representing a transition from male to female. Phillips declined to make the cake based on his religious beliefs, and the prospective customer filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The commission ruled that there was sufficient evidence of a discrimination claim based on transgender status and ordered both sides to “compulsory mediation.”

Phillips’ attorneys filed a federal lawsuit challenging the action.

“The state of Colorado is ignoring the message of the U.S. Supreme Court by continuing to single out Jack for punishment and to exhibit hostility toward his religious beliefs,” Kristen Waggoner, senior vice president of the U.S. legal division of Alliance Defending Freedom, said in August.

Waggoner’s legal group is representing Phillips, but it declined comment for this story. Phillips has said he has also declined to make a number of other types of cakes, including cakes for Halloween, bachelor parties, divorce, cakes with alcohol in the ingredients, and cakes with atheist messages.

Grant listings and tax forms provide some insight into the strategy, tactics and resources of the large network of advocacy groups, academic projects and other organizations that aim to limit religious freedom protections in the U.S.

Many donors have combined to fund the Rights, Faith & Democracy Collaborative, run out of the Massachusetts-based Proteus Fund. The collaborative’s website says its grantmaking “centers around building a sustainable, cross movement infrastructure capable of developing a unified voice for LGBTQ, RJ(reproductive justice), and faith allies; investing in learning that advances the field; and supporting long-term culture change efforts to move hearts and minds on these issues.”

Since September 2017 the Haas, Jr. Fund has given $200,000 to this project. The Overbrook Foundation has given $125,000, citing the collaborative’s work to curtail “the inappropriate use of religious exemptions to curtail reproductive health, rights and justice, discriminate against members of the LGBTQ community, and otherwise undermine fundamental rights and liberties.” The Moriah Fund gave $35,000, citing its focus on “defeating harmful religious refusal policies.”

Perhaps the largest donor to the anti-religious freedom campaign, the New York-based Arcus Foundation, included $300,000 to the collaborative in its recent grantmaking.

Arcus has given $900,000 in anti-religious freedom grants since September 2017. These include $150,000 for the ACLU’s Religious Exemptions Communications Hub Project, which “spurs communications efforts in driving and shaping the public narrative around religious exemptions that harm or would harm LGBTQ people, women, and religious minorities”; and $200,000 to the Center for American Progress’ Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative “to challenge discriminatory religious exemptions policies, by advancing moral and ethical arguments for faith-centered resistance against conservative policies within the United States,” according to a June 20 news release from the foundation.

Another $125,000 went to support the Columbia Law School’s Public Rights / Private Conscience Project, which the Arcus grant listing characterized as “a thought leader in the development of legal and policy analysis, as well as in the development of messaging that strikes a balance between religious rights and other fundamental rights.”

The Arcus Foundation was launched by billionaire heir Jon Stryker, whose sister Pat Stryker is a major political donor in Colorado. Its board includes Darren Walker, president of the Ford Foundation, which gives out hundreds of millions of dollars in grants each year. In the past, it too has backed the Public Rights / Private Conscience Project.

Religious change is also an object of the funding network.

Chicola, the Haas, Jr. Fund spokesperson, said that in 2007 his employer launched a major initiative backing the Institute for Welcoming Resources and its partners “to help inform hearts and minds on gay equality among people of faith.”

“As a result of this work, thousands more religious leaders and people of faith became advocates, and four of the five major mainline Protestant denominations eventually repealed ant-gay policies,” he said.

The Arcus Foundation has similarly been involved in cultivating allies among religious groups. One of its 2018 anti-religious freedom grants, $125,000 to Dignity USA for the Equally Blessed Coalition, was earmarked for “advocating for LGBTQ acceptance and for an end to harmful religious exemption policies within Catholic communities,” according to the June 20 grant announcement.

The self-described Catholic group rejects Catholic teaching on the immorality of homosexual acts and has called for same-sex unions to be recognized as sacramental.

The Proteus Fund collaborative’s own website says it has given $900,000 in program grants to eight organizations in state-based coalitions. Its grant listings indicate it has funded anti-religious freedom coalition partners in New Mexico and Georgia, and is preparing additional coalitions in Texas and Florida.

Rounding out the full list of recent anti-religious freedom grants, other Haas Jr. Fund spending includes $150,000 to the Pride Foundation; $50,000 to the Center for American Progress “to influence public debates around protecting civil rights protections and safeguarding religious liberties”; and $30,000 to back the Columbia Law School Public Rights/Private Conscience Project.

The Overbrook Foundation’s recent giving included $60,000 to the Lambda Legal Foundation for purposes including opposition to “overly broad” religious exemptions in non-discrimination legislation. Another $25,000 went to litigation program support for the group Freedom for All Americans, citing its work backing anti-discrimination protections for sexual orientation and gender identity and expression “without allowing overly broad and harmful religious exemptions.”

CNA’s focus on grants specifically dealing with religious liberty does not convey the entire financial infrastructure for such organizations, many of which receive large grants for general operating support.

For instance, the Freedom for All Americans Education Fund received $400,000 from the Haas Jr. Fund in 2017 alone. These grants were earmarked for public education, litigation and grantee investment, not for religious freedom specifically. But the Freedom for All Americans’ website indicates it rejects religious exemptions and religious freedom laws.

By Domenica Ghanem*

As the GOP’s fears of a progressive wave in November grow, Donald Trump has made it his personal mission to make everyone else afraid, too.

Over the past few week’s he’s been telling evermore fantastical tales of dangerous riffraff inching their way up to the U.S. border.

In reality, there is a caravan of Honduran migrants — fleeing violence and economic strife so bad that they’d risk our own horrific family separation policies — making its way through Mexico. Traveling in the thousands has helped protect the group from the usual dangers of border-crossing, like getting lost or robbed on the way.

Meanwhile, the media has been reporting on Trump’s response.

He’s called them “criminals.” They’re not. They’re desperate men, women, and children forced to flee their homes, many of whom have legally applied for asylum in Mexico.

He’s accused them of being paid for by the Democrats, to increase votes in the midterm elections. They’re not. They’re people fleeing death who, when asked about this by a reporter following the caravan, said they didn’t even know what “the Democrats” meant. (Not to mention that non-citizens can’t vote.)

And recently, he’s warned of “unknown Middle Easterners” in the group.

Reporters from the progressive Mother Jones to the mainstream New York Times assure us these claims are “without evidence.”

As someone who studied journalism myself, I have to say the journalists who stop there are doing the American public a disservice. “Without evidence” leaves the door open to the possibility of evidence. That is to say, these things could be true, but he hasn’t given us any proof.

But we know that isn’t the case. It’s our duty to say flat out: These aren’t just lies, they’re fantasies. They don’t deserve an iota of consideration.

Beyond being unwilling to call out obvious lies, they’re leaving out any reporting on the impact of these words from the president of the United States.

These are lies and they are serving a purpose: to stoke racism and fear among his base ahead of the elections.

Consider closely what Trump said in his latest remarks: “unknown Middle Easterners.” He didn’t say Middle Easterners who are “extremists” or even “affiliated with extremist groups.” He’s sending the message that any and all Middle Easterners are dangerous.

This isn’t an accident. He didn’t just forget to use some of his favorite words.

And by letting that phrase sit in a fact-checking article, criticized only for its “lack of evidence,” what journalists are telling Americans is: No, you don’t have to be afraid, because there are probably not Middle Easterners in this group.

It begs the question: if there were, would your fear of them be totally reasonable?

Journalists have a duty to give context, not just to report on whether a sound bite contains truth on a sliding scale. It’s unacceptable not to unpack the racist and xenophobic claims that come out of the mouths of the most powerful.

In fact, it’s journalistic malpractice.

*Domenica Ghanem is the media manager at the Institute for Policy Studies. Distributed by OtherWords.org.