By Jonathan Power*

At first I was a bit surprised to find that the English admonition, “Good fences makes for good neighbours” exists in many other languages. I shouldn’t have been taken aback. A moment’s reflection should have told me that fences and walls to divide off peoples have been going on for millennia.

There’s nothing in particular new about the fence between the U.S. and Mexico, the Cold War wall between East and West Germany or the one between Israel and the Palestinian West Bank. Look at the Great Wall of China.

The Mexicans have a joke about the planned wall to replace the fence. “It’s not built to keep Mexicans out of the U.S.; it’s built to keep Donald Trump out of Mexico!”

Today the Mexicans have a problem in that the migrant “caravan”, made up of 6,000 fleeing Central Americans, is pouring into the south of Mexico where there is no fence. The Mexicans have reacted much more sensibly and humanely to the caravan, America-bound, than Trump. They are encouraging the “caravaners” to go no further and find work in Mexico’s underdeveloped southern states. Those applying for asylum have been offered temporary work permits with immediate effect

The Mexicans know from their history that development is the cure for migration. Thanks to economic growth the Mexican exodus to America has been reduced to a trickle. Trump doesn’t talk about this. He goes on using the Mexicans as a scapegoat for a phenomenon that no longer exists. In his election campaign he said, “They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.”  Now he is using the caravan to win votes in the coming mid-term elections

Ever since the Kissinger Commission that evaluated Central American needs at the end of the local civil wars in 1984 there has been talk of the need for the U.S. to give significant amounts of aid to get these countries out of the rut of poverty.

But not much has been forthcoming, although when it does arrive it often produces sterling results. I once was taken to a farm project in El Salvador run by the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) that was doing really well. This kind of aid is what Trump should concentrate on.

According to a new well-researched and perceptive book “The Age of Walls” by Tim Marshall, each wall tells a story.

On India’s frontier with Bangladesh is the longest border fence in the world – 2,500 miles of it. It was built primarily to stem the exodus of poorer Bangladeshis to better-off India. But now fast developing Bangladesh is richer per head than India and the wall is becoming an anachronism.

India has another fence – the 340 mile long barrier along the disputed Line of Control inside Kashmir, a region both India and Pakistan say is their territory. “It stands as a fortified monument to the enmity between two nuclear-armed nations,” writes Marshall.

Western Europe, belatedly, has joined the fence builders. The Syrian war migrant crisis of 2015 prompted a wave of nationalism, particularly in Eastern Europe. Rather than agree to “burden-sharing” which if it had been implanted would have given each EU country only a modest number of migrants each, these countries preferred to say “no”, taking in barely a handful.

Hungary built fences along its border with Serbia and Croatia. Slovenia erected a fence along its border with Croatia, Macedonia along its Greek border, Austria along its border crossings with Slovenia and Italy.

The fences have insured that the Mediterranean countries where the refugees land have had to bear the most heavy load. Now the Syrian migration has been reduced to a trickle and African migration, except to Spain, has slowed dramatically, but still the fences remain.

Like Trump, right-wing politicians in Europe (including the Brexit supporters in the UK) raise the specter of endless migration. But it’s unlikely there will be more large-scale wars in the Middle East. Even the one remaining, Yemen, has produced few refugees Europe-bound.

The African stream is over-magnified. Observers talk about Africa’s population increase and how this must inevitably lead to more northward migration. But I wrote my first article about this in 1973 and it has been going on ever since in fairly modest numbers, even though the rate of population growth was much, much higher before than it is now.

There’s still time to help Africa develop at a faster rate than it’s doing (much of it is doing rather well) and turn it into another Mexico where there are jobs and people prefer to stay at home. As for those migrants who do make it, most Western governments, too belatedly, have realized that their policy of multiculturalism has not worked. It has led to ghettoization. For immigration to have less bad effects it has to be carefully planned integration.

Fences and walls are not necessary. Mostly they are manifestations of superficial thinking.

Note: For 17 years Jonathan Power was a foreign affairs columnist and commentator for the International Herald Tribune – and a member of the Independent Commission on Disarmament, chaired by the prime minister of Sweden, Olof Palme. He forwarded this and his previous Viewpoints for publication in IDN-INPS Copyright: Jonathan Power. Website www.jonathanpowerjournalist.com.

Cultural compilations such as James Frazer’s The Golden Bough are rich with these accounts: the high priest or leader of a tribe, whose lengthy tenure is wearing thin, is set for the sacrifice, either through ritual or being overthrown by another member. The crops have failed; a drought is taking place. The period of rule has ended; the time for transition and new blood replacements have come. Since 2005, Angela Merkel’s Chancellorship has been one of the most stable and puzzling, a political stayer ruthless in durability and calculating in survival.

Swords and daggers are being readied. The Christian Democrats (CDU) and Social Democrats (SPD), bound by a tense partnership, have been getting a battering in Germany’s state elections. Poor showings in Bavaria and Hesse are proving omens of oracular force. The Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) now finds itself with a presence in all 16 regional parliaments. The Greens have been polling strongly, while the Left Party and Free Democrats have doggedly maintained their presence. The day after the poor showing Hesse, Merkel announced that she would not be seeking re-election as leader of the Christian Democrats in December. Nor would she be running again as Chancellor in 2021.

Other European states will view her with the sort of respect that is afforded the German national football team: dislike and fear in a jumble with respect and admiration. At times, she let various cabinet members get ahead of themselves – Herr Schwarze Null, the darkly obsessive figure of balanced budgets and punitive financial measures, Wolfgang Schäuble, for too long coloured the age of austerity.

For such figures, including Merkel, thrift became dogma and mission, a goal of its own separate from social goals and cute notions of sovereignty. The vile god of monetary union needed to be propitiated; Greece needed to be sacrificed, its autonomy outsourced to external financial institutions. Making states seek bailouts while repaying crushing debts, many of them the result of unwise lending practices to begin with, seemed much like requiring the chronic asthmatic to do a hundred metre dash without a loss of breath. As a result of such policies, the European Union has edged ever closer to the precipice.

Throughout her chancellorship, abrupt changes featured. Having convinced the Bundestag that phasing out nuclear energy born from the Red-Green coalition of 2001 was bad (an extension of operating times by eight to fourteen years was proposed), Merkel proceeded to, in the aftermath of Fukushima, order the closure of eight of the country’s seventeen nuclear plants with a despot’s urgency. This became the prelude to the policy of Energiewende, the energy transition envisaging the phasing out of all nuclear power plants by 2022 and a sharp shift to decarbonise the economy.

For sociologist Wolfgang Streeck, she is “a postmodern politician with a premodern, Machiavellian contempt for both causes and people.” Educated in the old East Germany (DDR), she mastered the art, claimed biographer and Der Spiegel deputy editor-in-chief Dirk Kurbjuweit, of governing by silence, being cautious, and at times insufferably vague, with her words. “She waits and sees where the train is going and then she jumps on the train.”

In 2003, she pushed her party into the choppy waters of deregulation and neo-liberal economics, a move that almost lost her the election to Gerhard Schröder, that other market “reformer” who arguably fertilised the ground she then thrived in. After becoming chancellor, she proceeded to, with the assistance of the Grand Coalition comprising the remains of the Social Democratic Party, clean the party stables of neoliberals and become a new social democrat.

Merkel the shifter and shape changer was again on show during the crisis which is being seen as the last, albeit lengthy straw of the camel’s back. With refugees pouring into Europe, Merkel initially showed enthusiasm in 2015, ignoring both German and EU law mandating registration in the first country of entry into the EU before seeking resettlement within the zone. Refugees gathered in Budapest were invited into Germany as part of “showing a friendly face in an emergency”; it was a move that might also serve useful moral and humanitarian purposes, not to mention leverage against other, seemingly less compassionate European states.

A riot characterised by rampant sexual assault at Cologne Central Station on New Year’s Eve in 2015, a good deal of it captured on smartphones, served to harden her approach to the new arrivals. She promised more deportations and reining in family reunification rules. Wir schaffen das – we can do it – has since become something of a hefty millstone. “The German government did a good job reacting to the refugee crisis,” observed Karl-Georg Wellmann of the Christian Democrats. “But repeating ‘we can do it’ over and over again sends out the wrong message.” The far-right AfD duly pounced, reaping electoral rewards.

Her enemies have amassed, though the line between groomed successor and opportunistic Brutus is not always clear. Critics long cured by a vengeful smoke – the likes of Friedrich Merz, who once led Merkel’s parliamentary caucus only to be edged out, and Roland Koch, formerly minister president of Hesse – have been directing salvos of accusation. Within hours of Merkel’s announcement of eventual political retirement, Merz, who never had much time for grand coalition antics, returned fire with a promise to bid for the party leadership.

The caravan of potential replacements features the likes of “mini-Merkel” Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, currently the Christian Democrats party secretary-general and the calculatingly anti-Merkel and youthful Jens Spahn, health minister who has bruised his way to prominence attacking the 2015 refugee policy. Occupying the middle ground, and risking falling between two stools, is the more conciliatory Armin Laschet.

The current grand coalition is neither looking grand nor much of a coalition, and the party operatives from the CDU and SPD are attempting to wriggle out, though neither Merkel nor SPD counterpart Andrea Nahles wishes to dissolve the union yet.

Like Merkel’s mentor, Helmut Kohl, staying power is never eternal. Kohl tasted eight years of power as chancellor of West Germany before leading a united Germany for another eight. “Fatty’s got to go” was the prevailing sentiment in the dying days of his rule, and it transpired that, in time, power had done its bit to corrupt the hulking politician in his twilight days. A million marks in donations had found their way into a reward scheme for cronies and friends instead of going to his party. Kohl attempted to keep mum on the whole matter.

It is worth recalling who it was who laid the final, cleansing blow to this holy of holies: a certain Angela Merkel’s December 1999 contribution to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung calling for her former patron’s resignation and necessary banishment. “I bought my killer,” reflected a rueful Kohl. “I put the snake on my arm.”

The 2008 India-US civil is marked as one of the most significant event in the strategic landscape of South Asia in last 3 decades. This deal has been viewed as a beginning of special relationship between India and the US. However, after signing the nuclear deal, the first strategic dialogue between India and US took place on 2010 at Washington. It is unfortunate that since its inception, the strategic implications of the deal on the South Asian calculus has remained the most significant part of debate. This research aims to analyze various dimensions of Indo-US strategic cooperation which include nuclear politics in South Asia, arms race instability, Non-Proliferation and regional security and stability.

The aim of India-US partnership was to enhance India’s strategic role in the South Asia, while ignoring the impact on the regional stability and states especially Pakistan. The civilian nuclear agreement between India and the US is a comprehensive framework contract, comprised of multiple agreements. The 2005 deal is considered as very facilitative in nuclear commerce and trade.

Therefore, various agreements have been signed between both states after the operationalization of nuclear deal. Subsequently, in order to engage in nuclear commerce or trade various changes has been introduced by the US in its domestic laws, and most important step was provision of NSG (Nuclear Suppliers Group) waiver to India.

The intense and heated debate on the nuclear cooperation agreement between India and US has remained focused on the following three issues: First, impact of nuclear deal on Strategic Stability on South Asia; Second, implications of deal on arms race between India and Pakistan; Third: non-proliferation implications of the deal.

Strategic partnership is viewed as foundation to India-US nuclear deal comprised of rebalancing actor in region, pivot of Asia and key actor in “Indo-Pacific” policy of US. Pakistan’s strategic analysts have showed their concerns on the India-US strategic cooperation as it has ability to disturb the Balance of power in region: which is dangerous for peace and security of regional states.

Under the Indo-US nuclear cooperation, India insisted that its own nuclear armament plans will not be affected by the nuclear cooperation with US. This factor has threaten the region with a new arms race because regional counterparts; Pakistan and China are likely to respond to India’s nuclear weapons buildup to ensure the deterrence equilibrium in the region. This factor instigates arms race instability in the region.

Indo-US nuclear deal is question mark on the spirit of non-proliferation regime. As per article I of NPT states that, there shall be no transfer of the nuclear technology from the NWS to the NNWS, but it does not address the transfer of technology from the NWS to another NWS. Despite being Party to the NPT, the US has assisted India in nuclear technology since the early 1990s. Similarly, the Indo-US nuclear deal has provided special waiver to India for the NSG membership that aims to assist India in enhancing its nuclear arms capability. The Indo-U.S. nuclear deal allows India poses a serious risk to regional and global security. This also permits other nuclear states like Russia and China to sell their nuclear technologies to other states. Such nuclear deal reveals about the discriminatory international system and the role of hegemonic powers in changing the global norms. Furthermore, under the nuclear agreement India has be granted the NSG Waiver that is against the norms of Non-proliferation regime. Therefore, such arrangements have definitely weakened the NPT and its mission of preventing nuclear proliferation.

Therefore, ten years of India-US strategic partnership has brought immense repercussions on strategic landscape of south Asia. Since 2008, the United States has been pursuing the policy of discrimination and nuclear exceptionalism towards India. This factor is posing dangerous impact on regional stability and security, arms control efforts, instigating arms race instabilities and weekend the Non-proliferation Treaty and multilateral export control regimes.

*The writer is currently working as Research Associate at Strategic Vision Institute and can be reached at asmaakhalid_90@hotmail.com

Though I have been to the USA several times, I did not take any interest on Halloween. This year it is different. That is because of my granddaughters! Their infectious enthusiasm moves me. I abandoned my taciturn attitudes to celebrations, I had assiduously followed all these years! The little ones gladly ran around while their mom carved pumpkins of different sizes and shapes. The children helped her to paint them bright red, blue and green; they painted themselves as their palms carry the colors they handled. They were glad that there were no noisy admonitions this time!

In an article titled “The Halloween Pumpkin: An American History“, Stephanie Butler writes that the association of pumpkins with Halloween is a very recent phenomenon. The author quotes a poem on “eating pumpkins at morning and pumpkins at noon”, a Massachusetts settler wrote in 1630s.

According to Ms. Butler,” Modern Halloween comes from the Irish festival Samhain, an occasion that marked the passage from the summer harvest season to the dark of winter. Tradition dictated huge bonfires be built in fields, and it was believed that fairy spirits lurked in the shadows. To distract these spirits from settling into houses and farms, people would carve rudimentary faces into large turnips, and set candles inside. The turnip lanterns would rest along roadways and next to gates, to both light the way for travelers and caution any passing fairies against invading.”

Ms. Butler says that the celebration of Halloween in America did not take off until waves of immigrants from Ireland and Scotland arrived in the mid-1800s. “Pumpkins are native to North America, so while it’s not known exactly when the first pumpkin was carved and lit, the first mention of pumpkins jack o’lanterns comes at around the same time. In 1866, the children’s magazine “Harper’s Young People” reported that “a great sacrifice of pumpkins” had been made that for that year’s Halloween celebrations. Pumpkin carving grew more and more popular as the years went on. By the 1920s, Halloween had been embraced throughout the United States. Parties and costumes became the norm, and “trick or treating” soon followed in the mid-1930s.”

Giant pumpkin carving is a skilled craft now. You may see some amazing pumpkin carvings here. These activities have another side: If you are careless, they may cause injuries. Ms Victoria Forster, postdoctoral research scientist at The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto writes in Forbes (October 28, 2018) that hospitals recorded 4,500 Halloween related injuries last year.

The US Consumer Product Safety Commission published the following chilling facts:

• October to November 2017, estimated 4500 Halloween related injuries were recorded
• 41% were related to pumpkin carving
• 32% were due to fall while putting up or taking down decorations, tripping on costumes or just walking while trick or treating
• 22% of the injuries included lacerations or ingestions and other costume, pumpkin or decoration related injuries and
• 5% due to allergic reactions or rashes.

“The most common Halloween injuries we see are severe hand injuries from pumpkin carving and leg and extremity injuries due to falls from long costumes and/or costumes that impair vision,” Ms Forster quoted orthopedic surgeon and American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons spokesperson Kevin G. Shea, MD.

Ms Forster lucidly gave many instances of injuries and safety tips. After listing many safety tips, the CPSC concluded thus, “Now that your costumes and decorations have been created and placed with safety in mind, don’t forget to have fun! Have a safe and spooky Halloween with your family and friends”

At www.history.com you can find the following facts on pumpkins:

• Pumpkins belong to the gourd family, which includes cucumbers, honeydew melons, cantaloupe, watermelons and zucchini. These plants are native to Central America and Mexico, but now grow on six continents.
• The largest pumpkin pie ever baked was in 2005 and weighed 2,020 pounds.
• People have grown pumpkins in North America for five thousand years.
• They are indigenous to the western hemisphere.
• In 1584, after French explorer Jacques Cartier explored the St. Lawrence region of North America, he reported finding “gros melons.” The name was translated into English as “pompions,” which has since evolved into the modern “pumpkin.”
• Pumpkins are low in calories, fat, and sodium and high in fiber. They are good sources of Vitamin A, Vitamin B, potassium, protein, and iron.
• Pumpkin seeds should be planted between the last week of May and the middle of June. They take between 90 and 120 days to grow and are picked in October when they are bright orange in color. Their seeds can be saved to grow new pumpkins the next year.

Americacomes alive website, while sharing the little known facts about America’s past, explained why carved pumpkins are a symbol of Halloween. Thus:

“The tradition of carving faces into vegetables dates to the Celts. As part of their autumnal celebration, they wanted to light the way to their homes for the good spirits, so they carved faces into vegetables such as turnips and squash. A light was placed within the hollowed out vegetable.

These carved vegetables were eventually called Jack O’Lanterns by the Irish who told a legend about a farmer named Jack who made a bargain with the devil that left him wandering the earth for all time.

When the immigrants arrived in America and found a bountiful supply of pumpkins, they soon adopted the pumpkin as the best fruit (and it is a fruit!) for carving Jack O’Lanterns.”

Pumpkin industry

According to the US Department of Agriculture, US harvested in 2016 about 15 million pounds of pumpkins from nearly 67,000 acres. It was worth $207.6 million. The Guardian reported that the UK would be wasting 8 million pumpkins after this Halloween, the equivalent of enough pumpkin pie to feed the entire nation.

“Almost three-fifths (58%) of consumers buy pumpkins to hollow out and carve, of whom only a third bother to cook the leftover but edible innards, according to the annual #PumpkinRescue campaign,” the daily reported

Shockingly, 51% of the buyers throw away the flesh. The daily noted that Halloween is a significant money-spinner for supermarkets and is now second to Christmas in terms of festive retail. The UK grows estimated 10m pumpkins annually, 95% of which will be hollowed out in lanterns for Halloween and the rest used in recipes.

“Some pumpkins are inedible and specified as “for ornamental use only” but the flesh of the majority is edible.” the paper added.

Mr. Alexandru Micu, the science blogger at ZMEscience.com wants everyone to fight the food waste during the Halloween. He directs us to the PumpkinRescue campaign page for some nifty suggestions and tips on how to cook our plump pumpkins.

Incidentally, Mathias Willemijns (Belgium) grew the heaviest pumpkin, 1,190.49 kg (2,624.6 lb) so far. Great Pumpkin Commonwealth (GPC) in Ludwigsburg, Germany authenticated it on 9 October 2016.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani shrugged off the upcoming US sanction against the Islamic Republic and said that the country’s trade partners should be aware that Washington’s pressures on Tehran are temporary but trade ties with Iran are permanent.

The Iranian people should know that the administration has no fear about the US government’s threats and sanctions, Rouhani said, addressing a cabinet session in Tehran on Wednesday.

“We also tell Iran’s trade partners that this (US) pressure is temporary and that our relationship with you is permanent,” he said, adding that the Americans cannot decide for the region and its nations.

“Certainly, the US will not emerge victorious in this new plot against Iran, as they are retreating step by step. First, they said they would cut (Iran’s) oil (exports) to zero; then they said they would not be able to do so in November,” the president went on to say.

The European Union has vowed to counter US President Donald Trump’s renewed sanctions on Iran, including by means of a new law to shield European companies from punitive measures.

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

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

Trump on August 6 signed an executive order re-imposing many sanctions on Iran, three months after pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal.

He said the US policy is to levy “maximum economic pressure” on the country.

The second batch of US sanctions against the Islamic Republic is slated to take effect on November 4.

By Rawan Radwan

In the latest update on the case of the two Saudi sisters found on the shores of the Hudson River on October 24th last week; the NYPD released two passport photos of Rotana Farea, 22, and Tala Farea, 16 requesting the public for any information on the two Saudis.

NYPD said the reason they released the images was because they were not getting any leads that would help the investigation based on the sketches released earlier last week.

Meanwhile, both the NYPD and an official at the Saudi Embassy in Washington DC refuted an Associated Press (AP) claim the mother of the two sisters had said that she received a call from the Saudi Embassy requesting the family to leave the US because the daughters had requested asylum.

AP had previously reported that “The mother told detectives the day before the bodies were discovered, she received a call from an official at the Saudi Arabian Embassy, ordering the family to leave the US because her daughters had applied for political asylum, New York police said Tuesday.”

However, when Arab News contacted the NYPD DCPI to confirm AP’s story, the officer handling the case denied releasing any information regarding an alleged asylum claim.

Furthermore, a Saudi official at the kingdom’s embassy in Washington DC categorically denied to Arab News that the embassy had made any calls to the mother with regards to her alleged daughters’ political asylum claim.

‘Any/All communication with the mother had nothing to do with a supposed asylum claim,’ the official added.

Arab News tried reaching the mother of Tala and Rotana for comment but couldn’t reach her, and understands that she is in no condition to talk to the media. However, a cousin of the two slain sisters told Arab News that it is ‘ highly unlikely that their mother would have made such a statement to the police’.

Meanwhile, the office of Chief Medical Examiner has not yet determined cause of death. The investigation continues.

By Andrew Hammond*

Campaigning for the US midterms has reached fever pitch as election day closes in. Early voting returns indicate that both Democratic and Republican voting bases are unusually engaged, with multiple states seeing more than double the number of early votes cast compared to this point in the 2014 midterms.

Yet it is not just the public in the US who are following the campaign closely. Populations right across the globe are watching the midterms with significant interest, given the key policy differences between Democrats and Republicans and the overall large stakes in play, with control of Congress up for grabs.

Part of the reason for this global appeal is that the midterms are being perceived very much as a referendum on Donald Trump’s first two years of office, and the results may therefore give an early signal as to whether the president will be re-elected in 2020. However, a deeper factor driving foreign interest is the high prominence of international issues in the campaign.

Take the example of the so-called “migrant caravan” of several thousand people, which set off from Honduras several weeks ago, Trump has asserted Democrats are responsible for, and is now around 1,000 miles away from the Mexico-US border. Well aware that migration issues are salient with much of his Republican support, the president has relentlessly used the issue to energize his base, pledging to stop the caravan from passing into the US by deploying thousands of military personnel.

Another international issue shaping the campaign is the growing US-China trade and security spat. Last month, Trump sensationally claimed at the UN Security Council, without offering evidence in public, that Beijing had been working to interfere in the midterms with the aim of damaging Republicans because of Chinese unhappiness with the White House’s stance toward the Asian giant.

This underlines that Trump won the White House in 2016 on an America First platform. Here, he is not just engaged in what could become a trade war with China, but he has also recently agreed a renegotiated North American Free Trade Agreement, which is being rebranded as the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement, after rescinding US involvement in the Trans-Pacific Partnership with multiple Asian allies.

The high incidence of international issues in this year’s midterm campaign continues a pattern from the 2016 presidential election, which saw Trump’s victory. A Pew Research Center study that year found that 34 percent of the population believed foreign policy was the biggest challenge facing the country. By contrast, “only” 23 percent mentioned domestic, especially economic, problems.

This high salience of foreign compared to economic and wider domestic issues is unusual in the past few decades of US political history. Indeed, it more resembles the first 25 years of the Cold War, from 1948 to 1972, when international security issues dominated the concerns of US voters during campaigns.

By contrast, since the early 1970s, economic and wider domestic matters have tended to be the electorate’s highest priority. For instance, in 2011, just before the last but one presidential election year in 2012, some 55 percent of US citizens cited economic worries as the most important issue facing the country, according to Pew. By contrast, only 6 percent mentioned foreign policy or other international issues.

Yet, although foreign and security policy has returned to the forefront of the US electorate’s mind, at least temporarily, there are significant differences between now and during the first two decades of the Cold War. The earlier period was characterized by a relative US policy consensus and widespread bipartisan cooperation on foreign and security matters. Today, however, foreign policy is a significantly more divisive topic politically between Democrats and Republicans.

To be sure, this early Cold War consensus can be overstated. Nonetheless, a significant degree of bipartisan agreement on foreign affairs, and wider political decorum, did exist until breaking apart in the late 1960s under the strain of the Vietnam War debacle, and the demise of the notion of monolithic communism in light of the Sino-Soviet split.

In recent years, no clear foreign and security policy consensus has emerged. For instance, many Republicans and Democrats differ significantly on how they view the power and standing of the US internationally; on the degree to which the country should be unilateralist; in their attitudes toward the campaign against terrorism and the methods by which they are being fought; and on what the core priorities of foreign policy should be.

Barring a potentially seismic economic development, such as a massive Wall Street stock market crash, in the coming days, it is likely that the current relatively high salience of foreign issues will remain a key driver of the rest of the campaign. And the partisan splits on these topics will reinforce high rates of political polarization in the US electorate.

Taken overall, foreign policy and security issues are likely to remain a key feature of the remainder of the campaign. Partisan divisions have prevented the establishment of a foreign policy consensus in recent years, and the gaps between Republicans and Democrats on these issues may have only widened during this potentially crucial midterm election campaign, which could determine the fate of Trump’s presidency.

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

The UK will begin to suffer a lengthy economic recession if Prime Minister Theresa May fails to reach a Brexit deal with the European Union, experts warn.

Britons will experience rising unemployment and inflation rate as well as falling household incomes all of which will result in a recession in case of “no-deal” Brexit, according to an analysis by the global rating agency Standard & Poor’s.

“Unemployment would rise from current all-time low of 4% to 7.4% by 2020 – a rate last seen in the aftermath of the financial crisis,” it said.

“House prices would likely fall by 10% over two years” and “household incomes would be £2,700 lower a year after leaving without a deal,” it added.

There would also be a downgrade to the UK’s credit rating, which would lead to a rise in the Treasury’s borrowing costs, warned S&P, adding it still expected both the UK and the EU to strike a deal before next March, when the UK is scheduled to leave the bloc.

In addition, it said that due to the high chance of “no-deal” Brexit, it had to warn international investors about the potential challenges moving forward.

The EU and Britain had hoped to reach a deal on Brexit by October. However, hopes for such an agreement were dashed last month during an informal EU summit in Austria where EU leaders criticized Britain’s proposals on trade and the future state of the border in Ireland.

The talks stalled as May resisted the EU’s so-called backstop plan for including Northern Ireland in the customs union until a solution is found for bilateral trade.

Arguing that the solution will effectively separate Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK, May has instead urged the bloc to include the entire UK in the customs union in the transition period, which will start as of March 29, 2019, and even beyond that.

Original source

In addition to almost losing its only aircraft carrier this week not to hostile action but to incompetence and corruption in the military-industrial sector, the continuation of a long tradition extending back to at least 1905 as Richard Hough describes in The Fleet that Had to Die, Russia was confronted by reports of three other troubling trends:

First of all, Russians are falling into what Moscow media call “debt slavery” when they report instances of this in other countries. In the first half of this year, Russians took out 68.3 billion rubles (one billion US dollars) in new loans to cover payments on ones they already had (ria.ru/economy/20181030/1531734321.html).

That figure is 70 percent greater than during the same period in 2017 and suggests that Russians are going ever more deeply in debt to try to maintain their standards of living during the deepening economic crisis. In addition to this figure, Russians are refinancing existing loans at an increasing rate as well.

Second, Russia’s demographic decline is accelerating, with the number of births down 5.2 percent during the first nine months of this year compared to the same period a year ago and deaths up by a small amoount, leading so a natural decline of 173,000 in the total population (kasparov.ru/material.php?id=5BD72D293AA32 and gks.ru/free_doc/2018/demo/edn09-18.htm).

Most of the decline in the number of births reflects the fall in the number of women in prime child-bearing age cohort, but some is the product of individual decisions to put off having a family because of economic problems. The increase in the number of deaths is mostly the result of the aging of the population but some may reflect Putin’s health “optimization” program.

And third, just where Russia is economically or demographically is becoming ever more difficult to say, experts explain because of what they call the “unprecedented” even for Russia manipulation of official statistics to support whatever position those in power want to promote (nakanune.ru/articles/114510/).

That troubling trend, perhaps most clearly exemplified by Russian government claims that incomes are going up when Russians can see in their own cases and those of the people around them that that is not the case, the Nakanune press agency says. But it is unfortunately not limited to that measure but increasingly affects all others.

Not only does the corruption of the numbers undermine any remaining confidence among Russians that officials are telling them the truth, but it means that the government is often making decisions not on the basis of facts but rather on its own propaganda. Good information, of course, won’t guarantee good policy; but a lack of it makes good policy an accident.

Just how sloppy and dangerous the absence of good data can be is reflected in the current Putin practice of blaming the 1990s for demographic decline on some occasions and ignoring the impact of that decade when it suits him (echo.msk.ru/blog/nikolaev_i/2305641-echo/).

By Carla Babb

President Donald Trump said Wednesday that as many as 15,000 U.S. troops would go to the Mexican border to stop caravans of Central American migrants from crossing into the United States.

“It’s a dangerous group of people,” the president said of the migrants after earlier calling them “very bad thugs and gang members.”

But one woman from El Salvador who was part of the latest group headed north said she wanted Trump to know that she and the others were not “delinquents.”

Looking for work

“We are not going over there to steal or cause harm to anyone. We want to work by using our humble hands, with sweat, and earn a little bit of money. We pray to God that we make it there and find jobs,” she said.

Trump’s 15,000 number is far more than the roughly 5,200 active-duty soldiers the Pentagon plans to send, along with the 2,100 National Guardsmen already there. U.S. Defense Department officials told VOA that about 2,000 additional active-duty troops would be placed on standby to help those already assigned to the border.

This would make the total number of troops deployed to the U.S. southern border larger than the number of Americans fighting terror groups in Iraq and Syria.

U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, denied that the deployment of active-duty troops to the border was a political stunt to help Republicans in next week’s midterm elections.

“We don’t do stunts in this department,” Mattis said. “The support that we provide to the secretary for homeland security is practical support based on the request from the commissioner of customs and border police.”

The president also denied that his tough talk on immigration was nothing but a fear-mongering ploy as Republicans face the possibility of losing control of Congress to Democrats.

The U.S. troops assigned to help with border security are legally prohibited from engaging in domestic law enforcement, such as arresting migrants crossing the border.

Defense officials told VOA that military personnel would be moving Border Patrol agents around, setting up razor wire fencing and building temporary housing facilities for border agents when needed.

A Pentagon official said some of the troops might be armed, based on where they are sent along the border and what their jobs will be.

The main caravan of impoverished Central Americans is still in Mexico and more than 1,600 kilometers (1,000 miles) from the United States. It will be several weeks before they reach the U.S.-Mexico border.

Earlier Wednesday, Trump claimed in a tweet that the caravan included “very tough fighters” who “fought back hard and viciously” against Mexican police.

Trump was referring to reports Sunday that a group of migrants broke through a gate at the Guatemala-Mexico border and fought with police. Several officers were hurt and one migrant was killed, but it was unclear how.

Trump has also criticized Mexico, saying Mexican soldiers “were unable or unwilling to stop” the migrants. But White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders told Fox News that Mexico had “stepped up in an unprecedented way” by stopping vehicles, forcing the migrants to walk and slowing down their progress.

There are currently four caravans heading to the U.S. border: the original group that left from San Pedro Sula, Honduras, more than two weeks ago; the second caravan that pushed its way into Mexico from Guatemala earlier this week; and two new caravans that just started out from El Salvador.

“We are hardworking people and if we migrate there [the U.S.], we want to be treated like human beings,” one member of the El Salvador group said Wednesday.

Altogether, more than 7,000 migrants are moving toward the U.S. border, hoping to escape violence and find opportunities that do not exist for them at home.

But Trump calls U.S. borders “sacred” and repeated his appeal Wednesday that anyone who wants to immigrate to the United States do so legally.

The human brain may become the next frontier in hacking, cybersecurity researchers have warned in a paper outlining the vulnerabilities of neural implant technologies that can potentially expose and compromise our consciousness.

While basic brain implants are already here, current science indicates we are on the brink of mastering the chemistry of memory. Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) therapy involves implanting a device into the body to send electrical impulses to electrodes specifically placed to treat neurological diseases like Parkinson’s. “Memory implants” like those featured in dystopian TV series Black Mirror will most likely be built on existing DBS architecture. Kaspersky Labs collaborated with Oxford University to test these systems for security flaws before we start linking our consciousness to them, and their report is quite illuminating.

The technology to actually control memories through such implants will be available within 20 years, according to their predictions. A DARPA-funded study was recently able to isolate memory-encoding electrical signals from humans and feed them back, boosting short-term memory performance by 37 percent.

The researchers discovered security in existing implants is weakest where it connects to other systems, like the medical management platforms used by doctors and surgeons, and where data transfer between the implant, software, and other networks takes place. The most advanced of these devices currently in use operates over BlueTooth, which while popular and easy to use is not the most secure protocol.

Their report warned that malicious actors could not only hijack the implant itself, causing pain or otherwise making the body’s systems go haywire, but once the technology becomes advanced enough, they could hold a person’s memories for ransom – forcing the victim to pay up to access their own thoughts.

Any such implant will naturally require a backdoor so they can be accessed by medical professionals in case of emergency, and the research team underscored the human problem with such a setup: what’s to stop those medical professionals from selling access to a VIP patient’s implant, or from simply forgetting to change the factory-preset password?

Even though no attacks targeting neurostimulators have been observed in the wild, researchers warned it’s only because the technology is not yet widespread and there’s still time to fix potential vulnerabilities before it’s too late.

By Zam Yusa and Ali Nufael

Malaysia arrested five suspected militants in counter-terrorist raids since mid-October, including a former member of the South Asian extremist group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and an ex-field operative of al-Qaeda, police said Wednesday.

A 50-year-old Egyptian who had worked as an executive with a Kuala Lumpur-based advertising company was arrested on Oct.13 outside the country’s capital, national police chief Mohamad Fuzi Harun said.

“The suspect was a member of the al-Qaeda militant group during his stay in Afghanistan from 1988 to 1993,” Fuzi said in a statement. “He also met with Osama bin Laden, the former leader of al-Qaeda.”

The suspect, who entered Malaysia with his wife in May this year, told investigators he had been arrested previously in Canada and Egypt for using fake travel documents, which he also used to enter Azerbaijan and Pakistan in the past, Fuzi said.

The Egyptian had also been imprisoned in his home country for terror activities, Fuzi said. He did not identify the suspect.

“The man was not cooperative with investigators at the moment,” a high-ranking government source told BenarNews.

Authorities have not seen evidence that the suspect had denounced his involvement with the global militant organization, the source said.

“We are afraid that Malaysia will become a terror organization’s base. Al-Qaeda, unlike the IS, is good at making long-term plans,” the source said, using the other acronym for Islamic State.

He cited the meeting of al-Qaeda terrorists who met in 1999 in Kuala Lumpur as they plotted the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks against the United States. The four coordinated terror attacks, which involved hijacked planes, killed almost 3,000 people and injured 6,000 others.

In 2000, the source said, high-level al-Qaeda members also met in Kuala Lumpur to plan the bombing on that year of the U.S. Navy ship USS Cole in Yemen, killing 17 American sailors and injuring 39 others. Some of the attendees in that meeting were hijackers of the plane that was flown into the Pentagon in the 9/11 attacks, he said.

That meeting was organized by Malaysian Yazid Sufaat, a former army captain, believed to be one of al-Qaeda’s anthrax researchers. Malaysian authorities arrested Yazid in 2001, released him in 2008 and was rearrested in 2013 under the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act for incitement of terrorist acts.

Apart from the Egyptian, the counter-terror agents also arrested a 31 year-old Pakistani with suspected links to the South Asian militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), Fuzi said.

He said a 31-year-old man, who was only identified as a Middle Eastern, was arrested after he had allegedly posted Facebook comments threatening to kill a foreign ambassador.

Two Malaysians, aged 32 and 40, were also arrested, he said. All of the suspects were detained separately in Kuala Lumpur, Selangor, Perak and the Borneo state Sabah between Oct. 13 and Oct. 26, the police chief said.

Investigators said the Malaysians were believed to have channeled funds to slain Malaysian IS recruiter Muhammad Wanndy Mohamed Jedi and another top Malaysian militant, Muhamad Fudhail Omar, who was believed killed in Syria last year, and also to the Abu Sayyaf, a group of militants operating in the southern Philippines.

Four of the suspects were detained under the Security Offenses (Special Measures) Act 2012 while the Pakistani was arrested on charges of violating the country’s Immigration Act.

Analyst: ‘It’s a residual effect’

A deradicalization expert told BenarNews that the presence of former al-Qaeda militants in nations outside of their home country was expected.

“It’s a residual effect of the phenomenon of militants who were active somewhere else, like Afghanistan,” said Ahmad el-Muhammady, a political science lecturer at the International Islamic University of Malaysia.

After their early activities, Ahmad said, militants would want to seek safe sanctuaries. Muslim-majority Malaysia, being an open country with friendly citizens, fits the bill, he said.

“Stringent security measures at the border and stronger intelligence cooperation with countries in the region and others, such as the Middle East and Europe, are needed to prevent the entry of foreign militants,” he said.

First arrest of Lashkar-e-Taiba in Malaysia, analyst says

A South Asian terrorism analyst told BenarNews the case involving the Pakistani could be unprecedented in Malaysia.

“I believe it’s the first such a case in Malaysia,” said Faran Jeffery, deputy director of the Islamic Theology of Counter Terrorism, a London-based think tank.

Lashkar-e-Taiba, which literally means the Army of the Righteous, is one of the largest and most active militant organizations in South Asia, operating mainly in Pakistan.

India blames the Pakistan-based LeT for several attacks on its soil, including the 2001 assault on the Indian Parliament that claimed 14 lives and the 2008 Mumbai attack.

LeT, formed in 1987 with funding from al-Qaeda, claims to be primarily fighting to “liberate” Muslims living in Indian Kashmir, where its cadres routinely target security forces. It has been designated by the Australian, U.S. and Indian governments as a terrorist organization.

By Hannah Brockhaus

The Pakistan Supreme Court Wednesday overturned the death sentence of Asia Bibi, a Roman Catholic woman convicted of blasphemy in 2010, after reserving judgment on the verdict earlier this month.

Chief Justice Saqib Nisarm, who read out the verdict, said Oct. 31 that Bibi is free to leave the prison in Sheikhupura, Pakistan.

AFP news agency quoted Bibi’s reaction by phone following the ruling. “I can’t believe what I am hearing, will I go out now? Will they let me out, really?” she said.

The landmark verdict has been followed by protests from Islamic hardliners who support strong blasphemy laws in the country, and a heavy police presence was deployed at the Supreme Court in Islamabad to guard against a violent outbreak.

Asia Bibi’s daughter, Eisham Ashiq, 18, told Aid to the Church in Need: “I am so happy. I want to thank God. This is the most wonderful moment. I can’t wait to hug my mother and then celebrate with my family. I am grateful to God for listening to our prayers.”

“We are very happy. This is wonderful news, Asia Bibi’s husband, Ashiq Masih, said. “We thank God very much that he’s heard our prayers – and the prayers of so many people who have longed for Asia Bibi’s release over all these years of suffering and anguish.”

In 2009, Bibi was accused of making disparaging remarks about the Islamic prophet Muhammad after an argument stemming from a cup of water. Bibi was harvesting berries with other farm workers when she was asked to get water from a well.

Another person saw her drinking water from a cup that had previously been used by Muslims, and informed Bibi that it was not proper for a Christian to use that cup, as she was unclean. An argument ensued, and Bibi was reported to a Muslim cleric five days later for her supposed blasphemy. Bibi and her family were the only Christians in the area, and had faced pressure to convert to Islam.

She was convicted of blasphemy in 2010, and was sentenced to death by hanging. She immediately appealed. The Lahore High Court upheld conviction in 2014, which she then appealed to the country’s Supreme Court. The Supreme Court agreed to hear her appeal in 2015.

Since her arrest, Bibi has garnered international support from numerous world leaders calling for her immediate release, including Benedict XVI and Pope Francis. In 2015, Pope Francis met with her daughter and offered prayers.

In Pakistan, Islamic hardliners have been calling for her execution since her initial conviction. Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan said that he supports the country’s harsh blasphemy laws.

Pakistan’s blasphemy laws impose strict punishment on those who desecrate the Quran or who defame or insult Muhammad. Pakistan’s state religion is Islam, and around 97 percent of the population is Muslim.

Although the government has never executed a person under the blasphemy law, accusations alone have inspired mob and vigilante violence.

Blasphemy laws are reportedly used to settle scores or to persecute religious minorities; while non-Muslims constitute only three percent of the Pakistani population, 14 percent of blasphemy cases have been levied against them.

Many of those accused of blasphemy are murdered, and advocates of changing the law are also targeted by violence.

By Mladen Lakic

Bruce Dickinson, the lead singer of British heavy metal heroes Iron Maiden, will be bestowed the title of honorary citizen of Bosnia’s capital, Sarajevo.

The frontman of legendary heavy metal band Iron Maiden, Bruce Dickinson, will become an honorary citizen of Sarajevo, the City Council of Bosnia’s capital decided on Wednesday.

Dickinson will be presented with a plaque at the official award ceremony scheduled for November 25, the council announced in a press release.

In 1994, in the middle of the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Dickinson performed a concert of his solo Skunkworks album in besieged Sarajevo.

His visit to Sarajevo was documented in a film titled Scream for Me Sarajevo, released in April 2017.

Some 10,000 civilians, including 1,500 children, were killed in Sarajevo during the 44-month-long siege of the city, mostly by snipers and mortars fired from mountains surrounding the city from 1992-1996.

The United States has transferred foreign nationals suspected of Islamic State ties from northern Syria to Iraq without apparent regard for the risk of torture and unfair trials in Iraq, Human Rights Watch said.

Independent observers of four recent terrorism trials in Baghdad reported that several foreign defendants, including from France, Australia, and Lebanon, had been tried in Iraq based, at least in part, on their alleged membership in the Islamic State (also known as ISIS). The defendants reported their capture in and transfer from Syria during the trials. Some alleged due process violations and, in two cases, being tortured in Iraq. A fifth detainee, a Palestinian national from Gaza, was also transferred from northeast Syria to Iraqi custody but Human Rights Watch does not know if he has been charged in Iraq.

“Prosecuting ISIS suspects is crucial for their countless victims to obtain justice, but that won’t be achieved by transferring detainees to abusive situations,” said Nadim Houry, terrorism/counterterrorism director at Human Rights Watch. “The US should not be transferring ISIS suspects from Syria to Iraq or elsewhere if they will be at risk of torture or an unfair trial.”

An independent source monitoring events on the border between Iraq and Syria told Human Rights Watch it is aware of “many” US transfers of foreign ISIS suspects from Syria to Iraq but was unable to quantify them. Human Rights Watch has reasons to believe that at least in five instances, US forces handed foreign detainees over to Iraq’s Counter Terrorism Service (CTS).

International human rights and humanitarian law prohibits the transfer of detainees to countries where they are at serious risk of torture and mistreatment. In general, suspects linked to ISIS have been routinely denied fair trials and often face torture in Iraq.The US should not transfer ISIS suspects detained in Syria to Iraq or another country if it would put them at risk of torture and other abuse, and detainees should be able to contest such transfers, Human Rights Watch said.

The Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a coalition of predominately Kurdish armed groups controlling parts of Syria’s northeast, has sought to send the hundreds of foreign ISIS suspects in their custody to their home countries for prosecution. But most detainees’ home countries have refused to take their nationals back. The local authorities in northern Syria have not yet brought any suspected foreign ISIS fighters to trial and have declared that they don’t plan to. The Counter Terrorism Service is an elite military unit under the command of the Iraqi prime minister. The US set up the unit 2003 and has maintained close ties and support with it. Human Rights Watch has documented serious violations by its forces, including torturing and executing ISIS suspects, mutilating victims’ bodies, and carrying out enforced disappearances.

The US government has yet to respond to a Human Rights Watch letter from September 10, 2018, seeking clarification about US policy on the transfer of detainees held in northern Syria, including the number transferred to Iraq.

Human Rights Watch did not attend the recent trials of the four foreign ISIS suspects but learned about the court proceedings from multiple sources, including independent trial observers. Iraq prosecuted the four under the 2005 Anti-Terrorism Law and for illegally entering the country. Two were convicted and sentenced, one to death. The other two cases are pending. All are believed to be in Counter Terrorism Service custody.

Generally, Iraq’s legal proceedings against people accused of ISIS affiliation have serious shortcomings, which the US has reported in its annual human rights report. Trials are summary and often do not put forward evidence of specific offenses. Interrogators routinely use torture to extract confessions, and in most cases judges ignore torture allegations from defendants.

The trials of the foreign suspects appear to have been premised on the defendants having entered Iraq illegally and violated the Anti-Terrorism Law while in Iraq. But at least two of the defendants asserted in court that the US forcibly transferred them to Iraq. The family of another foreign detainee made a similar assertion.

In addition, Iraqi law may not permit the prosecution of foreign nationals for acts of terrorism committed outside the country. Senior members of the Iraqi High Judicial Council have recently said that Iraq’s penal code and Anti-Terrorism Law, when read together, do not grant extraterritorial jurisdiction unless the defendant is an Iraqi national. A senior judge at the Risafa Central Criminal Court in Baghdad said that while ISIS as a group was in Iraq, Iraq’s laws do not allow a non-Iraqi to be prosecuted for membership in ISIS, if they did not enter Iraq while a part of the group.

The United Nations Convention against Torture, as well as customary international human rights law and international humanitarian law, prohibits the transfer of detainees to a country where “there are substantial grounds for believing” they would be in danger of being tortured. Human Rights Watch has previously expressed concerns that the US has recently transferred some ISIS suspects from northern Syria to their home countries without transparency and apparent safeguards to ensure that the suspects were not at risk of torture or an unfair trial.

In cases where the US has already transferred detainees to Iraq, the US is obligated under international law to monitor their cases to ensure that they are not mistreated and, if prosecuted, are fairly tried. If Iraqi authorities or courts determine that Iraq has no jurisdiction over transferred detainees, US authorities have a responsibility to transfer the detainees to their home countries or to other countries that may have jurisdiction, unless there is a risk of torture. For those who cannot return to their home countries, relocation to a safe third country should be considered.

Many countries have refused to take back nationals who are suspected ISIS members. In these cases, greater international cooperation is needed to find alternative countries to prosecute them fairly and that would allow victim participation in trials. US and Iraqi authorities should ensure that foreign nationals in their custody can communicate with their families, consulates, and legal counsels.

“Faced with the refusal by many countries to take back their nationals, the US seems to have taken the easy way out by transferring some to Iraq and be done with it,” Houry said. “The US needs to create a system that won’t make the US complicit in torture and ensures that ISIS suspects are fairly tried for their crimes, however heinous.”

The suspension of Sri Lankan Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and his replacement by former President Mahinda Rajapaksa was a strategic move that has been many months in the making.

By Roshni Kapur*

The unprecedented suspension of Sri Lankan Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe was a well-planned move that has been many months in the making. Last week, President Maithripala Sirisena dismissed Wickremesinghe and inducted former President Mahinda Rajapaksa as the new prime minister.

He then suspended parliament until 16 November 2018 to prevent Wickremesinghe from proving his majority among the parliamentarians. The embattled leader insists that he is still the prime minister, refusing to vacate Temple Trees, the prime minister’s official residence. He has also requested the Speaker of Parliament to convene an emergency session for him to demonstrate his majority.

Weakening Government

Sirisena said the main reason for sacking his prime minister was due to the alleged involvement of a cabinet minister in an attempt to assassinate him. However this story is simply an excuse. Sirisena has been planning to get rid of Wickremesinghe for months. Sirisena, who hails from the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), appointed Wickremesinghe from the United National Party (UNP) as his prime minister as part of an alliance.

Tensions between the SLFP and UNP were simmering for some time due to policy differences on economic policies and day-to-day administration. These tensions were further aggravated when both parties lost bitterly to Rajapaksa’s Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) during local elections.

Sri Lanka has been witnessing one crisis after another ever since the anti-Muslim riots in Kandy city; a no-confidence motion against Wickremesinghe; and the temporary suspension of parliament in April 2018.

Sirisena is well aware that his chances of returning as president are slim given the government’s poor performance in the last three years. An opinion poll conducted by the country’s Centre for Policy Alternatives in April 2017 stated that only 1.1% of the respondents thought that the government’s performance  has been excellent and does not require further improvement.

Public approval of the government’s performance plunged further due to its inability to tackle corruption, inflation, unemployment and post-war grievances. The country was listed as 91 out of 176 countries in Transparency International’s 2017 Corruption Perception Index. Corruption is entrenched at every level of the state’s administration where companies have reported instances of bribes and other forms of unwarranted payment especially in the public procurement processes. The government was also hit by the Central Bank bond scandal where the onus fell on Wickremesinghe.

Sirisena not only decided not to contest the next presidential elections without the UNP’s support but also to covertly reach out to Rajapaksa for a political alliance. The Statesman reported earlier this year that the president has been cutting deals with Rajapaksa. He has now leveraged on Rajapaksa’s strong support from the country’s Sinhalese community mainly in the Southern, Western and Central districts. Their loyalty to Rajapakse, the former president, has not only remained intact but grown stronger with the Sirisena government’s poor delivery.

Game of Luck

Sri Lankan politics has indeed been a game of luck. Sirisena was the General Secretary in Rajpaksa’s government before he defected to contest the 2015 presidential elections. His election campaign, with the backing of UNP, ran on a platform of anti-corruption, economic reform and transitional justice. Luck was on his side as he won 51.3% of the total vote over Rajapaksa who received 47.6%. Most of the voters were from the Tamil and Muslim minority communities who saw Sirisena as a beacon of hope who will usher in a new brand of politics.

In contrast, Wickremesinghe’s political career has been riven with bad luck. He has been prime minister for four different tenures since 1983. He had an uneasy relationship with former President Chandrika Kumaratunga when she prematurely dissolved parliament that had the UNP’s majority support of legislators.

There were also disagreements on the peace process with the Tamil rebels. The question now is whether his ouster will spell the demise of his political career or will he manage to make a comeback in the forthcoming presidential elections.

While Wickremesinghe’s supporters insist that his dismissal is unconstitutional and have echoed their support, 20 legislators are reportedly already planning to switch sides. Defecting from a party and joining the opposition is a common trait of Sri Lankan politics. Unlike other democracies where politicians have an ideological backing and loyalty to their respective parties, it is not uncommon for government officials in Sri Lanka to change parties for their political gain.

Strongman’s Comeback

Rajapaksa’s comeback as prime minister shows that he was a key player in the country’s political landscape all along, even when he sat as an opposition legislator. He is unable to contest as a presidential candidate due to the constitutional limit of two terms. His appointment as prime minister has now reduced the chances of one of his brothers to stand as a potential nominee.

There are rumours of infighting taking place within the Rajapaksa family. Dynastic politics runs deep where Rajapaksa has aspirations for his son, Namal Rajapaksa, to stand for president when he becomes eligible.

However, his new appointment may not necessarily indicate that the country will allow China to make further inroads. After all, the handing over of Hambantota port to China on a 99-year lease was formalised during the current government’s tenure. Rajapaksa was the one who opposed the move where he said that the deal was too generous to China.

Rajapakse’s recent visit to India in September 2018 for a public lecture could be an attempt to reset ties between the two. Only time will tell whether Sirisena’s good luck will stay with him during the next presidential elections.

*Roshni Kapur is a Research Assistant at the Institute of South Asian Studies, an autonomous research institute at the National University of Singapore (NUS). She contributed this to RSIS Commentary.

The United States’ relationship with Saudi Arabia has been rocked by Turkish officials’ allegation that the conservative kingdom orchestrated the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Historically, US administrations have overlooked far more egregious human rights violations by unsavoury allies of convenience if the geopolitical stakes warranted. It is increasingly difficult to make that case with respect to Saudi Arabia.

By Evan Resnick*

The United States’ perennially controversial relationship with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has been rocked over the past few weeks by the explosive allegation that the Saudi authorities orchestrated the killing of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi. According to Turkish government sources, on 2 October 2018, Khashoggi, a critic of the Saudi government, was murdered and dismembered inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul by a hit squad that Riyadh had dispatched prior to his scheduled meeting at the facility.

Although this news has unleashed an international media frenzy and sparked a bipartisan outcry in the US Congress, the Trump administration’s reaction has been conspicuously low-key. Most notably, President Donald Trump has refused to suspend tens of billions of dollars’ worth of planned arms sales to Saudi Arabia. According to the president, not only would such a move be economically “foolish”, but even more importantly, it would also jeopardise America’s geopolitical interests in the Middle East, where “Saudi Arabia has been a very important ally of ours”. Trump’s reluctance to interfere with the flow of arms to Riyadh is particularly concerning in light of credible reports that since its 2015 invasion of Yemen, the US-armed Saudi military has engaged in a ghastly range of horrific attacks against Yemeni civilians.

Trump’s Not-So-Idiosyncratic Position

Several critics have attributed Trump’s position to idiosyncratic factors, such as the president’s peculiar affinity for dictators, his enmity towards the media, or the Trump Organisation’s rumoured indebtedness to the Saudis. While these possibilities cannot be ruled out, it nevertheless bears noting that all US presidential administrations since the end of World War II have downplayed and ignored Saudi Arabia’s consistently wretched human rights record.

In doing so, they were able to ensure sufficient domestic support to enlist and retain the oil-rich kingdom as an ally of convenience against a succession of shared adversaries. These have included the Soviet Union during the Cold War, Gamel Abdel Nasser’s Egypt during the 1960’s, revolutionary Iran during the 1980’s, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq during the 1990’s, Al Qaeda after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and most recently, both the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and Iran again.

More broadly, during times of extreme danger to US national security, American presidents have exhibited extraordinary cynicism in whitewashing some of modern history’s most barbarous massacres by their autocratic alliance partners. To take just one especially infamous example, at the height of World War II, President Franklin Roosevelt quashed appeals by the Polish government-in-exile in London to investigate the mass slaughter of over 20,000 Polish officers at the Katyn Forest in April 1940 by America’s Soviet ally.

Low Stakes in Middle East

By contrast, the current geopolitical stakes for the US in the Middle East are low. First, Saudi Arabia’s envious position as the world’s most important “swing producer” of oil has deteriorated over the last several years owing to the increased diversification of global oil production. This deterioration is most dramatically underscored by the US’ recent displacement of the Kingdom as the world’s leading oil producer.

Second, the jihadi terrorist threat that has emanated from the Middle East (and which Saudi Arabia did much to engender), has receded dramatically owing to the annihilation of Al Qaeda and ISIS at the hands of the US military and its allies. Third, although brokering on-again, off-again peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians has been a high US priority since the early 1990’s, neither Israel’s continued occupation of Palestinian territories nor Palestinian terrorism against Israelis constitute even a serious threat to the security of the US.

Even the most compelling geopolitical rationale for maintaining the alliance with the Saudis, namely, the need to contain Iran, is dubious. Over the course of its nearly two years in office, the Trump administration has relentlessly demonised Iran for its interventionism in Iraq, Yemen, and Syria, as well as Tehran’s proliferation of ballistic missiles and undiminished support for proxies such as Hezbollah and Hamas.

These hostile activities belie the reality that Iran remains a weak, underdeveloped state that can be readily counterbalanced by its many surrounding enemies. These include all of the Sunni Arab states, as well as the Middle East’s predominant military power, Israel, which possesses the region’s only nuclear arsenal. To wit, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Iran’s US$14 billion military budget in 2017 (as measured in constant 2016 US dollars), was dwarfed by the combined defence spending of its two foremost regional enemies of Saudi Arabia and Israel, which amounted to $85 billion.

Wake Up Call for US Grand Strategy

The Khashoggi scandal should serve as a wakeup call, not only for decades of US obsequiousness towards its unsavoury Saudi ally of convenience, but also and more importantly, for America’s drifting grand strategy. Since 9/11, successive administrations in Washington DC have focused their attention and resources overarchingly on the Middle East.

By comparison, they have been habitually distracted from events in the Asia Pacific, which is the only part of the world that hosts a viable peer competitor capable of threatening the survival of the US, namely a rising and expansionist China. Even the Obama administration, which ostentatiously embarked on a “rebalance to Asia,” nevertheless found itself surging tens of thousands of troops into the unnecessary and still ongoing war in Afghanistan and redeploying thousands of troops to Iraq to combat ISIS.

It would behoove the Trump administration to consider the Khashoggi killing an opportunity to finish the job that Trump’s predecessor failed to complete, by prudently reorienting US strategy from the increasingly peripheral Middle East to the increasingly integral Asia Pacific. The recent repackaging of America’s strategic interests in Asia under an Indo-Pacific vision requires substantive policy attention by Washington DC. One step President Trump can offer as redress is to initiate the attachment of onerous new conditions to any future US arms sales to Saudi Arabia.

*Evan Resnick is Assistant Professor and Coordinator of the United States Programme at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. He is the author of the book Allies of Convenience: A Theory of Bargaining in US Foreign Policy, which is forthcoming from Columbia University Press.

If Saudi Arabia is under pressure to give chapter and verse on the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in its consulate in Istanbul, Iran risks straining relations with Europe at a time that it needs European support the most by targeting ethnic rights activists.

Mr. Khashoggi’s murder has focused attention on Saudi harassment and intimidation of dissidents as part of the kingdom’s effort to silence critical voices. The Saudi campaign had little geopolitical significance until Mr. Khashoggi’s killing.

By contrast, Iran’s long history of targeting ethnic rights activists, including Iranians of Arab descent and Kurds, has long been rooted in the Islamic republic’s belief that they enjoy the support of the United States, Saudi Arabia and Israel in a bid to destabilize the country.

If Saudi Arabia has suffered severe reputational damage with the killing of Mr. Khashoggi and could face sanctioning for the first time in its history, Iran, long struggling to polish its tarnished image, could face sanctioning by Europe at a moment that it needs the Europeans the most.

In the latest Iranian incident, Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen and intelligence chief Finn Borch Andersen are calling for European Union sanctions after they discovered a plot to kill Danish residents associated with the Arab Struggle Movement for the Liberation of Ahvaz (ASMLA), an Iranian Arab group.

The plot, together with at least two other incidents in Europe in the last year, complicates European efforts to salvage a 2015 international agreement to curb Iran’s nuclear program after the United States withdrew from the deal and imposed crippling sanctions on Iran despite Iran’s denials of involvement.

The alleged Danish plot came to a head when authorities in late September closed bridges into Copenhagen and suspended train operations in connection with the case. Mr. Andersen said that Norway had since extradited to Denmark a Norwegian national of Iranian descent who was seen taking pictures of a the Danish home of an ASMLA leader.

ASMLA strives for independence of Iran’s south-eastern oil-rich province of Khuzestan that is home to Iran’s ethnic Arab community and borders on Iraq at the head of the Gulf.

Two other groups, the Islamic State and the Ahvaz National Resistance, claimed responsibility in September for an attack on a Revolutionary Guards parade in the Khuzestan capital of Ahwaz in which 29 people were killed and 70 others wounded.

Iranian officials blamed the United States and its allies, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Israel for the attack.

Iran at the time summoned the ambassadors of the Netherlands, Denmark and Britain to protest the three countries’ hosting of Iranian ethnic rights militants.

The Danish plot followed the killing by unidentified gunmen in the Netherlands in November 2017 of Ahmad Mola Nissi, another ASMLA leader. Shot dead on a street in The Hague, Mr. Mola Nissi died the violent life he was alleged to have lived.

A 52-year-old refugee living in the Netherlands since 2005, was believed to have been responsible for attacks in Khuzestan in 2005, 2006 and 2013 on oil facilities, the office of the Khuzestan governor, other government offices, and banks.

Together with Habib Jaber al-Ahvazi also known as Abo Naheth, another ASMLA activist, Mr. Mola Nissi focussed in recent years on media activities and fund raising, at times creating footage of alleged attacks involving gas cylinder explosions to attract Saudi funding, according to Iranian activists.

Mr. Mola Nissi was killed as he was preparing to establish a television station backed by Saudi-trained personnel and funding that would target Khuzestan.

The Netherlands has emerged in recent years as a hub for Iranian activists alongside Britain.

A group of exile Iranian academics and political activists, led by The Hague-based social scientist Damon Golriz, announced in September the creation of a group that intends to campaign for a liberal democracy in Iran under the auspices of Reza Pahlavi, the son of the ousted Shah of Iran who lives in the United States.

Compounding the fallout of Iran’s targeting of activists, is last month’s expulsion by France of an Iranian diplomat accused of being part of a plot to bomb a rally in Paris organized by the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, a Saudi-backed Iranian exile group that calls for regime change in Tehran. The diplomat was among six people arrested for allegedly plotting the bombing.

The Mujahedeen enjoy the support of prominent Western politicians like US President Donald J. Trump’s national security advisor, John Bolton, his personal lawyer, Rudolph Giuliani, and Saudi Arabia’s former intelligence chief, Prince Turki al-Faisal. Mr. Giuliani addressed the targeted rally.

U.S. officials say Iran plotted to attack the group’s massive base in Albania in March.

Support for the Mujahedeen has figured prominently in broadcasts of UK-based television station Iran International that according to The Guardian is owned by a secretive offshore entity with close links to Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman.

The Guardian reported that Saud al-Qahtani, Prince Mohammed’s menacing information czar who was one of several senior Saudi officials removed from office in the wake of the killing of Mr. Khashoggi, was among the station’s main funders.

“I can say that Iran International TV has turned into a platform … for ethnic partisanship and sectarianism,” The Guardian quoted a source as saying.

The Danish, French and Dutch incidents suggest that Iran takes serious indications that Saudi Arabia is considering attempting to destabilize the Islamic republic by stirring unrest among its ethnic minorities.

Mr. Bolton advocated a similar strategy before becoming Mr. Trump’s national security advisor.

Iran has been the target in the past year of various insurgent groups believed to have Saudi support, sparking repeated clashes with Iranian security forces and the interception of Kurdish, Baloch and other ethnic rebels.

Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif arrived in Islamabad this week on an unscheduled visit to discuss the recent kidnapping of at least 12 Iranian border and Revolutionary Guards believed to have been abducted on the Iranian side of the Pakistani-Iranian border by Jaish al-Adl, a Pakistani group that often issues its statements in Arabic rather than Baloch, Urdu or Farsi.

As the United States prepared to next week impose a new round of sanctions against Iran, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo used the Iranian attacks in Europe to weaken European rejection of the US move.

“For nearly 40 years, Europe has been the target of Iran-sponsored terrorist attacks. We call on our allies and partners to confront the full range of Iran’s threats to peace and security,” Mr. Pompeo tweeted.

The world’s last wilderness areas are rapidly disappearing, with explicit international conservation targets critically needed, according to University of Queensland-led research.

The international team recently mapped intact ocean ecosystems, complementing a 2016 project charting remaining terrestrial wilderness.

Professor James Watson, from UQ’s School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, said the two studies provided the first full global picture of how little wilderness remains, and he was alarmed at the results.

“A century ago, only 15 per cent of the Earth’s surface was used by humans to grow crops and raise livestock,” he said.

“Today, more than 77 per cent of land – excluding Antarctica – and 87 per cent of the ocean has been modified by the direct effects of human activities.

“It might be hard to believe, but between 1993 and 2009, an area of terrestrial wilderness larger than India — a staggering 3.3 million square kilometres — was lost to human settlement, farming, mining and other pressures.

“And in the ocean, the only regions that are free of industrial fishing, pollution and shipping are almost completely confined to the polar regions.”

UQ Postdoctoral Research Fellow James R. Allan said the world’s remaining wilderness could only be protected if its importance was recognised in international policy.

“Some wilderness areas are protected under national legislation, but in most nations, these areas are not formally defined, mapped or protected,” he said.

“There is nothing to hold nations, industry, society or communities to account for long-term conservation.

“We need the immediate establishment of bold wilderness targets — specifically those aimed at conserving biodiversity, avoiding dangerous climate change and achieving sustainable development.”

The researchers insist that global policy needs to be translated into local action.

“One obvious intervention these nations can prioritise is establishing protected areas in ways that would slow the impacts of industrial activity on the larger landscape or seascape,” Professor Watson said.

“But we must also stop industrial development to protect indigenous livelihoods, create mechanisms that enable the private sector to protect wilderness, and push the expansion of regional fisheries management organisations.

“We have lost so much already, so we must grasp this opportunity to secure the last remaining wilderness before it disappears forever.”