The Indian government announced it would stop all imports of Iranian oil by November 4, following the threat of sanctions made by the U.S. As a country with a growing economy that imports nearly 80% of its oil, it means that India will have to increase imports from elsewhere – and West Africa and America are on the list. Considering the soaring trade between the South Asian country and Atlantic Ocean countries, it is time for New Delhi to think about a “Indo-Atlantic” concept to underpin and expand the reach of the maritime dimension of its Link West policy.

When Narendra Modi assumed office as Prime Minister (2014), one of his foreign policy priorities was to strengthen ties with Middle East countries. The importance of the region for India’s energy security is still huge and according to public data, two thirds of Indian citizens living abroad are in the Gulf states. These factors contributed to the creation of a new foreign policy concept called Link West. Subsequently, this concept was used to refer to the Mediterranean region.

However, the North and South Atlantic were until now not included in the Link West approach. There is a lack of strategy from India towards this regions, despite its growing importance for the South Asian country: trade with all regions coastal to the Atlantic Ocean has increased compared to last fiscal year (see Table 1). Besides that, Venezuela and Nigeria are, respectively, the fourth and fifth biggest suppliers of oil to India, and the imports of this product from the U.S, Angola, Mexico and Brazil are also on the rise as part of the strategy of diversifying partners to reduce dependence on Middle East countries. Also, India’s economic growth might trigger the need for new consumption markets and the Western countries in Africa, America and Europe would be significant potential importers of Indian goods.

Politically, this region is also relevant: according to the Ministry of Overseas Affairs, the U.S is home to 4 million Indian citizens, Canada has 1 million and the United Kingdom has 1,8 million. In Guyana, 39,8% of total population is of East Indian origin, in Trinidad and Tobago the rate is 35,4%; and in Suriname, 27,4%. Considering the large diaspora and the political influence they could represent in India’s favor in the Atlantic countries, it is hard to understand why India hasn’t given attention to this region yet. In the U.S, an increasing number of Indian-Americans are contesting elections and their relevance for American domest politics were an important aspect on the process of normalization of Indo-U.S. relations post-Cold War.

The Atlantic countries are also rich in natural resources. Six of the ten largest copper reserves are located in Chile. Canada and Brazil are two of the ten countries with the largest uranium reserves in the world. In West Africa, there are reserves of diamonds, timber and gold. Brazil holds the largest iron ore mines. And there is, of course, oil and gas. Apart from that, deepening ties with coastal Atlantic countries can bolster India’s presence in the Arctic, where it has a research station – Himadri, in Svalbard Island –, and also Antarctica, where the South Asian country has three stations – Maitri and Bharati. The first one is grographically located in Queen Maud Land, in a region of transition between the Indian and the Atlantic Oceans.

Considering all of these aspects, it is important for India to enlarge its Link West policy reach and start to figure a geopolitical conceptual approach to the Indo-atlantic region to complement the already existing Indo-Pacific idea. This is an important move towards the institutionalization of a policy aimed at gaining influence over strategically important regions and to help integrate the Indian Ocean affairs with the Atlantic Ocean. India’s 2015 maritime strategy made progress towards this subject by adding the West African coast to its secondary area of interest, but this notion should be further enlarged to encompass the growing ties with America, and Europe and bolster India’s presence in those areas.

Taking into account the growing importance of the Atlantic countries for India’s trade and energy security, the image below (Figure 1) shows a proposed representation of a third area of interest that could be included in the next maritime strategy update.

The Atlantic Ocean has been long marginalized in India’s power balance, which is historically focused on Asian and East African affairs, and it is also a new frontier for India’s foreign policy and maritime power to reach. The Indo-Atlantic as a strategic region for Indian power projection is already a reality that should be acknowledged by Indian political elite and by its high-level strategy documents.

* Luciane Noronha M. de Oliveira is a research assistant at the Centre for Strategic and Political Studies of the Brazilian Navy.

In the midterm elections, most Democrats who were elected or reelected to the House supported Medicare for All.

As Trump and Republicans in Congress try to undermine the Affordable Care Act and raise the costs of health care, the American people continue to push back.

Over 70% of Americans–and even 52% of Republicans–now support Medicare for All, a single-payer plan that builds on Medicare and would cover everyone at far lower cost than the current system.

Here are the facts:

Medicare for All is the cheapest and best direction for the country. Private for-profit insurers spend a fortune trying to attract healthy people while avoiding sick people, filling out paperwork from hospitals and providers, paying top executives, and rewarding shareholders.

And for-profit insurers are trying to merge like mad, in order to make even more money. This is why private for-profit health insurance is becoming so expensive, and why almost every other advanced nation–including our neighbor to the north–has adopted a single-payer system at less cost per person and with better health outcomes.

Administering Medicare is only 1.1 percent of its total costs; the rest goes directly into care. Even including Medicare Advantage, which involves private plans, total administrative costs are just 7 percent.

But private insurers spend about 12 percent of total costs on administration. Or put another way, Medicare’s 2016 administrative costs came to about $156 per person compared to over $594 per person with private insurance.

Medicare saves so much money for three simple reasons:

First, it has economies of scale. The more enrollees, the lower the cost per enrollee. Medicare for All would have even larger economies of scale, presumably lowering the per-person costs further.

Second, Medicare spends almost nothing on marketing and advertising, while for-profit insurers spend a fortune.

Third, Medicare doesn’t have to earn profits.

Most Americans support expanding access to quality, affordable care through Medicare for All. Yet Trump and the Republicans continue to try to gut the Affordable Care Act and take away care from tens of millions.

The American public has a real choice here: expensive health care for the few or quality, affordable health care for the many. It’s time for Medicare for All.

The impression hits you immediately. An opening of an exhibition held to commemorate survivors and families of one of the darker atrocities of human experiments; and it features ample food and wine. The commemorative occasion, however, was in stark contrast to the mass starvation that led to the deaths of millions in the Soviet Union’s drive to collectivise farming in 1932.

Those survivors of Ukraine’s Holodomor, their photos featuring at the SpACE@Collins in Melbourne’s Collins Street, gaze at the audience with varying degrees of feeling, their craggy faces traced and filled by the wearing of age. These are the chronicles of tired flesh told.

The occasion, however, cannot be left to poignancy that is brought from sheer suffering and the cruelty of state policies. That would merely be a concession that the road to utopia on earth is strewn with corpses. This was a chance to be wearily political, and the Australian Federation of Ukrainian Organisations has been busy doing just that. Dr. Ulana Suprun, Ukraine’s acting minister for health, was on hand to open the photographic collection. Victorian state politician and President of the Legislative Council Bruce Atkinson was also present to lend a helping hand of agreement.

Both took little time to bring the cruel privations and deeds of the past into present focus: the culprit, the instigator, is Russia, pure and simple. (Here, a convenient continuum of brutality is insisted upon.) Suprun was keen to remind her audience that the Russians were not only behind the downing of Malaysian passenger flight MH17, but more than suggested they had intended it so. The predecessors of the Putin regime had merely employed other more dramatic methods of terror – that of famine – to make their case. Atkinson was similarly keen to keep matters simple and direct against a specific form of “terrorism”. At no point did either reflect on the dogma of Bolshevik collectivisation that gripped all practitioners of the brutal policy at the time. This is a time of nationalist response and revision.

Intent, as this occasion shows, is always imputed. It supplies certitude, and gets over any impediments. For decades, a campaign has wound its way through various corridors of activism and power: that of declaring the Holodomor an act of state sponsored genocide. To an extent, this is understandable, given the veiling of the disaster in various press outlets at the time, and the demonization of various scribes of verity such as Gareth Jones.

Historians have given the catastrophe much attention, and the field teems with interpretations on intention, knowledge or reckless indifference on the part of Joseph Stalin and his coterie. Robert Conquest holds one side of the argument: that “the famine of 1933 was deliberately carried out by terror”, a point demonstrated “by the figures on the millions of tons of available grain reserves”.

Michael Ellman combs through Stalin’s statements, detecting in the expression “a knock-out blow” as probative of intention to murder. Hiroaki Kuromiya in Europe-Asia Studies offers a different view that provides scant comfort to survivors. “Although Stalin intentionally let starving people die, it is unlikely that he intentionally caused the famine to kill millions of people.” Nothing quite gets close to sheer callousness.

Ukraine itself gave the starvation event its much anticipated genocidal recognition in law N 376-V on November 28, 2006. That same year, US President George W. Bush signed into law Public Law 109-340, authorising the Ukrainian government “to establish a memorial on Federal land in the District of Columbia to honour the victim of the Ukrainian famine-genocide of 1932-1933.”

In October this year, the United States Congress passed a bipartisan resolution solemnly remembering “the 85th anniversary of the Holodomor of 1932-1933” and recognising “the findings of the Commission of the Ukraine Famine as submitted to Congress on April 22, 1988, including that ‘Joseph Stalin and those around him committed genocide against the Ukrainians in 1932-1933’.”

These measures do raise a question: whether the term genocide has been all too readily pressed into usage, when intent to do so must be the only reasonable inference on the evidence. (This salient point was reiterated in the Radislav Krstić case of the International Tribunal of the Former Yugoslavia.) Legal concepts can be such finicky things.

The murderous actions of the commissars and the agricultural appropriations in Ukraine that led to mass starvation were ideological and political moves, and deemed as such. Behind famines, argues Amartya Sen, lies the unscrupulous politician. But even Raphael Lemkin, originator of the term genocide, would have to concede that the UN Genocide Convention was narrower than his own envisaging, despite pressing for the Ukrainian calamity to be so designated as a genocidal one. The acts of destruction, he had claimed more broadly in the American Journal of International Law, “are directed against groups, as such, and individuals are selected for destruction only because they belong to these groups.”

One of the hurdles built into the final, accepted draft of the UNGC was its marked avoidance of the killing of groups based on political and cultural reasons. Unsurprisingly, both the Soviet Union and the United States were particularly influential in making proof of genocide a rather tall order. Exterminating people for political or cultural reasons would have to fall into other categories of atrocity, and by then the very idea that “genocide” might be identified as state policy was cooled before the icy confrontations of the Cold War. The post-Cold War gave the word a renewed and bloody urgency.

Unfortunately, politics is an untidy business marked by vast grey spots of compromise, betrayal and collaboration. Peering into the Russian-Ukrainian past is an exercise doomed to find more similarities than differences, made subsequently absurd by such pointless exercises as identifying what Gogol’s true identity was. Poisonous parochialism has a tendency to afflict all sides, shredding common threads and creating false islands of difference.

Ukraine’s current political orientation has made good use of the Russian bugbear and its rapacity, an effort to isolate and distance a larger neighbour, but history is a cruel teacher. In the choking haze of victimhood, focus vanishes before a forced clarity, and here, a state politician in Australia, and a Ukrainian official, could both come to a happy understanding: that modern Russia was merely an extension of the Soviet Union, a state sponsor of terrorism, unjustifiably interested in the territory of its neighbours and an aggressor keen to relive history.

On November 6, while chairing a meeting of the Commission for Military Technology Cooperation with Foreign States, Russian President Vladimir Putin called for renewed efforts, not only, in preserving, but also, in strengthening Russia’s leading position on the global arms market, primarily in the high-tech sector, amid tough competition.

“Our capabilities in the military technical sphere must be used to modernise and upgrade all our industries, to support our science and to create a powerful technological potential for the country’s dynamic development,” he told the close-doored meeting.

Putin further called for reliance on the rich experience in this sphere and building up consistently military technology cooperation with foreign states. Kremlin website reported that, in recent years, Russia’s global export of military products has been at a consistently high level, around $15 billion.

Russian manufacturers have the advantage of an unfailingly high quality of products, which have no analogue in their combat and technical characteristics. Russia values ​​its reputation of being a conscientious and responsible participant in military technology cooperation.

“We strictly observe international norms and principles in this area. We supply weapons and military equipment solely in the interests of security, defence and anti-terrorism efforts. In each case, we thoroughly assess the situation and try to predict the developments in the specific region. There are no bilateral contracts ever targeted against third countries, against their security interests,” he explained.

Putin suggested that “the changing conditions in which we have to trade in military equipment require some adjustment of existing approaches and development of a new integrated strategy for the future.”

Over the past years, strengthening military-technical cooperation has been part of the foreign policy of the Russian Federation. Aside Asia and Latin America, Russia has signed bilateral military-technical cooperation agreement nearly with all African countries.

Early October, Russian Special Presidential Representative for the Middle East and Africa and Deputy Foreign Affairs Minister, Mikhail Bogdanov, told the global community “to go beyond military cooperation” to assist African countries that are still facing a number of serious development problems.

“Joint efforts of the whole global community are required for meeting those challenges, I am confident that the aid to African states should go beyond military components. It is necessary to fortify public institutions, engage in economic and humanitarian fields, construct infrastructure facilities, create new jobs,” Bogdanov said, adding “those are the ways of solving such problems as migration, for example, to Europe.”

Bogdanov was contributing to the panel discussions on the topic: “Engaging Africa in Dialogue: Towards a Harmonious Development of the Continent” at the Dialogue of Civilisations Forum that was held from October 5-6 in Rhodes, Greece.

As fertility rates decline and lifespans stretch longer, societies struggle to control and make retirement benefits fair.

By Joseph Chamie*

A right to work counts among basic human rights, but retirement goes unmentioned. Nevertheless, government-sponsored pensionable retirement has evolved into a popular social institution worldwide, especially in industrialized countries. Statutory retirement ages are in flux around the globe and public protests in Russia, the United Kingdom, France, Australia, Croatia, Iran, Belgium and elsewhere attest to the centrality of retirement programs to societal wellbeing and poverty reduction among the elderly.

Governments introduced pension programs for workers near the start of the 20^th century. Until then workers toiled until death or disability, and this remains largely the case for workers in less developed countries. Statutory retirement ages of the earliest national programs were typically greater than life expectancy at birth. In the United States, for example, when the 1935 Social Security Act was adopted, the official retirement age was 65 years while life expectancy for American males was under 60 years.

Today most governments have established pensionable retirement programs or social security providing financial support to many elderly men and women. Many programs are based on the three-legged stool of government benefits, employer-provided pensions and personal savings – all of which face serious challenges.

Retirement programs, similar in purpose,  differ considerably in scope, coverage, contributions, requirements, taxes, eligibility and benefits. Official retirement ages, for example, range from 50 to 70 years, with most concentrated between 60 and 65. Although women typically live longer than men, the statutory retirement age for women in Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Chile, China, Iran, Israel, Poland, Russia, Turkey and the United Kingdom is lower than men’s.

With countries worldwide experiencing population aging, government-sponsored retirement programs incur increased costs in response to growing proportions of retired older persons. In turn, those demographic changes challenge the long-term sustainability of retirement programs. Marked increases in proportion of the population aged 65 years and older are expected to continue, particularly among industrialized countries. Some countries, such as China, Germany, Japan, Iran, Italy and South Korea, are projected to have people aged 65 years and older account for about a third of their populations.

Increased longevity results in more years available for retirement, again translating into increased costs. Since the middle of the 20^th century, average life expectancy at age 65 years for the world has increased by more than five years. In some countries, such as Australia, China, France, Italy, Japan and South Korea, the increase in life expectancy at 65 during the past half-century has been more than seven years. A notable exception to this global longevity trend is Russia, where unfavorable health conditions have increased life expectancy at age 65 by only two years.

Many retirement programs are underfunded. In response to the rising costs of aging populations, longer periods of retirement and fewer tax-paying workers per retiree, governments are adopting steps to reduce obligations and improve the financial sustainability of retirement programs. Public opposition greets government plans, including in most high-income OECD countries, to delay retirement by gradually increasing statutory retirement ages.

Some countries, including Denmark, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands and Portugal, index official retirement ages to life expectancy. Again, widespread resentment greets such proposals as life expectancies vary across occupations, incomes, educational levels and race as well as between men and women.

In the Netherlands, many support early retirement for workers in physically demanding occupations, which tend to have lower life expectancies. In the United Kingdom higher educational attainment translates into longer survival rates for those 65 years and older. Women’s life expectancy at age 65 in Japan continues to be about five years more than men’s. Life expectancy at birth in the United States also varies markedly by sex and income. Life expectancies of American women are approximately five years greater than those of men across major racial groups, with the highest and lowest life expectancies observed among Hispanics and blacks, respectively. Greater differences in life expectancy at birth are observed between rich and poor regions of the United States – from 87 in affluent parts of Colorado to 66 on Native American reservations in South Dakota.

Governments also try reducing pension retirement benefit by switching to less favorable indexation. The United States, for example, changed  inflation measures for US social security payments in 2000 to cost-of-living allowances based on the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, reducing buying power of the monthly benefits.

Governments also increase taxes or redirect taxes from other government programs – the least popular approach. Politicians tend to postpone addressing costly long-term problems, such as retirement obligations, and younger taxpayers are reluctant to pay additional taxes for a far-off retirement that they may never receive. Increasing taxes is difficult to implement in countries where population aging and low birth rates result in fewer tax-paying workers per retiree. In South Korea, for example, the number of workers per retiree has fallen from 10 in 2000 to about five today and is projected to decline to two by 2035.

Private-sector retirement plans have also changed markedly, in turn influencing public-sector practices. Traditional defined benefit pension plans have declined in many countries. In the United States, for example, the proportion of private-sector workers with a defined-benefit pension declined from close to 90 percent in 1975 to around 30 percent today. Surveys of multinational corporations report that defined-benefit pensions are considered outdated. Less costly, less risky defined-contribution pension arrangements are the preferred alternative for companies and even workers.

Long lifespans, insufficient personal savings and risky old-age pensions require many elderly to work past the age they had expected to retire. In Japan, New Zealand and South Korea, for example, a third or more of the men aged 65 years and older remain in the labor force.

The Afghan government and its allies are winning battles in Afghanistan but not the war. The Afghan war started as the “good war” and as President Obama termed it later as “war of necessity” and was won in less than two months. Quickly the success of the Afghan war was termed as an international model for fighting global terrorism. It was hailed as a model of international cooperation but what has happened since then? Why is it is now at worst a “lost war” and at best a “forgotten war”. Is this war winnable? Who is the enemy we are fighting? What are the costs of inaction and withdrawal and what are the costs of winning? What does victory look like? And finally how we can achieve victory? Do we have the right means both on the Afghan side and on the side of the international community to win it and how long would it take to win this war? I don’t have a crystal ball but firsthand experience and history tells me that the heart of the matter is that we have been winning battles and losing the war; short-term tactical successes over long term strategic win over the enemy. The crust of the failures lies in a halfhearted approach to war, zigzag policy making and the lack of a broad-based reform minded government in Kabul.

Essentially – the Afghan war still counts as the “good war” because it really hasn’t met its objectives: destroying Al Qaeda, prevent Afghanistan from becoming a safe haven for international terrorist organizations and ensure no terrorist plot is planned from Afghan soil against US and its allies. On the contrary – Al Qaeda is not yet annihilated, there are more than 20 terrorist organizations active in Afghanistan and ISKP has managed to create a foothold in Afghanistan. The question is why such a reversal? The answer is simple – a halfhearted and under resourced campaign under heavy scrutiny.

The war in Afghanistan is not a civil war no an insurgency as portrayed by some within the security and military circles. It started as a war against terrorism, which is now transformed to proxy war with elements of criminal economy, and terrorism. It is in this environment that terrorist organizations thrive thus making victory difficult to claim in the absence of a long-term strategy and commitment.

At the outset -everyone had a plan to win the war but not a strategy to win the peace in Afghanistan. It is important to note because if you look at the trajectory of war policy making you will find out that immediately after the Taliban regime was overthrown nobody knew what to do next post first Bonn conference in 2001. Former Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, alongwith former President Bush did not want a major US presence in Afghanistan. Then they had to train Afghan forces to be able to maintain security and stability in the country and got NATO involved and subsequently we have witnessed a plethora of haphazard often-contested prescriptions for the Afghan war. Nobody defined victory and what does victory look like in a war as complicated and multifaceted like Afghanistan. Since then we have seen a plethora of zig-zag policy making by the Americans and NATO allies often focused on short term results and under pressure from their parliaments aimed at achieving quick wins. Afghan experts and policy makers at times joke that the only country which had a consistent and robust policy towards Afghanistan is Pakistan – keep the war going on enough to hurt but not at a boiling point to recall for an international retaliation. This policy has not changed and as we can see is starting to pay dividend to GHQ in Rawalpindi.

On the otherhand – Taliban have transformed themselves from a regime hosting Al Qaeda who plotted the 9/11 tragic events to a terrorist group and subsequently now a full blown “insurgent group” who supposedly poses no risk to the west and its allies and are merely leading a national struggle and the Afghans need to reconcile with them.

The fact of the matter is that the Afghan war has been for many years in a stalemate but still winnable. The NATO train and assist missions has failed to break this stalemate for many reasons chief among them a lack of resources, political considerations in US and European capitals and finally geopolitical priorities in other parts of the world such as Syria, Iraq and nowadays Russia. But against all odds – the Afghan war is still winnable and a just war and one, which is vital for the national security interests of the west and Afghanistan. In fact – the war in Afghanistan symbolizes victory and defeat against terrorism. It all started here and will end here.

Afghanistan faces a proxy war imposed on its population from outside. Unlike Syria Afghanistan is not in a civil war or an insurgency as some may define this war. Afghanistan faces a full blown proxy war imposed on its population thriving in an environment of criminal economy and international terrorism. The question remains how you win such a war?

What is the Afghan war and who are we fighting?

The war in Afghanistan is multilayered and multifaceted with deep regional and global roots. It is not a civil war like Syria and nor it is an insurgency whereas a group of dissidents with no freedom control large swaths of land and wage a war of national freedom. It is a proxy war coupled with elements of criminal economy and terrorist groups operating in Afghanistan. For the Afghans it is a national struggle and war of freedom from the reign of terror financed and provided safe havens outside of Afghanistan and for the international community it is the global war on terrorism. Afghan have suffered more than anyone and have been victims of this long war. According to the United Nations civilian casualties report – last year more than 4000 civilians lost their lives in Afghanistan and over the last 17 years more than 80,000 Afghan civilians were killed. This is the price Afghans are paying on a daily basis for this struggle.

Essentially – this war is as much about the region and global security as much as it is about the national security interests of Afghanistan. More than 20 terrorist organization operate under various outfits in Afghanistan and fight Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF) whose primary objective is to plan and execute deadly terrorist attacks in the capitals of the region and the west. The security of Afghanistan is tied to the security of Tehran, Delhi, London, Berlin and New York.

Therefore – the war in Afghanistan is not only the war of Afghans but also the war of the west against its original motto of global terrorism. This consensus is unfortunately broken. When the global war on terrorism was launched it was due to broad-based consensus inside Afghanistan and the region that the Taliban regime was toppled in a matter of days and it is precisely due to this the lack and breakdown of such a consensus that Taliban are now stronger and more terrorist groups are operating in Afghanistan. Taliban provide the umbrella for many of these regional and global terrorist groups to operate in Afghanistan. The Taliban and these terrorist organizations enjoy a symbiotic relationship and mutually feed on each other.

This is why it is crucial to debunk the myth that Taliban are no more a threat to the west and the region because they are waging an insurgency against the Afghan government. This will only be true if they have truly broken ranks with Al Qaeda and other groups. WE still have not seen evidence of such a breakaway in ranks.

What is victory and how you win the war?

The ultimate end of the Afghan war comes with a political settlement but through a decisive military win on the battlefields. We should search for peace on the battlefields and not European capitals and the capitals of Afghan neighbors. Victory against Taliban and terrorist co-conspirators is a decisive military win in the battlefield no matter at what cost followed by a political settlement with the remnants of the Afghan Taliban. This is not the case now. The war is in a painful stalemate taking lives of dozens of Afghans on a daily basis and Taliban feel they have the upper hand in view of the waning support for an unpopular war in the west. What the western politicians have failed to convey to their populations is that winning the war in Afghanistan against terrorism is directly related to the security on the streets of Europe and the United States.

Meanwhile – one third of the fighters in the Afghan battlefields are foreign fighters from Pakistan, Central Asia and Europe. They are transit fighters whose ultimate aim is to hurt the region and the west. For them the only option should be leave to your countries of origin, surrender or get killed.

This victory requires a long-term commitment; resources and a decisive military win in the battlefields with a broad-based and credible Afghan partner.

What is needed for victory?

To achieve victory we need a 3D approach. On the Defense side we need to crush the Taliban military machinery by targeting their command and control structure, sources of financing and safehavens. We are now killing the expendable soldiers and at best mid level commanders. The leadership of the Taliban and their foreign collaborators do not pay any cost and are comfortably planning operations and killing Afghan and NATO service members in Afghanistan from their safe havens in Pakistan and increasingly now Iran and some Central Asian states.

On the diplomacy – the Afghan government and its NATO allies need to patch up and bring back the much needed but broken consensus of fighting terrorist as a collective security threat. This consensus of security for all as opposed to privatizing the war on terror needs to be restored.

And finally – Afghan and the Afghan government should start long term planning for an economic renaissance and increasingly taking responsibility for its economic revival and funding of its security forces. The short-term sources of finance are agriculture, transit and water while long-term economic development of Afghanistan to bring much needed revenues can rely on mining and natural resources development.

*Tamim Asey is the former Afghan Deputy Minister of Defense and Director General at the Afghan National Security Council. He is currently pursuing a Ph.D in Security studies in London. He can be reached via twitter @tamimasey and Facebook @Tamim Asey.

Regular sauna use is associated with a lower risk of death from cardiovascular disease (CVD) in men and women aged 50 years and over, according to a study published in the open access journal BMC Medicine.

Researchers from the University of Eastern Finland and the University of Jyväskylä, Finland found that mortality from CVD among people who used a sauna four to seven times a week was 2.7 fatal CVD events per 1,000 person years, compared to 10.1 events per 1,000 person years in those who used a sauna once a week. Person years refers to the total number of years that participants remained in the study. It is a way of measuring the number of new events in the study population in a given time period, with a lower number of events indicating a lower risk.

Professor Jari Laukkanen, the corresponding author, said: “An important finding of this research is that more regular sauna use is associated with a lower risk of death from CVD in middle-aged to elderly women as well as in men. Previous population studies were done mostly in men only.”

Professor Laukkanen continued: “There are several possible reasons why sauna use may decrease the risk of death due to CVD. Our research team has shown in previous studies that high sauna use is associated with lower blood pressure. Additionally, sauna use is known to trigger an increase in heart rate equal to that seen in low to moderate intensity physical exercise.”

The incidence (i.e. number of new cases) of CVD mortality over the study period was also found to decrease as the length of time spent in the sauna per week increased. For those who spent over 45 minutes per week in the sauna in total the incidence was 5.1 per 1,000 person years whilst it was 9.6 for those who spent less than 15 minutes per week in the sauna in total.

The authors assessed sauna use by a self-reported questionnaire and checked deaths from cardiovascular causes against documents from hospitals and health centre wards, death certificates, as well as medico legal reports for 1,688 participants living in and around Kuopio, Finland. At the start of the study, the participants were on average 63 years old and 51.4% were women. Data for this prospective study were collected between 1998 and 2015 and the mean follow-up time was 15 years.

The authors caution that all the patients whose data were analyzed in this study were from one region and therefore there is a need for further research to understand if the findings apply to other populations. The observational nature of the study does not allow for conclusions about cause and effect.

Costly water losses in municipal water systems could be significantly reduced using sensors and new artificial intelligence (AI) technology.

Developed by researchers at the University of Waterloo in collaboration with industry partners, the technology has the potential to detect even small leaks in pipes.It combines sophisticated signal processing techniques and AI software to identify telltale signs of leaks carried via sound in water pipes.

The acoustic signatures are recorded by hydrophone sensors that can be easily and inexpensively installed in existing fire hydrants without excavation or taking them out of service.

“This would allow cities to use their resources for maintenance and repairs much more effectively,” said lead researcher Roya Cody, a civil engineering PhD candidate at Waterloo. “They could be more proactive as opposed to reactive.” Municipal water systems in Canada lose an average of over 13 per cent of their clean water between treatment and delivery due to leaks, bursts and other issues. Countries with older infrastructure have even higher loss rates.

Major problems such as burst pipes are revealed by pressure changes, volume fluctuations or water simply bubbling to the surface, but small leaks often go undetected for years.”

In addition to the economic costs of wasting treated water, chronic leaks can create health hazards, do damage to the foundations of structures and deteriorate over time.

“By catching small leaks early, we can prevent costly, destructive bursts later on,” said Cody.

Researchers are now doing field tests with the hydrant sensors after reliably detecting leaks as small as 17 litres a minute in the lab.

They are also working on ways to pinpoint the location of leaks, which would allow municipalities to identify, prioritize and carry out repairs.

“Right now they react to situations by sending workers out when there is flooding or to inspect a particular pipe if it’s due to be checked because of its age,” Cody said.

The sensor technology works by pre-processing acoustic data using advanced signal processing techniques to highlight components associated with leaks.

That makes it possible for machine learning algorithms to identify leaks by distinguishing their signs from the many other sources of noise in a water distribution system.

The nutritional qualities of shellfish could be significantly reduced by future ocean acidification and warming, a new study suggests.

Research has previously shown that climate change could threaten future production, safety and quality by negatively impacting the fitness of marine species.

Now scientists from the University of Plymouth, in a study published in Marine Environmental Research, have demonstrated the potential for negative nutritional effects within economically and commercially valuable species.

The research focussed on the Pacific oyster (Magallana gigas) and the native flat oyster (Ostrea edulis), with results showing that increased temperatures and CO₂ levels could significantly reduce the former’s levels of proteins, lipids and carbohydrates.

With seafood being the source of more than 15% of animal protein consumed globally, scientists say the aquaculture industry may wish to consider a shift in focus toward species that are most robust to climate change and less prone to deterioration in quality.

Dr Anaëlle Lemasson, a former PhD student at the University, led the research having previously shown that although the physiology of the Pacific oyster can be negatively impacted by future climate change, its taste might not be adversely affected.

She said: “Identifying changes in nutritional quality, as well as species most at risk, is crucial if societies are to secure food production. Our previous research had suggested there could be negative effects in the conditions predicted to occur in 2050 and 2100. However the fact that Pacific oysters, which currently accounts for around 90% of UK oyster production, can be affected could be a cause for concern.”

The research was conducted by scientists linked to the University’s Marine Biology and Ecology Research Centre (MBERC) and the Food, Health and Nutrition research group.

MBERC is one of the world’s leading research centres examining the impact of multiple stressors on marine organisms and environments, and undergraduate and postgraduate students are regularly involved in that research.

The oysters were subjected to six different sets of ocean conditions over a 12-week period, from current temperatures and CO₂ levels to the increased measurements predicted for both the middle and end of the century.

As well as changes in nutrient levels, researchers also observed important changes to essential mineral composition, adding that the enhanced accumulation of copper in Pacific oysters may be of future concern in terms of consumption safety.

Dr Victor Kuri, Lecturer in Food Quality at the University, said: “With a low environmental impact, shellfish are a promising highly nutritious alternative to fish and other animal products, but their sustainability depends on their quality attributes including palatability, nutrition and safety. This work confirms the need to understand the science behind the risks and mechanisms of shellfish production, as this knowledge is needed to build adequate resilience in harvesting and aquaculture industries”

Dr Antony Knights, Associate Professor in Marine Ecology, added: “Climate change and the growing global population are placing arguably unsustainable demands on sources of animal protein. This comes at a time when increased obesity in several regions of the world is leading to greater public awareness of the need for healthy and balanced diets. Oysters have the potential to be a sustainable, low-cost alternative source of protein for humans. Our native flat oyster, in particular, appears to be more resilient to future climate change scenarios than introduced Pacific oysters making them a great aquaculture choice and supports the growing investment in this product in the UK.”

The funerary complex of the first Chinese emperor of the Qin dynasty (3th century BC) is one of the most famous archaeological sites in the world. This is of course due to the discovery of the statues of the terracotta army, intended to accompany the emperor in the afterlife. Much less known than the statues is the fact that tomb proper (still not excavated) lies beneath a gigantic, artificial hill of rammed earth. This hill has a square shape, a base side of more than 350 meters and is over 40 meters high, so that it can easily be called a pyramid.

Even less known is the fact that also all the emperors of the subsequent dynasty, the Western Han, chose to be buried under similar pyramids. These mausoleums are visible still today within the rapidly developing landscape of the northwestern surroundings of Xian along the Wei River. Including also the tombs of the queens and other members of royal families, there are over 40 of such “Chinese pyramids”. Of these, only two have been (partly) excavated.

The new study is part of an extensive program of research on the role of astronomy and of the traditional doctrine of “feng shui” in the Chinese imperial necropolises and has just been published in the academic journal Archaeological Research in Asia. In the work simple techniques based on satellite images are used, together with field surveys, to collect a large number of new data and, in particular, to study the orientation of the pyramid bases. It is in fact well known that, for example, the Egyptian pyramids are oriented with great precision to the cardinal points, by virtue of the very strong bonds of the funerary religion of the Egyptian pharaohs with the sky and in particular with the circumpolar stars.

Although – of course – there is no connection with the Egyptian pyramids, also the Chinese emperors credited their power as a direct mandate of the heaven, identifying the circumpolar region as a celestial image of the imperial palace and its inhabitants. It was therefore natural to expect the Chinese pyramids, tombs of the emperors, to be oriented to the cardinal points. In this connection, the results of the new study are in part surprising.

It turns out that these monuments can be classified according to two “families”. One such families comprises monuments oriented with good precision to the cardinal points, as expected. In the other family there are significant deviations from the true north, all of comparable and all on the same “hand “(to the west of the north looking towards the monument).

It is out of the question that this second family may have been due to errors of the Chinese astronomers and architects. One could think of the use of the compass, which was invented in China in a somewhat rudimentary form at that time, but there is no correspondence with the paleomagnetic data. The explanation proposed in the article is thus astronomical: the emperors who built the pyramids of the “family 2” did not want to point to the north celestial pole, which at the time did not correspond to any star, but to the star to which the pole would be approached in the future: Polaris.

All this discourse may look strange at first sight, but it must be remembered that there is a phenomenon, the precession of the earth’s axis, which slowly but constantly moves the position in the sky in which the earth’s axis points, and therefore the celestial pole. The Chinese astronomers were almost certainly aware of this. Nowadays we are used to identify the north celestial pole with Polaris (although in reality the correspondence is not perfect) but at the time of the Han emperors the pole was still far from Polaris, and with a distance in degrees approximately equal to the deviation of the Chinese pyramids from the geographic north.

Despite Russian military actions, Ukraine has shown itself unprepared for total war, hoping against hope that the West will come to its rescue. But ever more open Russian aggression and ever greater recognition in Ukraine that the West isn’t going to may soon force Ukrainians to consider what they have to do on their own to avoid total defeat.

At present, Vladimir Pastukhov, a UK-based Russian historian, says, “Russia [thus] supposes that it can allow itself to carry out practically any act of aggression without facing punishment except a really direct mass invasion of regular forces in Ukraine and the seizure of its main industrial centers” (mbk.news/sences/kogda-ukraina-vosstanovit-status-yadernoj-derzhavy/).

Moscow believes that this situation will continue more or less forever, but, the historian says, “the Kremlin is playing with fire. The present weakness of Ukraine is conditional. At its basis is the paralysis of the political will of the nation and not the absence of real resources for resistance.”

Specifically, he says, “the unreadiness to fight must not be confused with the inability to do so.”

Ukraine has options. “It is sufficient to recall,” Pastukhov says, “that for three years, from 1991 to 1994, it was a nuclear power, possessing the third largest arsenal of nuclear weapons in the world, an arsenal left to it from the USSR.” That situation ended only in November 1994 when Ukraine ratified the non-proliferation accord and sent these weapons to Russia.

“The idea of Ukraine’s exit from the non-proliferation treaty is not new,” the historian says. Former Ukrainian Leonid Kuchma who signed it proposed doing so in 2015. The reason for his position and the justification for considering this possibility is that Ukraine’s decision to hand over the weapons to the Russian Federation was the Budapest Memorandum.

Under the terms of that agreement, Russia, the US and the UK agreed to be guarantors of Ukraine’s borders as they existed in 1994 and to defend Ukraine against economic blackmail. Under its terms, Boris Yeltsin’s Russia “exchanged its historic interest in Crimea for several thousand Ukrainian nuclear warheads.” And the UK and the US became guarantors.

None of the three powers has behaved as that memorandum requires. Russia has seized Crimea, invaded the Donbass and used economic pressure to try to break Ukraine. Meanwhile, the US and the UK have failed to take any serious steps to force Ukraine to live up to its commitments.

“Purely theoretically and despite its unenviable situation,” Pastukhov continues, “Ukraine has sufficient scientific and industrial potential for creating nuclear weapons and the means of delivering them, although this, of course, would require from it an enormous commitment of effort.”

“On the territory of the country are the necessary supplies of uranium, there are reactors which permit processing it into plutonium, and there are enterprises capable of producing inter-continental rockets and heavy jets, although to deliver something from Kyiv to Moscow, no inter-continental rocket is needed,” the historian points out.

“Thus,” Pastukhov says, “Ukraine if it devoted the necessary effort could create a situation when it would be capable of inflicting on Russia unacceptable harm.” That possibility is going to become an increasing subject of discussion as Ukrainians recognize that the West isn’t coming.

Once they do, he says, “the situation could change in a significant way – and not at all in the direction Moscow assumes.”

“But for this, three conditions must be met,” Pastukhov says. First, “the nation must experience the unbearable pain and shame of a catastrophic defeat,” the kind Moscow seems to want to inflict. Second, Ukrainians must “stop waiting for help from abroad.” That isn’t likely to come.

And third, there must appear in Ukraine “a leader who is not going to compromise.”

Russian actions like those in the Kerch Straits in the last few days “are pushing Ukraine precisely toward that ‘policy of despaire,’ the consequences of which are very difficult to predict. The absence of punishment for the aggressor may turn out to be an illusory dream,” the historian continues.

By its actions, he concludes, Moscow may thus create a Ukraine it not only cannot defeat but cannot influence or control.

Although Pastukhov does not address the following aspect of the situation in this essay, it is obvious: If the West wants to avoid a nuclear Ukraine, it must take action to effectively defend Ukraine. If the West doesn’t, it will not only have failed to fulfill its obligations under the Budapest memorandum; it will have played a role in creating something it doesn’t want either.

By Michael Lelyveld

Under pressure from a slowing economy, rising tariffs and skittish investors, China’s government appears to be considering looser controls on the value of the yuan.

On Oct. 31, the official English-language China Daily published a report citing experts’ conclusions that “the government much preferred a freer [yuan] renminbi, or allowing the market to decide its value.”

In the past, such articles in state media have been seen as a way for the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) to gauge market reactions before announcing reforms of exchange rate policy for the currency, also known as the RMB.

Economists were quoted as saying that eased controls on the yuan’s value “could be a wise choice for China, against the backdrop of trade conflicts and economic downside risks.”

One option under consideration would be to widen the band for onshore trading of the currency against the U.S. dollar, which is currently allowed to fluctuate by up to 2 percent from a “central parity rate” set by the PBOC each business day.

The 2-percent limit has been in place since 2014, when the PBOC widened the band from 1 percent up or down. Previous expansions of the corridor took place in 2012 and 2007.

The second and more daring option for liberalization would be to adopt a freely floating exchange rate policy, as practiced by most of the world’s advanced economies.

Such a move could theoretically get the PBOC out of the business of managing exchange rates altogether. Aside from the China Daily gambit, there have been few signs that the government is prepared to go that far.

The China Daily article focused on the implications of exchange rates for monetary policy and the economy in an environment of rising U.S. interest rates and a strengthening dollar.

The experts quoted by the report cited a “dilemma” facing policymakers, whether “to defend the currency by tightening liquidity, which may lead to credit defaults and the fast bursting of asset bubbles; or to tolerate a relatively weaker currency … but ensuring a low interest rate level (that) could sustain strong economic growth.”

Counter-cyclical factor

Yukon Huang, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington and a former World Bank country director for China, was quoted as saying that Beijing doesn’t “need to make the renminbi stronger than it should be, as the U.S. dollar is surging in its value.”

The statement appeared to argue against the PBOC’s decision in August to re-introduce a “counter-cyclical factor” in the China Foreign Exchange Rate System (CFETS) to fight further depreciation.

The currency started the year trading at about 6.5 to the U.S. dollar and ended October at 6.97582, down 6.7 percent.

Recently, China set the parity rate at 6.9245 to the dollar.

The depreciation this year has spurred long-standing U.S. concerns that a cheaper yuan will boost China’s exports unfairly and more recent charges that the slide is intended to mitigate the cost of tariffs that have been imposed so far.

China has responded with repeated assurances that it has not deliberately weakened its currency.

Speaking in Beijing on Nov. 6 at a meeting with major international institutions, Premier Li Keqiang insisted that China “will not engage in competitive devaluation.”

In a semiannual report to the U.S. Congress last month, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin declined to designate China as a currency manipulator but cited “particular concern” with the country’s lack of transparency and the weakness of the yuan.

Psychological barriers

But regardless of the international reactions, China has its own concerns with its currency.

Beyond the implications for interest rates and economic growth, China’s policy choices face the challenges of two psychological barriers, which may have little consequence for economists but can carry considerable weight with investors.

The first psychological barrier that China may defend against is the exchange rate of seven yuan to the U.S. dollar, a threshold that the currency has not crossed since the global slump of 2008.

If the PBOC widens the trading band or switches to a free floating currency, the line could be quickly overstepped.

Although seven to the dollar is only another number to economists, “passing that number would be significant symbolically,” The New York Times said in an analysis last month.

“It would suggest China is prepared to let its currency weaken further still,” the paper said. How far and how fast are open to question, but investors could get more nervous quickly, raising the risk of capital flight.

That may be one reason that state media are testing the waters with a story on possible changes in exchange rate policies. Regulators came close to breaking the seven-to-the-dollar limit in December 2016 but pulled back as the year came to a close.

The PBOC may see the exchange rate barrier as crucial, but it has been skating close to another psychological limit it doesn’t want to breach.

In October, the bank’s foreign exchange reserves declined for the third month in a row to U.S. $3.053 trillion, barely exceeding the $3-trillion mark.

The narrow margin could put the bank in the position of breaking one psychological barrier to defend against another.

Taking the brunt

Gary Hufbauer, nonresident senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington, said President Xi Jinping seems more likely to accept a lower value for the yuan.

The currency will be in for a drubbing due to U.S. President Donald Trump’s threat to raise tariffs in any case, unless a trade agreement with China is reached soon.

“I think Chinese leaders have decided to let the yuan take the brunt of Trump’s trade offensive,” Hufbauer said by email.

“So, if Trump imposes the 25-percent tariff rate on Jan. 1 (up from 10 percent), the yuan could drop another 5 percent to 8 percent,” he said.

“Xi wants to preserve China’s hoard of dollars … and not spend it defending the yuan,” Hufbauer said.

Prospects for a trade deal dimmed last week as U.S. Vice President Mike Pence delivered a tough speech at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Papua New Guinea, an event also addressed by China’s President Xi.

While Xi implicitly criticized U.S. tariffs as “short-sighted, Pence said that Washington “could more than double” the U.S. $250 billion in penalties that have already been placed on imports from China.

“The United States … will not change its course until China changes its ways,” Pence said in his speech Saturday.

Clashes with China over the wording of a draft text criticizing “unfair trade practices” prevented an agreement on a joint statement from APEC for the first time in the group’s history, news agencies reported.

Speaking at the White House on Friday, President Trump acknowledged that China had sent a list of concessions in response to U.S. demands on trade and other policy differences, but he dismissed the offers as insufficient.

“It’s not acceptable to me yet,” Trump said, according to The Times.

By widening the trading band for the yuan, China will be able to argue that it is opening up further to the market while it is reaping the benefits of cheapening exports and reducing the impact of tariffs.

Such a choice could keep China’s powder dry in terms of forex reserves, but concerns over capital flight may imply even tighter capital controls.

China’s declining economic growth rates and rising U.S. interest rates have been pushing the yuan in the same direction. A change in exchange rate policy may only determine how far and how fast.

The property market factor

An alternative reading is that a “reform” of exchange rates may be little more than a cover story for the same benefits that would otherwise be achieved by currency manipulation.

But internal considerations in China are likely to be a greater force in driving policy changes.

The China Daily article made repeated references to the bursting of “asset bubbles,” citing the risk that a defense of the yuan would require more credit tightening and risks for the property market.

Years of property investment and appreciation have been met with periodic waves of local buying restrictions, driven in part by Xi’s dictum that houses are “for living in, not for speculation.”

But the buying curbs have done little to keep property prices from rising or prevent apartments from becoming stores of wealth.

Cooling of the sales frenzy has led some developers to offer discounts on unsold units, sparking protests from investors who bought at higher prices.

Reactions to recent demonstrations over housing quality complaints at a Beijing complex built by leading developer Vanke are symptomatic of a downturn in the market, the South China Morning Post reported last month.

Softening property prices are likely to prompt government concerns not only about economic growth but also social stability, giving rise to thinly-veiled terms like “asset bubbles.”

Defending the yuan may imply a tightening of liquidity, but confidence in domestic property investment as a store of wealth may also be hurt if the yuan continues to drop.

By Michael Lelyveld

China’s dependence on imported oil and gas will continue climbing in the coming decades, raising energy security risks as the country seeks to safeguard its supply routes.

According to the latest projections from the International Energy Agency (IEA), China’s reliance on foreign oil will grow from 69 percent of consumption last year to 82 percent in 2040.

Imports will also dominate China’s demand for natural gas.

The import share for gas is set to rise from 42 percent in 2017 to 54 percent in 2040, the Paris-based organization said in its annual World Energy Outlook (WEO) report.

While the IEA’s oil forecast has long-term implications for energy security, it suggests more immediate impacts from China’s demand for natural gas to reduce reliance on high-polluting coal.

Most of the increase in gas import dependence is expected to come in the next several years, with the reliance ratio reaching 52 percent in 2025, according to data from the 660-page report.

In global patterns, gas is expected to surpass coal as the world’s second leading source of primary energy by 2030, largely due to fuel switching and environmental efforts in China, the IEA said.

Although coal will continue to dominate China’s energy mix, its share will fall from 63 percent last year to 43 percent in 2040. Over the same period, the share of gas will double to 14 percent, according to the IEA’s “new policies scenario,” which assumes that China will implement plans it has already announced.

China’s demand for coal will start to decline by 2025, but its natural gas demand will keep growing during the forecast period at an average rate of 4.5 percent a year.

The growth of oil demand will also flatten in China by 2030, thanks in part to electric cars and other new energy vehicles, but no such cooling is forecast for consumption of gas.

By 2040, China’s annual gas demand will nearly triple to 708 billion cubic meters (2.5 trillion cubic feet), thanks to increased consumption in all sectors including natural gas-powered vehicles, the report said.

The IEA has raised its 2040 gas demand forecast for China by 100 billion cubic meters (bcm) since last year’s report, citing the country’s anti-smog campaign.

By 2025, China’s domestic gas production will rise by 56 percent, but demand will grow by 87 percent, leaving a gap to be filled by imports, primarily of liquefied natural gas (LNG).

The IEA estimated that China’s need for tanker-borne LNG imports will more than quadruple by 2040.

“Securing affordable and reliable gas supply, ensuring supplier diversification and building infrastructure in a timely way are becoming important challenges for Chinese policy makers,” the report said.

‘Major concern’ for government

China’s stagnant domestic oil production and its growing dependence on imports have long been a focus for security experts, at least since the country crossed the 50-percent threshold as a major oil importer a decade ago.

The IEA’s new estimate for 2040 represents an uptick in the outlook for China’s oil import dependence, which was expected to reach 80 percent in last year’s edition of the WEO.

In October, China’s crude oil imports jumped 32 percent from a year earlier to an all-time high, averaging 9.61 million barrels per day, Reuters reported, citing customs data.

Over the years, Chinese leaders have had little to say about petroleum import dependence, in part because the country remains by far the world’s largest producer and consumer of coal.

But Edward Chow, senior associate for energy and national security at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said the issue has figured prominently in the government’s strategic policies.

“Rapidly increasing import dependence for oil and now gas has been a major concern for the Chinese government for some time,” said Chow.

“Despite investing roughly half of the global capital in renewable energies, it has barely made a dent in stemming rising oil and gas imports, which are driven by economic growth and environmental issues related to coal use,” he said.

Particularly in the case of oil, China’s solution has been to spread its risks, striking deals with a wide range of suppliers, although it remains heavily reliant on the Middle East.

As China’s vulnerability on oil has grown, so have its sovereignty claims and military presence along import routes through the South China Sea.

With the more recent rise of import dependence on gas, China appears to be following a similar policy in pursuing its interests in Russia’s arctic region on routes from the U.S. $21-billion (145-billion yuan) Arctic LNG project.

“China has focused on diversifying supply sources and supply routes, such as the importance of the South China Sea for transit and the potential of the Northern Sea Route,” Chow said.

Largest gas importer

In the first 10 months of the year, China raced past Japan to become the world’s largest gas importer, counting both LNG and pipeline deliveries, Reuters said.

But it is unclear whether the strategies that China has developed for oil imports will work as well for gas.

For one thing, gas imports are subject to more seasonal variations than oil as winter demand drives consumption spikes.

China’s limited storage capacity and pipeline connections to consumers make the country dependent not only on “flexible” LNG imports but also deliveries in narrow timeframes.

Long maritime routes and high costs make it difficult to match supply and demand as China rises in the ranks of Asian importers. Deliveries to Asia are expected to take up 60 percent of the global LNG market, the IEA said.

Relatively small LNG cargoes suggest that China’s demand will give rise to major increases in tanker traffic with potential implications for logistics and security.

In a tightening market, diversity of supply may not be a cure-all for shortages during unpredictable winters or disruptions on import routes.

The start of deliveries from Russia’s 4,000 kilometer (2,485-mile) Power of Siberia gas pipeline will ease some of the pressure on LNG imports in the next several years.

But China has already reached the maximum 55-bcm-per-year capacity of its Central Asia Gas Pipeline (CAGP) system from Turkmenistan with supplies planned for this winter, according to a web posting by the PetroChina subsidiary of China National Petroleum Corp. (CNPC).

The restriction suggests that China’s planning and investment have failed to keep up with consumption growth.

China’s shift to gas also highlights the high stakes for successful switching to the cleaner-burning fuel, both to provide winter heat and alleviate smog. A disruption of supplies could raise risks for social stability on both counts.

The IEA report made no specific recommendations for China on energy security, but instead offered a general caution for all gas importing countries.

“Security of supply is a concern,” it said. “While some markets may have a basket of supply options that include indigenous production and imports via pipeline and LNG, others may rely solely on a limited number of supply sources. Confidence in the reliable operation of international gas markets is an important variable for the future.”

A friend recently sent me a piece by Jason Hickel, arguing that growth can’t be green and that we need to move away from growth oriented economics. I am not convinced. It strikes me both that the piece misrepresents what growth means and also confuses political obstacles with logical ones. The result is an attack on a concept that makes neither logical nor political sense.

In the piece, Hickel points out the enormous leaps that will be required to keep our greenhouse gas emissions at levels that will prevent irreversible environmental damage. He then hands us the possibility, that even if through some miracle we can manage to meet these targets with the rapid deployment of clean energy, we still have the problem of use of other resources that is wiping species and wrecking the environment.

Hickel’s points about the imminent dangers to the environment are very much on the mark, but it is not clear that has anything to do with the logic of growth. Suppose the Sustainable World Party (SWP) sweeps to power in the next election. They immediately impose a massive tax on greenhouse gas emissions, which will rise even further over time. They also inventory all the resources that are in limited supply and impose large and rising taxes on them.

Furthermore, they pay developing countries large sums to protect regions that are important for sustaining species facing extinction and for the global environment. The new administration also hugely increases spending on research on clean technologies and has massive subsidies for zero emission vehicles and even more importantly for mass transit. As the SWP implements this policy, it has very stimulative fiscal and monetary policies.

Will the economy continue to grow through this transition? That’s hard to say. If the price of gas quadrupled people would obviously drive less and buy fewer cars. On the other hand, since the government is throwing money at them with its fiscal and monetary policy, they may choose to spend more money on things that are not inherently research using. They may spend more money on education, seeing movies and plays, gym memberships, eating at restaurants, better software for their computer and other types of spending that don’t either directly involve the use of resources or at least not obviously more than the alternative. (Eating at a restaurant obviously involves consuming food, but it doesn’t necessarily mean consuming more food than eating at home.)

But whatever happens in the transition period, what would keep the economy from growing in subsequent years? We have locked down all the resources in short supply and preserved large chunks of the world from encroachments by roads and settlements, but it is hard to see why we would not be developing better health care technology, better software, more types of cultural output, better housing (in the sense of being more pleasant – not necessarily larger) and other improvements in living standards, all of which count as growth in GDP.[1] Where is the war with growth?

Or to flip it over, let’s put Hickel and the anti-growthers in charge. (I confess, I have just read two essays by him, so I may be misrepresenting his views). He explicitly doesn’t want us to have growth, but in the Hickel world will we stop people from developing better software, improved medical treatments, improved educational techniques, and other advances that mean growth? I assume that won’t be the case, but then how is Hickel’s world different than the world that any pro-growther who takes the environment seriously would want?

There is a tendency by some anti-growthers to insist that growth means greater resource use. It doesn’t. If the argument is that we can’t continually expand out use of resources on a finite planet, that’s fine and obviously true. But why can’t our software, our entertainment, our education and our healthcare get ever better? If there is a limit in these areas, it is very hard to see what it is.

The Politics of Growth and Anti-Growth

The challenge posed in Hickel’s essay is for pro-growthers to come up with a plan that both saves the world from a disastrous rise in temperature and also to prevent the further destruction of species and habitats through the excessive use of land and other resources. Actually, it is not hard to design a set of policies in terms of taxes, subsidies, and outright restrictions that could meet this challenge and still allow growth. The problem would be getting political support for this agenda.

Any pro-growther can write down on paper a $300 a ton tax on carbon emissions, large taxes on the use of water and other resources, and huge subsidies for clean energy, public transit, energy efficient housing and other types of conservation. The problem is getting political support for this agenda. If Hickel’s challenge to the pro-growthers is whether we can get this environmentally friendly agenda adopted politically in a time frame where we can save the planet, he has raised a very important question without a good answer.

But let’s say we adopt the anti-growth agenda. We tell people we are now against growth. Presumably to save the planet in our new anti-growth framework we push many of the same policies. Perhaps the policies will be stronger in the form of even of even higher taxes or outright prohibitions on the use of some resources. Does anyone believe that this agenda has a better chance of being adopted because we told people that we are opposed to growth? It is very difficult to see how our stated opposition to growth makes one iota of difference in terms of selling environmentally sustainable policies, except leading people to think we are weird because we’re telling them that something they always thought was good is in fact bad.

If the point is that people engage in all sorts of environmentally wasteful consumption that does not actually make them happy, it would be hard to argue with the anti-growthers. But there do not seem to be many people anxious to get sermons on their bad consumption habits and prepared to change their ways. Unfortunately, shifting people to more sustainable consumption patterns is going to be a very difficult process and that happens to be true even if the future of the planet necessitates this shift.

At the risk of caricaturing the argument, it seems as though the anti-growthers believe that we adopt policies because of the worship of growth, as opposed to the specific benefits being offered. This strikes me as completely off the mark.

When Exxon-Mobil and other major fossil fuel companies oppose measures to restrict greenhouse gas emissions, they couldn’t care less whether these policies would raise or lower GDP growth. They are concerned about their profits, end of story. The same is true of all the other companies that engage in practices that are harmful to the environment.

As for the politicians who support these companies, the odds are that the vast majority have never given a moment’s thought to the meaning of these policies. They know what these companies want them to say and do, and the campaign contributions follow. The claims about growth are just window dressing. They have to pretend to have the larger interest of the public at heart, since it would be pretty hard for Exxon-Mobil to tell people that a carbon tax was bad simply because it would hurt its profits.

Okay, but what about the general public. Does Exxon-Mobil’s argument have salience only because they worship growth? I would argue that “growth” per se means very little to most people. If the GDP grew by one percentage point more or less last year, most people would have no idea. For the vast majority of the population “growth” means whether they have a secure job that provides them with decent pay and benefits like health care insurance.

It is possible to maintain high levels of employment even as we use taxes and subsidies to move people away from the most environmentally damaging forms of consumption. It is worth noting that, even taken at face value, the economic models that show job loss from restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions are not actually describing a world where people cannot find jobs. These models are actually describing a world in which more people chose not to work because the higher price of energy means a higher cost of living and therefore a lower real wage. In these models, at a lower real wage fewer people choose to work.

While these models may not be a perfect description of reality, it is undoubtedly the case that many workers would be quite upset if the price of gas doubled or tripled. And, this would be true even if we made heroic efforts to increase the availability of public transit.

The issue is how to change people’s perceptions of what is important in life. I don’t see simple answers here, but there are some things we do know. In Western Europe people consume on average roughly half as much fossil fuel per person as we do in the United States. I suspect that their per person use of most other resources is also roughly half as large as it is for the United States.

Part of the story is that European countries have chosen to take more of the gains of productivity in leisure than income. On average, workers in Northern Europe work roughly 20 percent fewer hours a year than workers in the United States. They are also likely to retire earlier. As a result, their incomes average 20 to 30 percent less than in the United States.

European countries also have much more public consumption than in the United States, in the form of health care insurance, education through college, and public pensions. As a result, tax burdens are considerably higher in European countries than the United States.

It may be the case that European consumption patterns are still too resource using to be sustainable, but these countries have shown a greater willingness to endure higher taxes and other costs associated with reducing energy consumption further. This doesn’t mean that there is not substantial opposition to such measures, but they clearly face better political prospects than in the United States.

The Path to Green Policies

The idea that we will have some moment of Great Awakening, where the world, or at least the U.S. public, recognizes the need to substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions seems implausible. We will have to plod through with the hope that the plodding will be fast enough to prevent too much undoable destruction.

A good roadmap for this plodding would be to follow Europe. The most politically viable part of a follow Europe strategy is pushing for shorter work years. There is considerable support in the United States for mandated time off in the form of paid sick days and paid family leave. Such measures have won support in states and cities across the country. It is reasonable to think that mandated vacation days would also be salable.

We can also support work sharing measures as an alternative form of unemployment insurance. This is good macroeconomic policy (it’s better to keep people employed even at shorter hours than to have them be unemployed), but it also holds out the possibility that if people come to work shorter workweeks for a period of time, they may like it and try to continue with short workweeks. In any case, this one should not be a big lift politically, even Republicans have supported work sharing.

The collective consumption story also has some hope here. There is considerable support for expanding the role of the federal government in ensuring access to health care. The same is true of public support for college and higher education more generally, also child care. These will not be easy political lifts, but they are also not far-fetched possibilities at this point.

The other part of the story is reversing the upward redistribution of income of the last four decades. There are two issues here. First, people are inclined to try to emulate the consumption patterns of those higher up on the income ladder. When the very rich have wasteful lifestyles, this percolates down to the middle class. They also want to have large houses, powerful cars, etc.

Jeff Bezos has perhaps given us the most extreme example of this story. Being on occasion the richest person in the world, depending on the price of Amazon stock, Bezos has said that he can’t think of anything better to do with his money than to send stuff into space. If recreational space travel becomes a common form of consumption, not only for the very rich, but the aspiring upper middle class, then we will have taken a huge step backward in the effort to save the planet.

The other part of the story is that people are willing to make sacrifices when they perceive them as being shared. One reason for the anger of the French towards the recent rise in gas taxes imposed by President Macron is the perception that Macron is working for the rich. He has cut the top tax rate and the rich in France seem to be doing very well. Policies aimed at reversing the upward redistribution of income of the last four decades, as I lay out in Rigged, could go far towards getting people to accept lifestyles that are less taxing on the environment.

Conclusion: Fighting Growth Is Not a Real Battle, Trying to Save the Environment Is

At the end of the day, it is difficult to see how we help the environment by attacking growth. We need measures that sharply reduce environmental damage. Telling people that we are against growth is not likely to make it easier to adopt environmentally friendly policies. Given the rate of destruction we are seeing, our best efforts may well not be enough, but that doesn’t mean attacking growth will get us there either.

I have an old friend who got married in Los Vegas by an Elvis Presley impersonator. When people asked him why, he explained that he got married once before by someone who wasn’t an Elvis impersonator and it didn’t work out.

Of course this made zero sense (my friend was kidding), but this does seem like Hickel’s anti-growth logic. We may not be able to prevent the destruction of the planet on our current course, but telling people we are against growth does not help matters in any obvious way. FWIW, my friend’s second marriage also ended in divorce.

Notes.

[1] To be entirely accurate, many of these items are poorly measured in GDP, so they may not be picked up. For example, we pick up treatments for AIDS as a service in GDP. If we can effectively stop the spread of AIDs, so people don’t need treatment, the benefits will not be picked up in GDP as now measured. Similarly, the massive improvements in health resulting from the reduction in smoking over the last four decades are not picked up in GDP.

This essay originally appeared on Dean Baker’s blog.

Governments and ruling regimes tend to face revolution in the face of harsh hikes in prices. Margaret Thatcher’s rule in Britain was rocked by the poll tax.  In France, the once enthusiastically embraced Emmanuel Macron has decided to leave the ground rich with challenges against his administration. The Yellow Vests, the gilet jaunes, have decided to take up the chance protesting with such intensity it has led to death and serious injury.

The pretext was an old one.  An increase in carbon taxes was imposed in 2017 as part of a push to support renewables.  “Support for renewable energy,” announced the environment ministry, “will be increasingly financed by a tax on fossil fuel consumption.” In 2018, the amount rose from 30.5 euros to 44.6 euros per ton, rising to 55 next year.  Diesel and petrol have been affected, a matter than proves less of a problem for those in city environs, serviced by public transport, than rural areas, where the car remains essential.  “Macron has to understand,” came the familiar sentiment from demonstrator Patrick Perez, “that Paris is not France.”

Macron is now being accused of being icily out of touch, a self-conscious creature of arrogance who insists on the dignity of his office even as he attempts to dismantle the pride of others.  But his current approval rating – with 25 percent, according to Ifop, is strikingly accurate, given the share of the vote he garnered in the first round of the 2017 presidential elections.  A mere 24.01 percent favoured him, with Marine Le Pen of the National Front breathing down his neck with 21.3 percent, followed by the Republicans choice of François Fillon with 20.01 percent and the left wing Jean-Luc Melenchon with 19.58 percent.

In the second round, France duly divided along the lines of favouring Le Pen or fearing her, hence Macron’s deceptively bolstered victory. The grand centrist was born, a person who had been warned in 2008 by friends that joining the Rothschild investment bank would mar his political prospects.  The “Mozart of finance” is finding the job of governing France a far more complex prospect than the cold business of debt restructuring, mergers and acquisitions.

He has shown himself to be a keen moderniser, if a frustrated one, of the French labour market, earning the ire of unions and the spluttering contempt of the French labour movement.  Like other French leaders, he has also stumbled into observations more fitting to amateur anthropology, suggesting that the French “Gauls”, by way of example, were a stubborn lot resistant to the influence of other labour models. (He is rather keen on the Nordic example.)

To his Romanian hosts, he explained with the relief of someone away from a troubled home that France was “not a reformable country… because French and women hate reform”.  Many leaders had failed in the effort to buck this trend.  To his Danish hosts, he was similarly heaping upon the French some manured derision while praising his audience in Copenhagen. “What is possible is linked to a culture, a people marked by their own history. These Lutheran [Danish] people, who have lived through the transformations of recent years, are not exactly Gauls who are resistant to change.”

But part of the issue with tarnished presidential popularity has been a diminishing of a position that always demanded a certain, high-peak majesty.  The French president, gravitas and all, was also a European, if not global statesman. Macron’s predecessors, Nicolas Sarkozy and François Hollande, were also victims of the 2000 referendum which reduced the period of the presidency from seven years to five.  (This is not to say these characters were not, in of themselves, defective in character or policy.) Then, as now, the French authorities also faced a national revolt over high fuel taxes.

While seen as a necessary mercy for a modern time, le quinquennat had the added effect, according to historian Jean Garrigues, of encouraging the leader to be seen as temporary commodity, easily purchased, irritably used, then disposed of. “Voters no longer believe in ideology, they consume and then reject their elected representatives, including the President of the Republic.”  A clue was in the 2000 referendum turnout: 70 percent preferred to stay away from the polls. “A little yes, but a big slapdown,” came the observation of le Parisien.  As ever, the French, masters of the strike, had initiated something similar at the ballot box.

The Yellow Vest movement is not a Gallic shrug but a shaking roar.  The initial target was increased fuel taxes, but the indignation has become a broader church of disaffection on living in general.  It is also being given a ringing endorsement by political opportunists who argue that the movement has no political roots.  Le Pen has been there, fanning matters while providing Christophe Castaner, the interior minister, a distracting if shaky alibi. “The ultra-Right is mobilised and is building barricades on the Champs-Elysées.” For him, such protests are the work, not of a broad movement but a few casseurs, or troublemakers.

Macron is doing his level best to avoid confronting the movement, but his Prime Minister Edouard Philippe is attempting to bribe the protesters into silence, or at the very least a more timorous form of disagreement.  Energy subsidies to 5.6 million households, up from the current number of 3.6 million, are being proposed.  France’s poorest families will also see fuel credits directed to those whose livelihood depends on car travel.  These measures, alone, will be no panacea for Macron’s declining influence.

Elections are held in many parts of our globe for a plethora of reasons – from electing the head of an organization (including but not limited to social, cultural, financial, business) to the head of a state. Not all elections are fare though and not all elected leaders are good for their constituencies either.

Election wins usually translate into wielding power for the winner or the winning group or platform, which when abused or misused can be a matter of serious concern for many. It is, thus, important that good leaders are elected when election provides such an opportunity to choose leaders.

The religion of Islam has put special emphasis on selecting leaders. In this regard, consider the well-known Prophetic hadith that says, “When three people set out on a journey they should appoint one of them as a leader.” [Abu Dawud: Lnarrated by Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri (RA)]

This hadith alone is sufficient to point out the importance that Islam has attached to leadership.

So, what are the criteria for good leadership in Islam? In his two-volume work – The Qur’anic Foundation and Structure of Muslim Society, L Dr. Fazlur Rahman Ansari (one of the greatest scholars of Islam to come from South Asia in the last century) deals with the issue of Tazkiyah and Islamic Leadership at length. He writes, “The foundations of Islamic society are basically ethico-religious. Hence, anyone who honestly comes forward to lead the Muslims to the goal prescribed for them in the Holy Qur’an should possess a personality refulgent in its spiritual, moral and intellectual dimensions. That is the verdict of the Qur’an, and this is the verdict of the Islamic history.”

To elucidate this theory further, Dr. Ansari says, “Let it be noted that these three dimensions are so essential for leadership that they bear references not only to God-affirming societies but also to Godless societies, such as Communist, where an effort is made to forge an idealism – even though with materialistic bias.”

A good Muslim leader should, therefore, transform his or her personality into the alchemy of pure gold through the rigorous discipline of tazkiyah-e-nafs (meaning: purification of the self). In such chemistry, ego has no place but only servitude that matters.

Anyone craving for leadership in a Muslim community (where Muslims comprise the overwhelming majority) should look at the Prophet Muhammad (S), whose birthday we celebrated last week on the 12th of Rabi al-Awal, as his/her role model, teacher and guide, and surely not peoples like Abu Jahl and Abu Lahab of the yesteryears and Sisi, Assad and Trump of our time. [Readers may like to read the author’s book – Muhammad: The Messenger of Allah – an exposition of his life for curious western readers, available from Amazon.com to have a deeper understanding of the Prophet’s (S) life.]

Sadly, most Muslim leaders of our time are either oblivious of the essence of leadership or imagine that they don’t have any accountability for their misrule and bad deeds, both to the very people that they lead or rule over and Allah that they will have to face on the dreadful Day of Resurrection. They are dead to at least one those three dimensions of leadership. They surely can’t comprehend what had made Amirul Mumineen Umar ibn al-Khattab (RA), one of the best rulers in the Muslim history, to say, “Should a lost goat die in the Shat al-‘Arab I tend to think that Allah, the Most Exalted, will question me about it on the Day of Judgment.” [Hilyat’ul Awliya wa Tabaqatul Asfiya: Abu Na’im al-Asfahani] They are also unmindful of Muhammad’s (S) warning: “If you wish, I could tell you about leadership and what it is. Firstly, it is blame; secondly, it is regret; and thirdly, it is punishment on the Day of Resurrection – except for one who is just.” [Tabaraani in al-Kabeer; Saheeh al-Jaami’]

Despite such stern warnings, there is no shortage of individuals who would rather lead than be led, even though most of them don’t qualify as leaders. People are misled and often end up choosing bad leaders when such opportunities for voting do come on their way. And this is not surprising since immorality and unethical mindsets and behaviors are slowly but steadily either eating away the very foundation of the good old values or displacing the old order, creating new norms and confusing too many, esp. those who have not learnt the discipline of tazkiyah to bridle their nafs.

The Prophet (S) of Islam famously said, “As you will be, so will you have rulers put over you.” [Baihaqi: Abu Ishaq (RA)]

The reason that the Muslim world has too many tyrants today is because of that very problem: the individuals that make up their society are dead in at least one of the three dimensions: spiritually, morally and intellectually, thus, they end up choosing one of their own as their leaders. The same verdict goes for the USA and many of the countries that have elected bad rulers in a liberal democracy. It is difficult to surmise that if American voters were a moral majority that they would have elected an immoral and unethical president like Donald Trump!

Muhammad (S), the Messenger of Allah, said, “Your best leaders and rulers are those whom you love and who love you (in return), and for whom you pray and who pray for you. And your worst leaders and rulers will be those whom you hate and who hate you, and whom you curse and who curses you. [Muslim: ‘Auf bin Malik (RA)]

In closing let me cite a story. One day Molla Nasreddin Hodja was going down the street on his donkey’s back. The beast all on a sudden started rushing forward. When asked, “Hey Molla, where are you going?” the Molla, pointing to the donkey, replied, “Sorry, I don’t know where I am going; ask the beast.” [See this author’s book – Anecdotes of Molla Nasreddin Hodja for children of all ages – form many such stories.]

Most Muslims of this century are exactly in the same situation as the Molla was. They simply don’t know where their state beasts, the political leaders in the government, are taking them.

Man’s need of guidance is the basis of the teachings of the Prophets (AS) and the philosophy of their mission. Just like gasoline, which needs to be discovered, extracted, refined and then used, the human asset within men also require being discovered, guided, managed and turned to action. Good leaders promote action but more importantly they improve the society by changing the character of the people. Leaders give those under their charge the chance to own the challenge, along with the glory of overcoming it. That is exactly what leadership is all about.

First thing first. Leadership starts with tazkiyah-e-nafs. How long will our people wait to have leaders that care about those led or ruled, and that know of their accountability for every act he/she was responsible on this earth?

[Interested readers may like to read this author’s article – A Leadership Primer: Why We Are Failing Miserably? – pub. The Media Monitors Network and The American Muslim, September 2008, for an in-depth study of the topic.]

In a 21^st century conflict between roughly equal powers, the country with the superior military technology will have the edge.  Their militaries are increasingly confronting each other in the South China Sea and a clash there leading to a wider conflict is possible. As the two race to gain the maritime technological edge, their advances in the use of drones as instruments of war are outpacing existing international norms and law. This in turn complicates their military interactions and relations.

Their military to military relationship has already been strained by a series of incidents involving US challenges to China’s jurisdictional and sovereignty claims in the South China Sea, as well as by China’s challenges to US intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR ) vessels and aircraft.  China considers these challenges and probes to be threatening to its security. Indeed, the U.S. and China have had 18 ‘unsafe’ or ‘unprofessional’ encounters with Chinese military assets in the Western Pacific since 2016.

Now the U.S. is quickly transitioning to the use of drones for ISR – – unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), unmanned surface vehicles (USVs), and unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs).  Some are weaponized and can launch missiles and torpedoes and lay mines.  Indeed the U.S. is deploying “new undersea drones in multiple sizes and diverse payloads that can, importantly, operate in shallow water where manned submersibles cannot”.

https://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1939529/how-underwater-drones-are-threatening-escalate-south-china Many seem designed and destined to operate in foreign air and sea space without authorization, i. e., in, over and under EEZs, archipelagic waters and even territorial seas.

China is trying to catch up and has made dramatic progress in recent years.  Advances are most evident in UAVs, but Beijing is also accelerating its development of UUVs and USVs.  This effort is at least partially attributable to their utility in its ‘near seas’ that it considers critical to its defense and security..

China’s use of drones in the East China Sea has already raised political hackles. In response to China’s intended deployment of a  UAV there, then Japanese Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera announced that Japan would “consider shooting down drones that enter Japanese airspace,” significantly raising the prospects of escalation. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/10/20/national/politics-diplomacy/japan-to-shoot-down-foreign-drones-that-invade-its-airspace/#.W-jQmNVKj3g Soon after, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe approved a plan for the Japan Self-Defense Forces to “engage drones intruding into the country’s airspace.” In response to Abe’s remarks, the Chinese Ministry of National Defense spokesperson stated that shooting down a Chinese UAV would constitute an “act of war”.  https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-25050493

China is also developing a new family of UUVs.  Their physical shape and qualities may cause enemy sensors to interpret it is a fish.

https://www.realcleardefense.com/2018/07/16/hn-1_china039s_new_ai-powered_underwater_drone_303180.html

and it is thus expected to have extraordinary survivability on the battlefield.  It could be particularly useful for mapping adversary minefields and laying down anti-submarine warfare networks as well as covertly penetrating heavily defended enemy ports and naval bases.   The U.S. Navy is also performing research on similar bio-mimicking underwater vehicles and may be a few years ahead in their development.

The gathering of ocean data for military purposes is important because sonars are seriously impacted by oceanographic factors such as temperature, salinity and depth.  For decades, military and civilian satellites and high flying spy planes have collected such data in others EEZs without the permission – and sometimes even the knowledge – required by the 1982 UNCLOS.  Now there is a whole new array of drones doing so. The sea glider is just one example. It is a small, energy efficient unmanned underwater vessel.  It uses a new form of propulsion that changes the vehicle’s buoyancy and allows it to ascend and descend as a means of moving forward.  These vessels have extremely low energy demand which enables both their endurance and their stealth due to an absence of noise-producing engines. This also makes them ideal for ISR missions.

Such advances in military technology will generate political issues particularly between competing major maritime powers like the U.S. and China.  Then U.S. Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Gary Roughhead  forecast that ” [the pursuit of unmanned systems] is  going to be important politically, because ­_ _ the future will be one where the sensitivities of sovereignty, a nation’s claim to control its own land,  – – may not always be guaranteed as we have become used to over these past years”.  https://www.brookings.edu/events/unmanning-the-helm-the-future-of-unmanned-naval-technologies/

These developments also raise many legal questions.

• Are some of these activities be inconsistent with the peaceful purposes clause of the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS)?  Could some even be considered a threat of use of force – which is a violation of the UN Charter and UNCLOS?

Particularly relevant are active signals intelligence (SIGNINT) activities that are deliberately provocative and intended to generate responses that can be observed and, if necessary, disrupted.  Other SIGINT activities can intercept naval radar and emitters, enabling them to locate, identify and track (and thus plan electronic or missile attacks against) surface ships and submarines.  Still others may interfere with communication and computer systems.  These activities would involve far greater interference with the communication and defense systems of the targeted coastal state then traditional passive intelligence gathering activities conducted from outside national territory.

• Sovereign immunity in international law makes one State’s property immune from interference by another State. Does the UNCLOS “sovereign immunity” clause extend to drones deployed from but not controlled by state vessels and if so – – under what conditions?  Does it apply to “non-ratifiers” of UNCLOS like the U.S.?

According to UNCLOS Article 32, sovereign immunity depends on whether a particular asset, presumably including unmanned autonomous vehicles, is a “warship or a government ship operated for non- commercial purposes.”  But these terms are not defined in UNCLOS leaving a grey area of contention over their classification.

.     Is a drone “operating legitimately”?

Under UNCLOS, “marine scientific research” (MSR) can only be undertaken in a country’s EEZ with its permission. The U.S. maintains that their drones are undertaking military surveys or hydrographic research and thus do not require permission.  China disagrees.  Can this particular controversy be resolved by a plain reading of UNCLOS Article 258.  It provides that “the deployment and use of any type of scientific research installation or equipment in any area of the marine environment shall be subject to the conditions as are prescribed in this Convention for the conduct of marine scientific research in any such area.”  In other words, permission is required to operate “scientific research equipment” in a foreign EEZ. The collection of data by military surveys or hydrographic research uses similar equipment to that used for MSR.

.    If a ship deploys a drone in the vicinity of another vessel in an EEZ, did it violating the UNCLOS duty to exercise “due regard” for the rights of other states in its EEZ as well as those of freedom of navigation on the “high seas” e.g., the duty not to present a hazard to navigation?

In sum, the activities of drones are a legal “grey area” and currently beyond international regulation and control. However, the scale and scope of maritime and airborne drone activities are expanding rapidly involving levels and sorts of activities quite unprecedented in peacetime.  They are not only becoming more intensive; they are becoming generally more intrusive and in some instances may even be considered a prelude to an impending attack and thus a threat of use of force. Continued intrusive probes using drones are likely to generate frustration and resentment that may result in the forcible halting of such ‘intrusions’ when and if detected. Their mushrooming use will produce defensive reactions and escalatory dynamics, and lead to less stability in the most affected regions, especially in Asia.   Moreover, drones and attacks thereon will increasingly become tools in coercive diplomacy enabling rivals to send a strong signal without directly targeting their human opponents. The U.S. and China should try to get ahead of the curve and negotiate voluntary guidelines for the use of drones in waters under foreign jurisdiction.

*Mark J. Valencia, Adjunct Senior Scholar, National Institute for South China Sea Studies, Haiku, China

This piece first appeared in the IPP Review. http://ippreview.com/index.php/Blog/single/id/839.html

When Saudi General Khalid bin Sultan bin Abdul Aziz went shopping in the late 1980s for Chinese medium-range missiles capable of carrying nuclear, chemical or biological warheads he made no bones about keeping the United States, one of the kingdom’s closest allies, in the dark.

it was “my task to negotiate the deal, devise an appropriate deception plan, choose a team of Saudi officers and men and arrange for their training in both Saudi Arabia and China, build and defend operation bases and storage facilities in different parts of the kingdom, arrange for the shipment of the missiles from China and, at every stage, be ready to defend the project against sabotage or any form of attack,” General Bin Sultan, a son of the late Saudi crown prince and defense minister, Sultan bin Abdul Aziz al Saud, and commander of the US-led international alliance that forced Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait in 1991, recounted in his memoire.

The incident coupled with more recent Saudi statements and the kingdom’s inability to present from the outset a credible and sustainable version of events surrounding the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi on the premises of its Istanbul consulate is complicating it’s negotiations with the United States for the acquisition of designs for nuclear power plants, a deal valued at up to US$80 billion depending on how many Saudi Arabia ultimately decides to build.

Prospects of a massive deal go to the heart of US President Donald J. Trump’s jobs and deals-focussed America First policy. Yet, growing criticism and distrust of Saudi Arabia in the US Congress and intelligence community as a result of the Khashoggi crisis and the kingdom’s handling of the Yemen war that has sparked the world’s worst humanitarian crisis since World War Two are likely to strengthen efforts to thwart an agreement that honours Saudi insistence on producing its own nuclear fuel, even though it could buy it more cheaply abroad.

The Saudi insistence has fuelled concerns that the kingdom may divert their fuel for military purposes. Those kinds of fears coupled with Iran’s ballistic missile program drove world powers to first sanction Iran and then conclude a 2015 international agreement that curbed Iran’s nuclear program. Mr. Trump withdrew from the agreement earlier this year, charging that it did not provide sufficient guarantees that Iran would not be able to develop a nuclear weapon.

Democrats in the US Congress have described refusing to sell Saudi Arabia nuclear technology as proper punishment for the killing of Mr. Khashoggi that the kingdom insists was done without the knowledge of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

While the Trump administration has as yet not abandoned long-standing strict US nuclear export safeguards to secure a deal with Saudi Arabia, it has also not unambiguously said that it would uphold them.

Like with his rejection of hard-hitting sanctions in the wake of the Khashoggi killing, Mr. Trump is likely to ultimately argue that if the United States does not conclude a nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia, countries like China, Russia and South Korea, that have less strict controls will. The argument amounts to the equivalent of committing a wrong because if one doesn’t, someone else will.

Saudi officials have repeatedly insisted that the kingdom is developing nuclear capabilities for peaceful purposes such as medicine, electricity generation, and desalination of sea water. They say that Saudi Arabia is committed to putting its future facilities under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Yet, with a US$56 billion military budget for 2018, Saudi Arabia is stepping up the development of a domestic military industry. The kingdom aims to source 50% of its military procurement domestically by 2030, up from its current two percent.

Speaking to CBS earlier this year, Prince Mohammed appeared to put conditions on Saudi nuclear assurances by warning that “Saudi Arabia does not want to acquire any nuclear bomb, but without a doubt, if Iran developed a nuclear bomb, we will follow suit as soon as possible.”

In putting forward  demands for parity with Iran by getting the right to controlled enrichment of uranium and the reprocessing of spent fuel into plutonium, potential building blocks for nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia was also seen as potentially backing away from a 2009 memorandum of understanding with the United States in which it pledged to acquire nuclear fuel from international markets.

Nuclear energy cooperation was one of a host of agreements concluded last year by Saudi Arabia and China during a visit to Beijing by Saudi King Salman. The agreement included a feasibility study for the construction of high-temperature gas-cooled (HTGR) nuclear power plants in the kingdom as well as cooperation in intellectual property and the development of a domestic industrial supply chain for HTGRs built in Saudi Arabia. The HTGR agreement built on an accord signed in 2012 that involved maintenance and development of nuclear power plants and research reactors, as well as the provision of Chinese nuclear fuel.

A report by the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) released shortly after the king’s visit warned that the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement had “not eliminated the kingdom’s desire for nuclear weapons capabilities and even nuclear weapons.”

Much like the era of General Bin Sultan, potential Chinese sales to Saudi Arabia of ballistic missiles and cruise missiles remain one of the murkier areas of Sino-Saudi military cooperation.

Military experts say that satellite imagery of missile bases in Saudi Arabia in recent years and other open-source circumstantial evidence, including Saudi press coverage of graduation ceremonies at the kingdom’s Strategic Missile Force school in Wadi ad-Dawasir, attest to ongoing transfers.

Saudi Arabia in 2014 showcased Chinese-made Dongfeng-3 missiles that have a range of up to 5,000 kilometres. Media reports said the missiles had been purchased in 2007, possibly with US acquiescence.

“Saudi Arabia has invested heavily in conventional ballistic and cruise missiles to provide the kingdom a shot of strategic deterrence,” said non-proliferation expert Jeffrey Lewis. Mr. Lewis’ conclusion was confirmed by Anwar Eshqi, a retired Saudi major general and advisor to the Saudi military.

“The Saudi military did indeed receive DF-21 missiles from China and the integration of the missiles, including a full maintenance check and upgraded facilities, is complete, “ Mr. Eshqi said referring to the People’s Republic’s East Wind solid-fuel, medium-range ballistic missile.

By Jeoffrey Maitem and Karl Romano

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has escalated his verbal war with the Catholic Church by threatening to behead a bishop over allegations tied to drug dealing.

Duterte directed his comments against the church, which represents the country’s dominant faith and has led huge but peaceful street protests against his administration’s deadly crackdown on illegal narcotics, during a speech in southern Davao city on Monday night.

“Bishop, if you are selling drugs, I’ll have your head cut off,” Duterte said, according to transcripts made available on Tuesday.

The president did not specify which bishop he was alluding to, but he lashed out at a Bishop David for allegedly being engaged in corrupt practices, such as asking for vehicles and other favors from the church.

“The Catholic Church and Bishop David is clinging to a belief 3,000 years ago. How can people 3,000 years ago predict what is happening today? And you have the balls to criticize, brave as you are, to ask for cars from the government?” Duterte said.

“David, I’m beginning to suspect why you’re frequently roaming around at night. I suspect that you could be involved in drugs,” Duterte said without explaining how he got his information.

In the Philippines, the Catholic church only has one bishop named David – Pablo Virgillo David, a known critic of Duterte who spoke out against the killing of teenager Kian Loyd delos Santos during a police counter-drug raid in August 2017.

Duterte made his comments days before a court in a Manila suburb was expected to rule in the case of three policemen accused of murdering delos Santos, who was 17 years old.

On Tuesday, David responded to Duterte’s allegations.

“No, sir, I’m not into drugs of any sort, whether legal or illegal. … I only help in rehabilitating people addicted to drugs,” the bishop said in a statement. “I partner with the anti-drug abuse councils and offices of the local government units of Caloocan, Malabon and Navotas in this endeavor.”

He was referring to three suburban areas in northern Manila where drug abuse is rampant.

“Thank God I am not even taking any maintenance drugs yet. I only take vitamins with a fruit shake blended with malunggay (moringga) leaves in the morning. You might want to try it, sir. It will do you a lot of good. God bless you,” David added.

‘A dutiful shepherd’

Delos Santos was one of several children slain in the drug war last year, but his case galvanized church-led grassroots opposition to the crackdown.

The police claimed delos Santos had pulled a gun on the three officers now standing trial in his killing, but closed-circuit TV footage showed the policemen leading the boy away.

Meanwhile, Sen. Leila de Lima defended Bishop David against President Duterte’s criticism, which she called slanderous.

“He destroys the reputation of those who oppose him and those who fight for the victims of his rule. Bishop David is his latest victim,” De Lima said in a statement, referring to Duterte.

“David is a dutiful shepherd of his flock, doing all that is within his power to protect them amidst the murderous onslaught of Duterte’s drug war that has left a lot of children orphans. He has been successful in condemning the endless killings under Duterte, to the point that he has now become the newest target of Duterte’s intrigues, lies, and slanders,” the senator added.

De Lima has been jailed since last year. She claimed she was falsely accused by the government of profiting from drug syndicates when she led the country’s justice department. Her jailing was political payback for questioning Duterte’s drug war, she alleged.

As of October, 4,948 suspected drug addicts and dealers were killed since the crackdown began in mid-2016, when Duterte took office, according to statistics compiled by police. But human rights groups put the death toll at around 12,000.